who do you think you are?
As more of our spare time is expended on line, the internet, dating sites in particular, have become a hotbed of data for collators of information appertaining to human psychology.
Very few platforms entice us to divulge as much of our private lives as matchmaking sites. However, cutting between the exaggerations on dating site members’ profiles to ascertain truths worthy of inclusion in the evaluation was key to providing meaningful results.
If you are just about to join your first dating site, or are a seasoned user sick of meeting partners who do not live up to the billing, some of the tactics used by the scientists assessing over 1,000,000 online dating profiles may come in handy. We’ll look at those in more depth in part three of this series.
This is not a brand new phenomenon – science and dating sites have been bed partners before, where similar techniques were used in the design and development of chemistry.com. The advantage of using real-life testimonials over those induced under ‘theoretical’ conditions is that the background context is both more credible and allows access to volumes that would be unfeasible, otherwise.
Although the study concentrated mainly on heterosexual blossoming relationships, being more representative of the online dating community as a whole, a separate study did reveal a higher propensity towards meeting online for same-sex partners, with over 60% hooking up via a matchmaking facility, compared with a fifth of heterosexuals, which in itself is still a sizeable amount.
Before we look at how the scientists broke down the information to decide who was telling porkies, here’s just a few of the traits that you can expect any potential online partner to divulge via their profile.
Their were some outlandish exaggerations of the truth but, after members of an online dating site agreed to be measured, there was a definite pattern revealed in the online representation and the reality.
Concerning weight, both sexes came up light, online; for women, their dating profile self was over half a stone lighter than the reality, whereas men were a little more accurate, being just a couple of pound heavier in the flesh.
Height was more accurately gauged, although men did tend to add an extra half-inch; no change there, then.
And age, surprisingly, was the least lied about aspect; however, the profile photos of females tended to be taken 18 months ago, compared to their male counterparts’ shots being a third of that, at only six months old.
So, next time you’re perusing potential partners online, the camera may not be lying, but are you checking out archive footage?