

Is online dating a failure? - spottiness
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2011/12/25/is-the-continued-existence-of-involuntarily-single-people-proof-that-online-dating-is-a-failure/

======
Lazare
Greenspun is assuming that a "perfect" dating solution would result in zero
people who want to be married who are not married.

This is a pretty odd assumption. Let's imagine that my mythical friend Tom
desperately wants to marry, but is kind of picky: he wants a supermodel who is
also an expert Python coder and who can beat him at Tekken 2. Since Tom is
poor, has rather poor personal hygiene, and weighs about 200kg, we can safely
say that he will be involuntarily single his entire life. Does his existence
mean that all dating methods and tools are doomed to failure? I'd say no. Much
like there will always be some structural unemployment, there will always be
some "structural" single people. At best we can just reduce the number
slightly.

And this isn't the only flaw in Greenspun's argument. As others have pointed
out, he is assuming that the only purpose of online dating sites is to get
married - and yet a cursory examination of online dating sites and the people
on them would indicate that this is not the case.

Meanwhile, Greenspun's reference to marriage statistics is deeply problematic:

1) First, and most obviously, correlation is not causation.

2) He phrases the argument in the context of "low marriage rates prove online
dating is a failure", but he then turns to statistics that show _falling_
marriage rates. He seems not to realize it, but what he's actually arguing is
not that online dating is a "failure" that has failed to improve marriage
rates, but that it is actually lowering marriage rates. This probably needs an
explanation. How exactly is eHarmony destroying the institution of marriage?

3) When pressed in the comments, he talks about "involuntarily single people",
but again, the statistics he references are relating to marriage rates. It's a
bit like trying to show that fewer people are starving to death by pointing to
rising obesity levels. An obese person is almost certainly not starving, but
not all non-obese people are starving. And a married person is probably not
involuntarily single, but not all unmarried people are involuntarily single.

4) Don't falling marriage rates _actually_ show that what people really want
is, incrasingly, _not_ marriage? Revealed preferences, and all that? But if
people don't want marriage, then we can hardly use low marriage rates to show
that online dating is a failure. His statistics would seem to not just be
irrelevant, but to actually undermine his own argument.

(Yes, I know, I'm overthinking this.)

------
jonnathanson
There's a big assumption in this logic: that most people who date online are
looking to get married.

A lot of people use online dating simply to hook up -- the virtual equivalent
of approaching someone at the local bar, only with a lot of the potential
awkwardness pre-vetted out. Though many of the biggest dating sites advertise
themselves as places to get married, the use cases often tell a different
story. That's not the fault of the sites, so much as the predominance of "off-
label" use by the customers. (And the fairly recent plethora of hookup-
specific online dating services are catering to an existing trend, not trying
to create a new one.)

Frankly, none of this should surprise us. Many young people are primarily
interested in casual sex. Still others are pursuing a try-before-you-buy
strategy, and even among those people, the intent to "buy" is nebulous and
flexible.

I have no doubt that a large contingent of online daters are genuinely using
these services to find The One, and are earnestly focused on dating. But I'd
be very curious to see what percentage this userbase represents. My gut tells
me it may not even be a majority.

~~~
bunderbunder
Another big assumption: That monogamy is synonymous with marriage. (Or,
conversely, that not wanting to get married is a sign of promiscuity.)

During the time period the article talks about, that equation has been
scuttled. The gay marriage kerfuffle has led to the invention of domestic
partnership as a legal status. It's a serious contender against marriage,
since the laws are usually set up such that domestic partners can enjoy many
of the same privileges traditionally reserved for married folks, while
avoiding many of the laws that can potentially financially punish a couple for
getting married.

And it's generally not included in figures about marriage rates. Which means
that comparing a marriage rate statistic from this century to one from the
previous century is not apples-to-apples.

------
feralchimp
The parenthetical (from) tag on this post should be "Phil Greenspun" rather
than "harvard.edu".

Phil G is a talented software guy, and has put the time/money in to becoming a
very accomplished pilot. He writes very well on those subjects.

...

------
garyrichardson
I got married early compared to my peers. I've been with my wife for about 12
years and married for 5. Over time, I've definitely noticed that in my group
of friends that aren't in long term relationships are using online dating.

I feel like 12 years ago there was a negative stigma attached to it, similar
to the chat lines. It was the sort of thing you used once you 'gave up'. Now,
several couples I know are proud that they met online.

I wonder if I'm only noticing more acceptance of online dating because my
peers are reaching the 'breed now or never' age?

------
goodweeds
Perhaps culture is changing, ancient religious customs are failing, and those
of us who are inclined towards monogamy are eschewing marriage while still
committing to our life partners? Also, perhaps homosexuality has hit the point
culturally where those who otherwise would have lived an unhappy false life of
heterosexuality are now free enough to be gay, and gay marriage is mostly
illegal in this country.

------
zmj
I'm not even sure where to start. Failure to whom? The people making money by
providing a service? The users of the service? The marriage industry?

~~~
spottiness
The author meant the users of the service, because it doesn't increase
significantly the chances of meeting someone for a long term relationship,
otherwise there would be less involuntarily single people out there (that's
Greenspun's argument).

------
spottiness
One reason may be that the vast majority of young (very fertile) pretty women
are not looking for dates online; simply because they have plenty of choices
around them and therefore don't need to look in the virtual world. Males
follow women in that category, wherever they are.

------
jroseattle
Is this really an argument? It's such a terrible strawman, I have a hard time
believing this isn't logical satire.

If someone gives me a hammer, and I build a crappy house, it's not the
hammer's fault.

