We’ve come a long way from grade school, when finding love involved passing a scrap of notebook paper to the object of your affection. Our primitive methods of matchmaking, however, have long since been transformed by the Internet, where we use computers to carry out life’s most awkward and most difficult tasks. Adam Curtis addresses this relationship in his documentary “The Trap,” where he warns that as time moves forward and we become increasingly dependent on technology, we forfeit our individuality and become more simplistic, predictable creatures.
In the documentary, he attributes this streamlining of the human being to many different things, from application of “Game Theory” to self-medication of Zoloft. Curtis made and example of this simplification when he discussed mental-health testing in which participants were asked a series of questions, input the answers into a computer, and then the computer would decide whether the people were normal or abnormal. Wait– what? Yes, computers and “yes or no” questions were used to tell people (including Marc Summers of What Would You Do? and Double Dare fame, apparently) whether they were victims of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, or other mental disabilities.
The documentary went on to acknowledge the fact that this technological application was deemed absurd, and that this testing style fazed out once psychiatrists realized how ridiculous it was- but if we recognize this mechanical treatment of human health as laughable, why do we use websites like WebMD to tell us whether or not we have genital herpes? (I don’t–-I swear.) The sad thing is, humans really have become simple enough to diagnose online, and people prefer it since it’s quick, easy, and can be done from the comfort of one’s own home. Much like an Apple Troubleshooting page, these websites assume humans to be computer-like machines in which everyone’s problems can be solved through checkboxes.
But WebMD certainly isn’t the only site to charge with reducing the human into nothing more than a machine. Later in the series, Curtis discusses Doctor R.D. Laing, and an experiment in which he used checklists similar to the mental health ones in order to study love relationships in England. These questionnaires were used to examine power and politics in the English marriage, and according to Laing they worked. He triumphantly declared that relationships could be a pain in the ass quantified, just as mental illness could. So not only can people receive personalized advice from impersonal computer programs, but their relationships can also be translated into series of numbers and equations. What kind of world is this? The kind of world in which U.S. Americans spend over $500 Million in a single year looking for the priceless commodity of love via computer. Yes, not only are we diagnosing our sicknesses online, but we’re finding our spouses there too.
A wide range of online dating services exist on the Internets, from Yahoo! Personals to Match.com, Jdate.com (for Jewish singles) to OKCupid.com (for broke college singles), so it’s no surprise that, according to msn.com, an estimated 40% of American singles use these sites to find love. Like the computerized checklists Curtis explored in the documentary, dating sites require users to fill out in-depth questionnaires and profiles, asking questions on everything from hopes and dreams to fears and inhibitions. Once the surveys are completed, (with some being as long as 258 questions, like at eHarmony) logarithms are used by the dating site to determine who users should spend the rest of their lives with. Why spend hours at bars or clubs looking for Mr. Right when a website can tell you who he is in under ten minutes?
Perhaps the most infamous of these sites–eHarmony.com–boasts its users as finding themselves two times happier in their relationships than couples not matched by the site. In fact, eHarmony is so hell-bent on creating perfect marriages for its users that it bars certain ages, sexual orientations, and others from using the site. The product is uncanny: A reported 40% of users find their lifetime spouse on the site. Missed the boat? Well eHarmony has got you covered even if you met your spouse the “old fashioned” way–with online marriage counseling! Yes, struggling couples can fill out even more checklists in order to have a computer program save their marriage.
This seemed too good to be true, so, naturally, I tried it out. Half an hour and 140 questions later, the site spat out a detailed 10-page analysis of my faux relationship and what I needed to do in order to improve it. The site’s advice included the need to increase the frequency of my sex and to spend more time with my spouse’s family on vacations. And eHarmony cared about my relationship so much that I was only a click (and a small fee) away from restoring true marital bliss through online workshops tailored to my questionnaire answers. I think I’ll try the more sex thing first, then maybe if that doesn’t work, I’ll make the investment.
And if electronic Dr. Phil can’t quell your marriage woes and you need to split, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) sites are completely viable options popular in Australia and England in which couples can forego lawyers and awkward meetings to divide their assets based on checkboxes and a ranking system. I really hate using this acronym, but O-M-G.
Starting with the earliest diagnoses of mental illness, our society has grown more and more dependent on computer checklists to make our lives easier, reducing the human mind to nothing more than checkboxes. The scary thing is that Laing was completely accurate when determining that relationships could be easily quantified with questionnaires: the success rates of the services that I’ve highlighted are alarmingly high.
Are the matching equations performed by computers really better than good ol’ human intuition? Are we really that simplistic and predictable? It’s weird to think that John Doe can find his spouse more easily, and with greater success, though the use of a dating website, rather than meeting him or her in person at a bar (or other classy establishment).
It’s fairly obvious that the purpose of technology is to make things easier for the user, but are the users becoming “easier” to adapt to technology? By avoiding complex dating rituals, difficult marriage counseling, and in-person medical examination in favor of sitting back and finding the answers to these problems on computers, what are we sacrificing?
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to leave a comment on my divorce lawyer’s MySpace.
2 Comments
I enjoyed reading your post.
I think online dating is definitely a good example in which humans are expected to operate according to simplified models of personality and finally end up conforming to them.
On the other hand though, relationships are a source of anxiety and match making has a long history. We are lucky to live in an age when we’re even asked what we want and who we are. Many of us are bruised from unsuccessful or even traumatic nights, weeks and years of bar-crawling looking for that special one. Are you saying that the phenomenon of actually using math and technology to better point the search is wrong?
I liked what you have to say here; I’ve got mixed feelings on this. While we’re offered a lot more niche-focused services, products, or even spouses, these services can only be useful if a lot of people use them. In the end, checking off box after box is reducing society to the lowest common denominator — and eventually, if you don’t fit into that albeit wide umbrella, you’re on your own.
For example, e-harmony tells 1 and 5 people that they’re unmatchable and won’t even consider homosexual matches. I am also betting that Web MD won’t be helpful if you’ve got something nasty like a bout of Count Choculitis (yes, I got that from the Office, but you get the idea) that very few people care about.
You could argue — and I will — that this won’t matter if you look at these tools as guides and not solutions. E-Harmony is a guide, like your friend, to setting you up on a blind date — you don’t have to fall head over heels in love. And I personally love all these online tools we have — I’m not dependent on them, so they don’t worry me.
It’s when we become dependent, as you mention, that it begins to be worrisome, because for most of the population, we’re going to be reduced to just a few pre-selected traits, and those that don’t fall in the bell curve will be deemed outsiders and make their own way in the world.
I wonder though — doesn’t that already happen now? I mean…we’ve got a bell curve for “normalcy” and if you fall on each end of the spectrum, you don’t get as many benefits. But, as a side bonus, you can sue anyone who won’t accommodate your special needs.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Last week I discussed how the internet simplifies complex social rituals like dating and marriage counseling.The internet has also been simplifying itself in a way, with social bookmarking sites, RSS feeds, and more. Twitter is the internet’s simplification of blogging. [...]
[...] Mike pointed out last week, it’s a bit scary to know that we’re reducing ourselves to just a few fill-in-the-blank [...]