Crazy Little Thing Called Online Love
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 by House
We were asked this week in tutorials to think about the ways in which we are the product of our relationships with technology. Finding love online is a crazy concept to me personally. I would like to argue that online romance is an example of how our interaction with technology has affected our human sense of self.
When I think of new media, I think of a shift from analogue to digital. Digital media as we've learned is all about binary coding and the breaking down of information into 'data'. There is a strong parallel I think between the coding of technology and the 'coding' of human beings. I like to think of it as the 'digitization of the self'. Through sites like Facebook or online dating sites (Match.com) people are essentially breaking themselves into data. You profile yourself as male or female, interested in male or female, your qualities, your hobbies, if you have a pet…an abundance of different parts (data) that make up who you are. Advertisers use these online forums as a means of ‘data mining’ to more efficiently and effectively reach their key demographics. Ultimately, the way in which we view technology is increasingly the way in which we view ourselves and mediate ourselves in this digital environment. It is because of this that I think we are products of our relationships with technology.
When I think about all this in relation to online love and romance, I find it ridiculous because it seems to me that love then becomes some sort of calculation. Sites like Match.com seem to work on a notion that one trait in one person + one trait in another person = a match. That to me seems kind of absurd as human compatibility is so much more complex than that. Luke mentioned in the lecture Arvidsson’s studies and how men feel pressured into adopting “correct” qualities and values. In this way, humans are further reflective of technology in the sense that are identities (particularly online) are incredibly tangible and selective – much in the way that new digital media is flexible and easily manipulated.
I strongly agree with your skepticism. I think it's perfectly possible for technology to assist people in making connections with like-minded souls that they may not otherwise have "met". But the danger, as you say, is that human-human relationships start to be treated as a form of calculus in much the same way that the marketing of commodities (and brands) is becoming. In an entertaining but rather scary (and quite problematic) book by Malcolm Gladwell called Blink, you can find some startling material about psychologists who reckon they can predict with almost 100% accuracy whether a relationship will succeed in the long term just by observing a couple talking for an hour. Imagine if that kind of method could be codified into software which tells you within minutes of striking up an online conversation with someone whether you should bother continuing based on its assessment of the chances of a successful relationship being formed!
With all due respect (to both House and Luke), I strongly disagree with what the both of you have said in that online dating websites reduce your data into a code that you then have to choose from.
Yes, websites like Facebook and Match.com code your data and find you a match based on that. Yes. But users also have full freedome to look through the other members' profiles and see if they have qualities they like. This, in my opinion is no different to striking up a conversation in bar or a club with a total stranger.
And the risks involved with this are also the same. The total stranger in the bar could be a gang-rapist, rapist, paedophile, arsonist, or axe-wielding crazy just as much as the person off an online dating forum.
New media is easily manipulated, but especially with these websites, we as their audience need to adapt and be smart about how we use them. There are tell-tale signs.
While I can appreciate your strong point of view Nandan, I find it hard to agree with some of your points raised:
Firstly, you mention people having the ability to scan profiles for "qualities they like". The problem is that a 'quality' described online has an enormous amount of variation and interpretation. For example, several members may describe themselves 'Is Open-Minded' - a quality such as this would vary from member to member in relation to how 'open' their mind actually is. In my opnion, qualities like this are 'experienced' more accurately and truthfully by both individuals in personal, physical interaction than when simply 'described' to one another online.
Ultimately you are matched with a person through words/sentences or 'data'. In this way, I would argue that it is not you who is seeking a potential mate but the websites software generating a set of 'results' based on your 'search'.
(As a side note: It also makes me wonder if how attracted you are to a person is the same depending on if you were to meet them in a bar versus an online setting...?)
Also in regards to this point, online love sites increasingly promote the idea that people are only attracted to those who share their common interests - Match.com even lets you "quickly find someone" through "matchWords" which are "keywords that describe who you are and what you're like" (this further relates to the problem I mentioned above). What about the idea that opposites attract?
Secondly, I think it is extremely problematic to suggest that finding out about a person online is "no different to striking up a conversation in bar or a club". Regardless of whether you believe online intimacy is plausible or not, there are some clear differences between these two types of interaction: Reading people's profiles is only one-way interaction. Physical one-on-one conversation has an increased possibility for interrogation, exploration and further questioning. Another important aspect is that the computer is a mediator of conversation and interaction. Whether people are talking via email, instant messaging, webcam - the presence of the computer screen immediately changes the nature of interaction - I would argue that it is no longer 'natural' but composed and in some cases contrived. This idea I think can be applied to all types of media - that is, conversing on the phone is different to that of texting which is different to that of emailing which is different to that of writing a letter to someone...
Finally, I'm no scientist but the reason I really don't get this online love thing is that it completely rules out the physiology or physical 'chemistry' between two people - something that I think is so fundamental to intimacy and attractiveness.