Why Online Dating Is So Unsatisfying
Dan Ariely is the James B Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University. He is the founder of The Center for Advanced Hindsight and co-founder of BEworks, which helps business leaders apply scientific thinking to their marketing and operational challenges. His books include Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, both of which became New York Times best-sellers. as well as The Honest Truth about Dishonesty and his latest, Irrationally Yours.
Ariely publishes widely in the leading scholarly journals in economics, psychology, and business. His work has been featured in a variety of media including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Business 2.0, Scientific American, Science and CNN.
\r\nDan Ariely: I became interested in online dating because one of \r\nthe people who were sitting in an office next to me was incredibly \r\nmiserable, and he was an assistant professor; he just moved to the \r\nuniversity where I was at; he was spending long hours; he was not \r\nfinding anybody to date; he was, couldn’t date students at the \r\nuniversity, he was a professor; he didn’t have time to go outside. You \r\nknow, we were not particularly a social bunch, you know, he was \r\nbasically stuck. And online dating was a very promising way to think \r\nabout this solution for a marketplace that wasn’t working very well, and\r\n he tried online dating and he was just failing miserably, \r\ncontinuously. So that kind of piqued my curiosity about it. And then I\r\n started looking at online dating.
\r\nSo I start looking by registering myself and looking at other people and\r\n then I said, let me ask some of my friends to enroll. So I didn’t ask \r\nthem to really enroll, I just took their profile sheets and asked \r\npeople, "Could you fill those out but without your name?" And I took \r\npeople that I liked more and I liked less, and I took their profile and I\r\n tried to figure out could I tell the difference? You know, now, \r\nimagine you did this. Imagine you went to 50 people you really like and\r\n 50 people you only like so-so, and you asked all of them to fill this \r\nprofile, then you took this 100 profiles and you tried to sort them out \r\ninto piles. Turns out we’re terrible at this! Right? So this is kind \r\nof an initial observation that something is going wrong in this, in this\r\n market.
\r\nAnd then went a step further, did some studies with online daters about \r\nhow much they enjoyed it and what they were getting from it, until the \r\nfinal stage, we, I figured out, I thought I knew what was going on, \r\nwhich is that online dating sites assume that people are easy to \r\ndescribe on searchable attributes. They think that we’re like digital \r\ncameras, that you can describe somebody by their height and weight and \r\npolitical affiliation and so on. But it turns out people are much more \r\nlike wine. That when you taste the wine, you could describe it, but \r\nit’s not a very useful description. But you know if you like it or \r\ndon’t. And it’s the complexity and the completeness of the experience \r\nthat tells you if you like a person or not. And this breaking into \r\nattributes turns out not to be very informative.
\r\nSo on the last stage of this process, we created a different Web site. \r\nAnd that different website allowed people to experience other people \r\nwithout all of these attributes. And we show that this is actually much \r\nbetter and would lead to much more, much higher probability of going on a\r\n second, on a real date afterward. So it kind of goes from an \r\nobservation to a little study, to a bit more details and then finally \r\nproposing some kind of solution of something that I think would actually\r\n work better.
\r\nSo the site basically looks at real dates—and think about what real \r\ndates are. They’re not about sitting in the room and interviewing each \r\nother about questions; they’re often about experiencing something \r\ntogether in the real world. And I think it’s because if you and I went \r\nout, and we went somewhere, I would look at how you react to the outside\r\n world. What music you like, what you don’t like, what kind of pictures\r\n you like, what kind of images, how do you react to other people, what \r\ndo you do in the restaurant? And through all these kind of non-explicit\r\n aspects, I will learn something about you and I would feel that I’m \r\nlearning something about you. And the online system we created was very\r\n much like that. It was about you came up and you got a little avatar, a\r\n square or a triangle, some color, and you went into a virtual space in \r\nwhich you could explore it. And you could see lots of stuff, there were\r\n pictures and images and there were words and there movies and there \r\nwere bands, there was all kinds of stuff, and you could go and when you \r\ncame to another little avatar, you could start chatting. And you would \r\nchat about something, it wasn’t about interviewing when you went to \r\nschool and what’s your religion; it was about talking about something \r\nelse and it turns out it gave people much more information about each \r\nother, and they were much more likely to want to meet each other for a \r\nfirst date and for a second date.
\r\nQuestion: What's wrong with the experience of online dating?
\r\nDan Ariely: I think that online dating is an incredibly \r\nunsatisfying experience. In fact, when we do surveys to understand what\r\n people do, the basic trade off is for each six hours of searching for \r\npeople and emailing them, you get one cup of coffee. And it's not as if\r\n people enjoy online dating, it's not as if they have fun searching \r\npeople and writing blurbs for them. I mean, imagine that you basically \r\nhad to drive six hours, three hours each way to have coffee with \r\nsomebody, and, you know, coffee usually ends up with just coffee. It's \r\nan incredibly unsatisfying experience. So I think it's a really bad, \r\nit's a really bad system.
\r\nOn top of that, there's another thing, is which, imagine I gave you this\r\n search criteria, which I asked you to search by height and weight and \r\nincome and all of those things: you're going to use it. That's what I \r\ngive you to search, you're going to use it. There's a million people \r\nout there, you want to limit them to 3,000, that's what we're going to, \r\nthat's what you're going to use. And because of that, I think actually \r\npeople become much more superficial than we think they are. So here's \r\nan example. It turns out, women really care about men's height. I’m \r\n5’9”, if I wanted to be as attractive as somebody who’s 5’10”, right, \r\nanother inch? I would have to make about $35-40,000 more a year. \r\nThat’s a lot of money for one inch. At the same time, it turns out that\r\n men care a lot about women’s BMI’s. In fact, they want women to be \r\nslightly anorexic, at like 18-1/2. And you look at women’s \r\nattractiveness, it goes really up at low BMI and really drops below \r\nthat.
\r\nNow, people online look incredibly superficial. They look at hair color\r\n and they look at height and they look at income, and that’s basically \r\nit... and attractiveness, of course. And you can ask, is it because \r\nthat’s all people care about or is that because that’s what the system \r\nis giving them to search for. And I think it’s because of combination, \r\nright? Sure, we are superficial, we do care about attractiveness and \r\nheight and income and these are features for us, but I think they’re \r\nexaggerated by the way the system is created.
\r\nImagine you were looking for something else, imagine you were looking \r\nfor digital cameras, and imagine that I only allow you to search on \r\nmegapixels and f-stop for the lens, right? These things would become \r\nincredibly important, right? And if I drop some things from the search,\r\n they would become as if they’re not important or much less important. \r\nSo I think part of the problem is that the systems don’t give us the \r\nright information that we need. And because of this, I think the \r\nexperience of online dating is generally unsatisfying. I mean, think \r\nabout it: how many millions of people are participating in this activity\r\n and marriage rates has not increased, divorce has not decreased. I \r\nmean, not really much has happened because of that. And at the same \r\ntime, I think it’s incredibly important, right? The dating market is \r\nperhaps the only market that we moved from a centralized market to a \r\ndecentralized market. You know, we used to have a yenta, your parents \r\nused to tell you what to do, all this is gone, now you have to fend for \r\nyourself. On top of that, we move a lot, right? You go to one place \r\nfor undergrad, then you go to grad school, then you move to another city\r\n for a job, two years later you move again. You have no time to create a\r\n social network. We work long hours, so it’s really a system where we \r\ndon’t have time to find people for ourselves. It’s taboo to date people \r\nat the work place, the social networks are weaker in the physical \r\nworld. We move all the time and we don’t have a yenta or parents to \r\ntell us what to do.
\r\nSo online dating are incredibly important, it could be central and \r\ncrucial and we need to create them because it’s really a miserable \r\nsituation for most single people. At the same time, the ones that we \r\nhave created, and they all look the same basically, they’re no real \r\ndifferences between them, the ones that we are creating are just not \r\nthat useful.
Recorded on June 1, 2010
Interviewed by David Hirschman
Online dating could be a crucial tool for single people, but with the sites we have now you'll likely spend six hours searching for every date you go on.
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
It could lead to a massive uptake in those previously hesitant.
A financial shot in the arm could be just what is needed for Americans unsure about vaccination.
On May 12, 2021, the Republican governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, announced five US$1 million lottery prizes for those who are vaccinated. Meanwhile, in West Virginia, younger citizens are being enticed to get the shot with $100 savings bonds, and a state university in North Carolina is offering students who get vaccinated a chance to win the cost of housing. Many companies are paying vaccinated employees more money through bonuses or extra paid time off.
The push to get as many people vaccinated as possible is laudable and may well work. But leading behavioral scientists are worried that paying people to vaccinate could backfire if it makes people more skeptical of the shots. And ethicists have argued that it would be wrong, citing concerns over fairness and equity.
As a behavioral scientist and ethicist, I draw on an extensive body of research to help answer these questions. It suggests that incentives might work to save lives and, if properly structured, need not trample individual rights or be a huge expense for the government.
In the United States, incentives and disincentives are already used in health care. The U.S. system of privatized health insurance exposes patients to substantial deductibles and copays, not only to cover costs but to cut down on what could be deemed as wasteful health care – the thinking being that putting a cost to an emergency room visit, for example, might deter those who aren't really in need of that level of care.
In practice, this means patients are encouraged to decline both emergency and more routine care, since both are exposed to costs.
Paying for health behaviors
In the case of COVID-19, the vaccines are already free to consumers, which has undoubtedly encouraged people to be immunized. Studies have shown that reducing out-of-pocket costs can improve adherence to life-sustaining drugs, whether to prevent heart attacks or to manage diabetes.
A payment to take a drug goes one step further than simply reducing costs. And if properly designed, such incentives can change health behaviors.
And for vaccination in particular, payments have been successful for human papillomavirus (HPV) in England; hepatitis B in the United States and the United Kingdom; and tetanus toxoid in Nigeria. The effects can be substantial: For example, for one group in the HPV study, the vaccination rate more than doubled with an incentive.
For COVID-19, there are no field studies to date, but several survey experiments, including one my group conducted with 1,000 Americans, find that incentives are likely to work. In our case, the incentive of a tax break was enough to encourage those hesitant about vaccinations to say they would take the shot.
Even if incentives will save lives by increasing vaccinations, there are still other ethical considerations. A key concern is protecting the autonomous choices of people to decide what they put into their own bodies. This may be especially important for the COVID-19 vaccines, which – although authorized as likely safe and effective – are not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
But already people are often paid to participate in clinical trials for drugs that have not yet been approved by the FDA. Ethicists have worried that such payments may be “coercive" if the money is so attractive as to override a person's free choices or make them worse off overall.
One can quibble about whether the term “coercion" applies to offers of payment. But even if offers were coercive, payments may still be reasonable to save lives in a pandemic if they succeed in greater levels of immunization.
During the smallpox epidemic nearly 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the power of states to mandate vaccines. Compared with mandating vaccination, the incentives to encourage vaccines seem innocuous.
Exploitation and paternalism
Yet some still worry. Bioethicists Emily Largent and Franklin Miller wrote in a recent paper that a payment might “unfairly" exploit “those U.S. residents who have lost jobs … or slipped into poverty during the pandemic," which could leave them feeling as if they have “no choice but to be vaccinated for cash." Others have noted that vaccine hesitancy is higher in nonwhite communities, where incomes tend to be lower, as is trust in the medical establishment.
Ethicists and policymakers should indeed focus on the poorest members of our community and seek to minimize racial disparities in both health outcomes and wealth. But there is no evidence that offering money is actually detrimental to such populations. Receiving money is a good thing. To suggest that we have to protect adults by denying them offers of money may come across as paternalism.
Some ethicists also argue that the money is better spent elsewhere to increase participation. States could spend the money making sure vaccines are convenient to everyone, for example, by bringing them to community events and churches. Money could also support various efforts to fight misinformation and communicate the importance of getting the shot.
The cost of incentives
Financial incentives could be expensive as a policy solution. As in Ohio, lottery drawings are one way to cap the overall cost of incentives while giving millions of people an additional reason to get their shot.
The tax code could also allow for a no-cost incentive for vaccination. Tax deductions and credits are often designed to encourage behaviors, such as savings or home ownership. Some states now have big budget surpluses and are considering tax relief measures. If a state announced now that such payments would be conditional on being vaccinated, then each person declining the shot would save the government money.
Ultimately, a well-designed vaccination incentive can help save lives and need not keep the ethicists up at night.
Geologists discover a rhythm to major geologic events.
- It appears that Earth has a geologic "pulse," with clusters of major events occurring every 27.5 million years.
- Working with the most accurate dating methods available, the authors of the study constructed a new history of the last 260 million years.
- Exactly why these cycles occur remains unknown, but there are some interesting theories.
Our hearts beat at a resting rate of 60 to 100 beats per minute. Lots of other things pulse, too. The colors we see and the pitches we hear, for example, are due to the different wave frequencies ("pulses") of light and sound waves.
Now, a study in the journal Geoscience Frontiers finds that Earth itself has a pulse, with one "beat" every 27.5 million years. That's the rate at which major geological events have been occurring as far back as geologists can tell.
A planetary calendar has 10 dates in red
Credit: Jagoush / Adobe Stock
According to lead author and geologist Michael Rampino of New York University's Department of Biology, "Many geologists believe that geological events are random over time. But our study provides statistical evidence for a common cycle, suggesting that these geologic events are correlated and not random."
The new study is not the first time that there's been a suggestion of a planetary geologic cycle, but it's only with recent refinements in radioisotopic dating techniques that there's evidence supporting the theory. The authors of the study collected the latest, best dating for 89 known geologic events over the last 260 million years:
- 29 sea level fluctuations
- 12 marine extinctions
- 9 land-based extinctions
- 10 periods of low ocean oxygenation
- 13 gigantic flood basalt volcanic eruptions
- 8 changes in the rate of seafloor spread
- 8 times there were global pulsations in interplate magmatism
The dates provided the scientists a new timetable of Earth's geologic history.
Tick, tick, boom
Credit: New York University
Putting all the events together, the scientists performed a series of statistical analyses that revealed that events tend to cluster around 10 different dates, with peak activity occurring every 27.5 million years. Between the ten busy periods, the number of events dropped sharply, approaching zero.
Perhaps the most fascinating question that remains unanswered for now is exactly why this is happening. The authors of the study suggest two possibilities:
"The correlations and cyclicity seen in the geologic episodes may be entirely a function of global internal Earth dynamics affecting global tectonics and climate, but similar cycles in the Earth's orbit in the Solar System and in the Galaxy might be pacing these events. Whatever the origins of these cyclical episodes, their occurrences support the case for a largely periodic, coordinated, and intermittently catastrophic geologic record, which is quite different from the views held by most geologists."
Assuming the researchers' calculations are at least roughly correct — the authors note that different statistical formulas may result in further refinement of their conclusions — there's no need to worry that we're about to be thumped by another planetary heartbeat. The last occurred some seven million years ago, meaning the next won't happen for about another 20 million years.
The father of all giant sea bugs was recently discovered off the coast of Java.
- A new species of isopod with a resemblance to a certain Sith lord was just discovered.
- It is the first known giant isopod from the Indian Ocean.
- The finding extends the list of giant isopods even further.
Humanity knows surprisingly little about the ocean depths. An often-repeated bit of evidence for this is the fact that humanity has done a better job mapping the surface of Mars than the bottom of the sea. The creatures we find lurking in the watery abyss often surprise even the most dedicated researchers with their unique features and bizarre behavior.
A recent expedition off the coast of Java discovered a new isopod species remarkable for its size and resemblance to Darth Vader.
The ocean depths are home to many creatures that some consider to be unnatural.
According to LiveScience, the Bathynomus genus is sometimes referred to as "Darth Vader of the Seas" because the crustaceans are shaped like the character's menacing helmet. Deemed Bathynomus raksasa ("raksasa" meaning "giant" in Indonesian), this cockroach-like creature can grow to over 30 cm (12 inches). It is one of several known species of giant ocean-going isopod. Like the other members of its order, it has compound eyes, seven body segments, two pairs of antennae, and four sets of jaws.
The incredible size of this species is likely a result of deep-sea gigantism. This is the tendency for creatures that inhabit deeper parts of the ocean to be much larger than closely related species that live in shallower waters. B. raksasa appears to make its home between 950 and 1,260 meters (3,117 and 4,134 ft) below sea level.
Perhaps fittingly for a creature so creepy looking, that is the lower sections of what is commonly called The Twilight Zone, named for the lack of light available at such depths.
It isn't the only giant isopod, far from it. Other species of ocean-going isopod can get up to 50 cm long (20 inches) and also look like they came out of a nightmare. These are the unusual ones, though. Most of the time, isopods stay at much more reasonable sizes.
View this post on Instagram
During an expedition, there are some animals which you find unexpectedly, while there are others that you hope to find. One of the animal that we hoped to find was a deep sea cockroach affectionately known as Darth Vader Isopod. The staff on our expedition team could not contain their excitement when they finally saw one, holding it triumphantly in the air! #SJADES2018
A post shared by LKCNHM (@lkcnhm) on
What benefit does this find have for science? And is it as evil as it looks?
The discovery of a new species is always a cause for celebration in zoology. That this is the discovery of an animal that inhabits the deeps of the sea, one of the least explored areas humans can get to, is the icing on the cake.
Helen Wong of the National University of Singapore, who co-authored the species' description, explained the importance of the discovery:
"The identification of this new species is an indication of just how little we know about the oceans. There is certainly more for us to explore in terms of biodiversity in the deep sea of our region."
The animal's visual similarity to Darth Vader is a result of its compound eyes and the curious shape of its head. However, given the location of its discovery, the bottom of the remote seas, it may be associated with all manner of horrifically evil Elder Things and Great Old Ones.
Researchers discovered a galactic wind from a supermassive black hole that sheds light on the evolution of galaxies.
- A new study finds the oldest galactic wind yet detected, from 13.1 billion years ago.
- The research confirms the theory that black holes and galaxies evolve together.
- The galactic wind was spotted using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array in Chile.
An enormously powerful galactic wind generated by a supermassive black hole 13.1 billions years ago has been discovered by researchers. The scientists used the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, which combines 66 radio telescopes, to make the find. The results are published in the Astrophysical Journal.
This is the earliest example of this type of wind yet spotted that underscores the role of black holes in the formation of galaxies. Research has shown that galactic winds affect redistribution of metals around the galaxy and impact start formation.
Black holes and galaxies evolve together
In previous studies, scientists have noticed an unexpected proportional relationship between the mass of a supermassive black hole at the center of a large galaxy, which can grow up to billions of times more massive than the sun, and the mass of the galaxy's central area (known as a "bulge"). The proportionality of the masses is especially unusual considering that galaxies and black holes are so different in size, with the bulge generally being orders of magnitude larger. This led the researchers to conclude that galaxies and black holes developed together through coevolution, which involved some physical interaction courtesy of the galactic wind.
As ALMA's press release explains, a galactic wind starts coming into existence when a supermassive black hole gobbles up giant quantities of matter. It is then moved at such a high speed by the black hole's gravity that it radiates intense energy, which in turn, pushes surrounding matter away, creating the galactic wind.
Takuma Izumi, the paper's lead author and a researcher at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ), says an important question is: "When did galactic winds come into existence in the universe?" Finding this out can lead to understanding how galaxies and supermassive black holes coevolved.
Finding an ancient galactic wind
The researchers used NAOJ's Subaru Telescope to locate over 100 galaxies that existed more than 13 billion years ago that featured supermassive black holes. They then used the high sensitivity of ALMA to analyze the gas motion in these galaxies, finding that the dust and carbon of one of them (dubbed J1243+0100) emitted radio waves. This allowed the scientists to detect the presence of an intense galactic wind that rushes forth from the supermassive black hole at about 1,118,468 miles per hour (500 km/second). The energy of the wind, the oldest found so far, is so strong that it pushes away stellar materials, preventing stars from forming.
Interestingly, the mass of the bulge in J1243+0100 was found to be about 30 billion times larger than that of the sun, while the mass of the galaxy's supermassive black hole was estimated to be about 1 percent of that. This ratio is essentially the same as the mass ratio of black holes to galaxies in today's universe. To the scientists, this demonstrates how essential black holes are in affecting the growth of galaxies, supporting the notion of coevolution from the early period of the universe.
"Our observations support recent high-precision computer simulations which have predicted that coevolutionary relationships were in place even at about 13 billion years ago," explained Izumi.
The scientists are planning to observe a large pool of space objects in the future, with the goal of clarifying "whether or not the primordial coevolution seen in this object is an accurate picture of the general universe at that time," further commented Izumi.