The more you learn about me, do you like me more or do you like me less?
Prof Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at MIT explained in his book Predictably Irrational, how the online dating is a classic example of irrational behavior. He said, since profile are very sketchy and have very little info, we tend to draw-in expectation in a positive way. Example when you say you like music, I’d think you like the same music as I do, I fill-in the gaps in a positive way. Thats what we believe in, but the result show that in online, the more you learn something the less you like them. The more I learn abt you, the more I cant fill in overly optimistic way, that I start feeling a negative way. And one negative things influence the next. The reality is the more we learn the less we like ppl, because we develop incredible expectation abt ppl, hence a heartbreak.
Here is the 2 min clip of Prof Dan Ariely, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrk57fuerGw
And Philip Roth said it best in his Pulitzer Prize winning novel, American Pastoral:
You fight your superficiality, your shallowness, so as to try to come at people without unreal expectations, without an overload of bias or hope or arrogance, as untanklike as you can be, sans cannon and machine guns and steel plating half a foot thick; you come at them unmenacingly on your own ten toes instead of tearing up the turf with your caterpillar treads, take them with an open mind, as equals, man to man, as we used to say, and yet you never fail to get them wrong. You might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you’re anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you’re with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion empty of all perception, an astonishing farce of misperception. And yet what are we to do about this terribly significant business of other people, which gets bled of the significance we think it has and takes on instead a significance that is ludicrous, so ill-equipped are we all to envision one another’s interior workings and invisible aims? Is everyone to go off and lock the door and secluded like the lonely writers do, in a soundproof cell, summoning people out of words and then proposing that these word people are closer to the real thing than the real people that we mangle with our innocence every day? The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It’s getting them wrong that is living, getting them wrong and wrong and wrong and then, on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again. That’s how we know we’re alive: we’re wrong. Maybe the best thing would be to forget being right or wrong about people and just go along for the ride. But if you can do that—well, lucky you.