There's a new internet site out there called Chatroulette. Basically, it lets you chat with random strangers and then hit next and move on whenever you get bored with that person. It's a harmless diversion! It's the kind of thing you know everyone you know is going to do once. Like sex in a turnpike dunkin donuts bathroom. It's not the kind of thing anyone would think twice about except for the fact that it's on the...internet! It's not a craze - the Macarana was a craze! This is an internet site that will very quickly become a repository of 5% curiosity-seekers and 95% free-floating dongs.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/headlines/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---march-2010/clip273960#clip273960

Right smack on The Association for Psychological Science's front page is an excerpt from 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: #27 - In Romance, Opposites Attract. It's a very curious little piece -- considering the authors are taking such a, well, arrogant stand, one would expect they'd be right in there with significant scientific data to back them up. I mean, this is a scientific site. I assume.

Anyways, it takes almost a third of the piece to even get to the argument - but you have to work for it. After wading through a three-paragraph play-by-play of a generic "opposites attract" film storyline which illustrates for us that Hollywood, When Harry Met Sally and Maid In Manhattan are at the root of all popular culture confusion as to how we could possibly be so misled as to the ways of love - the authors finally quote a study from 1991 with data proving...the opposite of their argument. Yes, haha. Psychologist Lynn McCutcheon apparently found that 77% of undergraduates agreed that opposites attract in relationships. Um, okay - next?  Harville Hendrix from dating site Soulmatch (Soulmatch? really? Out of all the sites in all the world?) is quoted, and really, he sounds like an inexplicably obscure source until you google him and find out that he was on Oprah -- makes yet another great point opposite (haha again) to the author's argument: "The great myth in our culture [...] is that compatibility is the grounds for a relationship—actually, compatibility is grounds for boredom." So. 2 for opposites actually do attract. 0 (plus a weird, badly written screenplay treatment) for Myth #27.

Okay. So here we are, halfway into the article - and now the authors get out the big guns:  "dozens of studies demonstrate that people with similar personality traits are more likely to be attracted to each other than people with dissimilar personality traits." Great! Which ones? The authors cite two: the research of Donn Byrne and a study by biologists Peter Buston and Stephen Emlen. Byrne's research is summed up without getting into any real detail - we're told he "demonstrates that the more similar someone's attitudes (for example, political views) are to ours, the more we tend to like that person. Interestingly, statistical analysis shows proportionally more similarity in attitudes leads to proportionally more liking." Hold the presses -  that sounds like a ground-breaking scientific discovery! I'm going to like someone more...if they like the same things as me? Did anyone alert Obama??

You might like to know that the study was published in 1961 - something the authors didn't think was relevant. Another little tidbit they leave out? According to PsychWiki's article Interpersonal Attraction, Byrne's "finding is often criticized for its failure to satisfy external validity, since there was no actual human interaction."  Right. But hey, you say potato, I say potato...what's a little human interaction when it comes to evaluating attraction?

The Buston and Emlen study seems valid enough - 1,000 participants were asked to rank characteristics they look for in a mate - but the authors immediately discredit them by adding "we shouldn't take the Buston and Emlen findings too far, since they're based entirely on self-report." Huh. Take a look at PsychWiki's article - gee, they've managed to find a whole bunch of sources on this subject. Why on earth would you choose one that you'd have to add a disclaimer for...but hide the full truth on the other one? It's just sloppy.

The authors come to the ultimate conclusion that they like their point of view even though their evidence isn't conslusive - so it's probably much safer for all the nerds with messy hair to keep dating nerds with messy hair. And what they're really saying is: don't upset the status quo. Don't step out of your comfort zone. Cheerleaders should date the quarterback, smart people should only consider singles with qualifying IQs and if you just moved to the Big Apple from a farm in Wisconsin, holy christ don't even think of trying to meet a woman who works on wall street - even if all you've wondered about for the last five years, sitting in the barn milking Bob (your cow) and watching HBO, was the day you might get the chance to be a stay-at-home dad for a hot, super-agressive woman who complements your quiet, soothing way. But you'll never get to meet your wall street Nancy Botwin. Because opposites don't attract. Or didn't you hear? Total myth.

For an opposite view on attraction research, check out these (much more) recent studies:

Opposites Attract: How Genetics Influences Humans To Choose Their Mates - Science Daily (May 2009)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090525105435.htm

Opposites attract: Compatibility's in the genes - MSNBC/LiveScience (Feb 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17048922/ns/health-livescience/

Here's what it comes down to: someone decided long ago that the concept of dating online would mean forgoing all the things we normally get to do when we date in the real world. Like being allowed to discover personal details - or have them revealed to you based on trust. In online dating world you check off a box if you want to date or have a relationship - or get married. In online dating world you let everyone know right up front whether or not you intend to have children. You tell the entire world whether you drink, smoke or do drugs. Or you lie about it. But it's right there on your profile. Sometimes you even have to answer questions about how you feel about one night stands, how important you feel sex is in a relationship, and how sexual a person you are - before you're even allowed to complete your profile.

Seriously? I mean - seriously??

These are personal questions people! If a guy asks me how I feel about marriage and kids on the first - let alone third date - and yes, it does happen, women aren't the only ones with ticking clocks - I'd be looking for an exit route. But online dating has the system completely screwed up. After all, why not discuss marriage and kids with a complete stranger? You know everything about their preferences; background-color: all neatly checked off on their profile! And on the flip side - why bother even considering a dater who doesn't check off the box for "want kids" if you do? Heck, why bother getting to know anyone. Clearly you can tell everything from their picture and profile. What's left for the date?

There are so many people out there genuinely trying to connect - it's mind-boggling. And yet every site I sign up on has a new gimmick - on top of more grocery-list profiles to shop. Is this really what you want? It's not what I want. I want a solution. Oh, wait - I'm working on one.

In the meantime, if you do want to meet peeps online, here's a late xmas/holiday/hannukah gift: you can use FINDMEDATEME to contact members you've searched from paid sites...and not pay. Woop. (I have nothing to do with the service - there's just nothing worth paying for on the paid sites. If they want to make their profiles public, searchable and hackable for however FMDM does it? Pfft. Go nuts.)

If you test FMDM out, swing by and share!

*Feb 17th, 2010 - I just checked the link and FMDM seems to be gone! If you're still curious, here's the link to the home page which was cached on Google January 20th:

Google's cache of http://www.findmedateme.com/

p.s. for the record I make a fuss about the friend thing because we hung out for 5 hours! And I was honest about what I was doing! dammit.

 ....30 days for one determined redhead to figure out whether the most well-known online dating services across North America actually have a hope in hell of lighting a romantic spark outside of cyberspace. With a totally open mind! Ok, with a dump truck of skepticism. Lavalife, E-Harmony, Match, Craigslist, OkCupid, J-Date, Plenty of Fish, Nerve, Yahoo Personals...