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/

Why should you help? Well, I'm a creative writing grad, and let's face it - I'm never going to cure cancer. Building a dating site is really a soul-killing venture of its own: this is a billion-dollar industry everyone wants a piece of without (as a far as I can tell) any genuine interest in helping the daters themselves. And yet, the irony is that the system can actually work. I mean - anyone who meets online successfully now is running just ridiculous odds. A fluke. Have I mentioned that Mr. Rogers is still around? Hmm...only took signing up on 26 sites, ditching Canada and driving three hours to another city - but who's counting? Online dating doesn't have to be this random or well, long-distance. The whole point should be about making your life less stressful - more streamlined. Ease of use. Back to the never curing cancer thing - maybe I can't make a difference in the nobel-peace-prize realm, but I can develop OPD as a platform that sets out to change the industry standards for online dating.

So how about helping us with a little market research - which could eventually help your single friends be as happy as you are? This will involve a bit of badgering on your part. As in tracking down said single friends ("single friends" meaning "male," "employed/professional,"  and hope upon hope somewhere within the 30-40-ish age range) and telling them what fun our teeny 16-question survey is to fill out! By multiple choice! Five minutes tops. I will personally call to thank each one by skype! And sing Oh Canada! Okay, maybe not. Oh, what the hell, sure. Actually - I'll sing it in French! ha ha.

Seriously - I know women. You know, being one. But more than that, women are much more forthcoming when it comes to feelings and relationships. Men are the great mystery. What do you want? We want to know. If you share, we might actually try to do something about it. Just saying.

OPD Survey Link for the magical unicorns known as single men with careers:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OPDm

argh...Perfect Match canceled today (not his fault since I had to cancel at the last minute yesterday) but he can't reschedule until next week. I need to step it up with the date-scheduling or I'll be halfway through the month with only two dates under my belt! Problem I'm finding is that the guys on Match are really hard to pin down to an actual in-person date: I've been emailing with a few - some have even been oddly rude - why respond if you're not going to be nice?? Chemistry is still an absolute mystery as to how to connect beyond the guided steps and am now wondering whether these profiles are active members considering there's SO little movement. Haven't communicated with a single member directly yet.

Truly Madly isn't local enough (I have a rather eager suitor in the UK - don't care how cute he is, I'm not flying to the UK to date a stranger!), and I haven't seen any movement on Plenty of Tweeps...but to be fair I didn't approach anyone because I thought the law of averages (like on POF) had to work out that at least ONE guy would say hi. Although it seemed to be mostly tech guys, so maybe law of averages didn't apply. Oh who knows. Screw it. Time to be aggressive! Which unfortunately means dropping more money on memberships so I don't have to wait around like a wilting flower to get some random guy's email...eventually.

You know - this is a very different online dating landscape. Used to be that as a girl - you could join a site and know that you'd never need to pay because the guys well,  would. And there would be generally interesting guys somewhere in the midst of the haystack. SOMEWHERE. And once these haystack men made contact, you could then email back without having to pay yourself. I can't quite figure out why, but this is no longer the case. Partially it's the change in how memberships are set up - but partially it's how men are using the sites. Or maybe who. I'm not really sure I understand who the men are - but apparently they vastly outnumber the women by hundreds of thousands. Okay, I'm making that number up. I have no idea.

Anyways - I'm on it! Even if I have to set 5 dates a day, I'll do it! Just, you know, don't expect me to keep them straight. Or to not whine about it.

p.s. This doesn't count, but I have "yay it's friday" drinks with Russian Roulette on Friday. He said he's "warming up to the idea of "Russian Roulette Episode 2: French Connection". Ha! I think I forgot to mention he's French. That's not like "Episode 2: Guys who like Role Playing" - get your minds out of the gutter! Anyways, he knows that hanging out with me before the end of 30 Sites means anything is fair game for the blog - but then, he knows where to come back to read about it and technically has every right to blow my cover if I trash him. So fair game both ways.  woo!