In the last article, I discussed how technology had a twofold effect of dehumanizing dating: it stratified society and tied 20-somethings to their blackberries. Finally, technology is having an opposite effect. It was nothing short of a revolution that would engulf the most pressing part of our post-undergraduate lives. Consider an app that tracks people that you could have met by GPS, and lets you chat with them if you can identify what he or she was wearing, or what he or she said in conversation. A correspondence would only initiate if both parties reach out. The chore of getting each other’s numbers will disappear. You have access to every person you meet, but only if he or she is on the same page. This was my idea of a dating app, and not half a year later, it would come out. It is called Happn. It is available in Toronto and in most major cities. In the industry of romance, there are apps for essentially every purpose imaginable.
The first evidence of this trend was when a nutty techie invented “Joysper” at Queen’s University, the epicentre of youthful gallivants (see http://randwalk.com/blog/2013/11/24/pick-your-poison-partying-culture-at-queens-university). Joysper (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAG5jxnaiRk) was the first Tinder, a novel way to meet people in the information age. Of course, online dating had already been prevalent, but was relegated to socially obtuse and desperate participants. Joysper made online dating cool by implementing a double-blind matching process that requires no explanation to readers of this blog-post. Tinder made the Joysper method ubiquitous by taking the concept mobile.
Thereafter, more apps followed, each with its unique attributes: Coffee Meets Bagel offers one match a day; Happn connects you with people you’ve passed by; OkCupid is a widely used dating website-turned-app, Grindr is for gay men; Momo is for Asians; and so on. It is not unlikely for participants to be on many of these platforms since tiptoeing around is no formula for love. It is the initial acceptance of app-based dating that requires thought. The decision is uneasy and fraught with concerns; so it needs to be treated comprehensively. The following paragraphs try to offer a framework to consider app-based dating.
We must recognize the benefits of app-based dating. They are highly efficient at creating opportunities. Traditional online dating increases each participant’s reach. App-based dating have lowered the risk of each opportunity, and have helped participants focus on the most high-probability targets. The methodology is sound – Tinder is wildly popular. Success stories are plentiful. Importantly, Tinder is a diversified platform that offers participants different options: it is generally considered useful for most intentions.
The proliferation of Tinder and OkCupid have caused a stir. Controversies abound over vanity, racism, instant gratification, misrepresentation, self-validation. It’s enough to scare any potential user away. But these criticisms are hardly isolated to online dating. They can be applied to the human race in general. Yes, humans are intrinsically vain and racist. These are our god-given follies and society has done little to correct them. Yes, we no longer have segregated schools but intelligent people still tend to believe that dating preferences should not be subject to the same watchful eye of racism. So it is no surprise that on OkCupid, being black costs you almost a star on your rating (http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-dataclysm-by-christian-rudder-1412372499). It seems highly arbitrary to carve out one whole branch of life, especially such an important one, and give it immunity from anti-racial feelings. A better policy is to simply admit that everyone is inherently racist and that we should all do our best to control it. An even more rampant human folly is to be overly vain. Unlike racism, which is cultural, being looksist is biological. Because it is engrained in our DNA, it is a more severe problem, a true injustice for which there is almost no defence other than the slow ticking of evolution. Like racism, we must admit our vain side and control it when possible. We should take some comfort in that these issues exist everywhere in the animal kingdom – and to a worse extent since animals lack the self-control humans do.
The question of Tinder is, therefore, not that they produce lookists and racist results, since that is produced in any interaction between humans. Rather, the question must be if they espouse greater racism or looksism. The answer is no. Seeing a photo of someone is sure to draw the same feelings of vanity and racism as meeting someone in real-life, unless the meeting was done blindfolded. In fact, Tinder at least provides some extra tidbits of detail when in another setting, the participants might just simply walk away. The age-old adage “love at first sight” is telling. Whether it is on an iPhone or across Alehouse, the first interaction is an image.
The most scathing criticisms can be mitigated but less apparent problems exist. There is no evidence of efficacy beyond ability to create relationships. The resultant Tinder couples have not been compared to control group couples on relevant metrics like quality, length and satisfaction. More problematic is the skew towards accepting more than rejecting: there is no cost of “swiping right” whereas the cost of “swiping left” is not knowing. This skew creates potentially insincere matches that can be unpleasant and a waste of time. Tinder can also be vulgar and even dangerous. Morally, depending on your stance, it can be questioned for its contravention of Colossians 3, and the analogous chapter in other major moral codes.
Most of the concerns can be taken care of. Each individual can use it to his or her advantage, according to his or her goals, in adherence to his or her moral code. It can be used intensely or precisely. It is by no means mutually exclusive with other forms of courtship. Thus the question seems to have evolved from whether or not to use Tinder to how it should be used. The app appears capable of at least adding value at the margins, without excessive risks or costs. More likely, it will change human behaviour.