Online dating sites appear to offer a counterexample to the assertion that “society resists better attempts to taskify social interaction (especially dating and mating)”.
Given the dynamics on those dating sites, I’d have to disagree. The potential efficiency gains from more straightforward behavior and interactions made possible by the forum seems to be completely lost. People behave just like they would in live interactions, seemingly doing their best to keep the dynamics untaskified. I admit the mere existence of those sites does count as a bit of taskification, though.
Sure, I was being polemical. Society indeed approves of taskifying dating in particular ways, yet even so, there is a deep-seated ambivalence over taskification.
Take your example of online dating. People who engage in online dating can be seen as losers, or accused of looking at prospective online partners like items on a menu.
Online dating is only a very small part of the taskification of dating. Even though a website provides an avenue where people can contact each other, what do you do then? And if you do end up meeting someone, what do you do?
The closer we get to the nitty-gritty of what people actually do when they are in front of each other, the more ambivalent society becomes about taskifying.
Hugh, your complaint as I understand it is that society not only doesn’t provide rituals which turn “dating and mating” into a well defined process with agreed upon rules, but in fact actively resists the demands of people who would use such rituals.
Yet when one researches the question “what are the formalized rituals of dating and mating”, well, there’s plenty of information out there. May I suggest that it would be wortwhile to yourself and to your readers to do the research, and report back on what you found, and then possibly point out any remaining large gaps?
Disclosure: I may not have much to say about dating and mating in general, as I have been out of the dating market for twenty years.
I do have a little experience in deliberately transforming myself (from 2000 onwards) from an introverted geek with no friends into an avid business networker with an excellent reputation. I found excellent procedural information for doing so in a book called “Why Should Extroverts Make All The Money”.
Back around that time I formulated an informal theory that made the parallel between “finding a job through the want ads” and “finding a partner through classifieds”. The gist of the theory was that in both cases there were too many incentives to lie and one would get burned quite easily. The strategy that relied on building up a social network looked a lot more appealing to me, at least in the professional domain.
Even though a website provides an avenue where people can contact each other, what do you do then?
This seems to some extent taskified, Google “speed dating”. My point isn’t that encounters on online dating sites systematically lead to speed dating, but that “society” has come up with at least one taskified version of the supposed “problem” of the first meeting with a prospective date. Speed dating wouldn’t exist if “society” were as reluctant as you say it is to taskify in matters of intimacy.
And if you do end up meeting someone, what do you do?
That rather depends on the specifics of your problem statement. The “problem” of sexual encounters is at least partly taskified (think “oldest profession in the world”)...
Hugh, your complaint as I understand it is that society not only doesn’t provide rituals which turn “dating and mating” into a well defined process with agreed upon rules, but in fact actively resists the demands of people who would use such rituals.
Dating already involves enough rules and rituals. I’m not advocating adding any more. What I want to see is more specification of how to perform under the existing rules and constraints (e.g. the constraint of the typical desires of the people you are trying to date).
Although it’s often difficult to define in advance how to behave in a particular situation, it can sometimes be possible to codify the types of things to avoid, or to know what result your behavior needs to achieve, even if you must improvise how you get to that result.
Furthermore, on a more global level, it’s possible to taskify the problem of learning how to date. For instance, learning how to increase your attractiveness in general, or learning how to dynamically improvise in situations of uncertainty.
I’m arguing that society is blocking problem-solving on both local problems (“what do I see when I approach the attractive stranger at this party?” or “what do I need to accomplish with the first few things I say to this person?”) and global problems (“what do I need to do to develop into the kind of person who knows what to say to attractive strangers at party without even needing introspection?”).
Yet when one researches the question “what are the formalized rituals of dating and mating”, well, there’s plenty of information out there. May I suggest that it would be wortwhile to yourself and to your readers to do the research, and report back on what you found, and then possibly point out any remaining large gaps?
What makes you think I haven’t? Yes, I haven’t really got specific about what exactly I think is lacking in conventional dating advice, though I might in the future if I consider it on topic for LessWrong. For now, my main topic has been an attitude about breaking down dating—and the process of learning how to date—into tasks to the extent that this is possible.
The strategy that relied on building up a social network looked a lot more appealing to me, at least in the professional domain.
One’s social network is important in both business and dating. Social network is a big plus, but it isn’t a prerequisite for dating.
That rather depends on the specifics of your problem statement. The “problem” of sexual encounters is at least partly taskified (think “oldest profession in the world”)...
Most people do not have a problem statement that can be solved by the oldest profession.
Most people do not have a problem statement that can be solved by the oldest profession.
I’ve considered the problem “how to get bulk practice in sexual techniques without completely exhausting my partners?” It may not satisfy the craving for affection but it may well satisfy perfectionistic tendencies.
You″re right, I have no reason to assume you haven’t done the research. (And I regret bringing up prostitution—not a helpful example.)
I suppose what I want to say really boils down to: I am unconvinced by your assertion that “society” has this attitude you’re describing, and giving more concrete details would help.
Most people do not have a problem statement that can be solved by the oldest profession.
Seconded.
To put it rather crudely, you can pay for a hole to ejaculate into, but it’s a lot harder to buy genuine sexual desire or a meaningful romantic relationship.
Not as charitable as it could be. Contrary to Morendil, I think he did have a weak reason to assume you hadn’t, and even if he didn’t, you could still simply say “I have.”
In this context, society’s enforcement mechanism is social pressure/shame. Your examples—speed dating, online dating, prostitution—are all considered more or less shameful (I know because I’ve seen the shamed body language of people admitting to them). This shows that society’s enforcement measures are working.
I don’t know what’s your reference group, but I don’t know anyone computer-literate who considers online dating shameful at all. It’s a mainstream activity, and is almost becoming the default way to find people to date.
It’s been a couple of years since I heard censure of online dating too, and I agree that it’s almost completely accepted among all the relevant people. I definitely meant it on the “less shameful” end of the spectrum.
But it’s been a while since I’ve heard anyone condemn gays, or atheists, or blacks. I try to ward myself against availability bias by reminding myself that my social group is likely to be a weird little bubble relative to the whole world. If I encountered people thinking online dating is shameful a few years ago, then I can be sure that many people still think so. I’m confident I could find them if I try.
Ok, I just tried, with a google search, and found this, from March 2009. It looks like online dating is still shameful for some people.
When I was recently considering signing up for OkCupid, I asked a few friends (actually on a forum, but a small intimate one) about their thoughts on this:
There’s still a stigma. That’s why people say “there’s no stigma anymore!”
(...which is what I was worried about. Of course, “a witty saying proves nothing”, but it makes sense—if there weren’t a stigma, there would be less need to defend it against claims that there’s still a stigma, and fewer people trying to.)
Okcupid is generally thought of as acceptable as long as you don’t take it too seriously. If anyone you know sees you on there, well, they have an account too.
(...which is a pretty good point too. So I took the plunge and joined.)
If that were the case, I’d expect to find a lot more people than I do on the main dating sites. Perhaps you meant to limit your statement to a certain demographic.
Online dating is only a very small part of the taskification of dating. Even though a >website provides an avenue where people can contact each other, what do you do >then? And if you do end up meeting someone, what do you do?
The algorithm for what to do when you meet someone is simple. You talk about yourself and listen to them talk about themselves and ask them questions about themselves. The goal is to get to know them and help them get to know you so that you both decide whether you are interested in spending more time together. If you are compatible and open the conversation will flow naturally, and you will both have a good time. This algorithm won’t work well for you if your communications skills are poor or if you are genuinely unlikeable/unattractive. I had to work on both of those issues to become successful at dating. My communication skills are still pretty terrible, but I focused enough effort on becoming attractive that eventually it worked out.
The algorithm for what to do when you meet someone is simple.
As you admit, the simplicity of this algorithm is dependent on one’s communication skills.
You talk about yourself and listen to them talk about themselves and ask them questions about themselves.
Interestingly, a lot of conventional dating advice insists that people shouldn’t talk about themselves too much.
This is an example of advice that is trivially correct, but encourages the wrong focus. Yes, there is a danger of talking about oneself too much, but there is also a danger in talking about oneself too little.
In my experience, the best way to get someone to talk about themselves and open up is not to just start asking them questions. Instead, talk about yourself for a bit, and then ask them questions or simply shut up and they will often start talking about themselves. People tend to feel more comfortable opening up after you have shared something about yourself.
To develop enough rapport to transition to open-ended questions, I will instead make statements, or talk about myself or what I’ve been up to, or I’ll free associate on something in the environment. Or I will use close-ended questions! Close-ended questions are actually very powerful for several reasons:
You can use them to give the other person a choice to give either a short response. The type of answer I get will let me gauge how engaged the other person is in the conversation. If they aren’t engaged enough to give an extensive answer, then I just keep talking, and then try another question soon.
You can use them precisely because they will elicit a short response. A property of many questions is that people will often give a short answer and ask them right back. You can make use of this. Pick a subject you want to talk about. Ask a close-ended question that relates to it (or I might use an open-ended question that I don’t expect them to be ready to answer extensively). If they give a long answer, great, let them talk. But if they don’t, they will often ask the question right back. And then you can answer the question any way you want. And when they listen to what you are saying, it will get them thinking about the subject and engaged. Then you bring in the open-ended questions and you will actually get interesting answers.
In short, for a conversation to flow, there are certain tasks that need to be accomplished:
The other person has to be comfortable with you, to a degree that increases with the intimacy of the conversation.
To talk about certain subjects, the other person needs to get thinking about them (questions like “what is your favorite music?” or “what is your type in people you are into?” are actually cognitively hard for many people to answer on the spot)
So as you can see, I agree with your advice, but I can break it down even further into the nuts and bolts of actually how to have a conversation that flows. I think about it at a much greater level of granularity because that is what has been useful for me (other people’s mileage might vary). All the stuff I mention, many people already do without being conscious of it. For people who experience conversation as a problem, this greater granularity might be helpful. I’m interested in taking what is intuitive to socially-skilled people, and breaking it down into pieces and articulating it, making it accessible for people who don’t currently have intuitive social skills.
For instance, I asked the question, what do you do when you end up meeting someone (e.g. from an online dating website)? Your answer was that you talk about yourself and listen to them talk about themselves and ask questions. But you skipped a step or two. A date doesn’t start in the middle of conversation. It starts with saying “hi” and a few pleasantries. How do you get from there, to people talking about themselves? That’s not an incredibly hard problem, but how do you do it in a strong way with minimum awkwardness, such as a long uncomfortable pause after pleasantries? Transitions between different types of conversation is a nontrivial problem for many people.
It’s this level of granularity that is lacking from conventional dating advice. Dating advice typically covers certain scenarios and stages, but doesn’t really discuss how to glue those pieces together and transition (e.g. when you are starting a first date, how do you go from exchanging pleasantries to starting a conversation that flows, in the minimum amount of steps and the minimum amount of awkwardness?)
I would recommend auditing a counseling class. My fiancee is studying to become a professional counselor, and has had at least one class on how to talk to people who might be reluctant to talk. She can transcend smalltalk with my relatives in just a few steps and have actual conversations with them, something I’d love to be able to do.
Great skill to have. If we can find a way to teach it to LW, that would be awesome. I’ve seen more women than men who could do it, but it’s definitely not gender-exclusive and not inborn.
As you admit, the simplicity of this algorithm is dependent on one’s communication >skills.
I guess I would say that the algorithm is simple regardless of communication skills, but the effectiveness and pleasantness changes. i have a lot of social anxiety so I would find talking about myself on a first date (something I’ll hopefully never have to do again) to be very unpleasant. And yet, I know exactly how to do it in the sense that I know how to express thoughts verbally and I know what thoughts are “about myself.” I would be awkward and the woman would typically form an accurate opinion of me, and especially my lack of social skills, and conclude that she didn’t want a second date. This is the correct outcome.
It’s this level of granularity that is lacking from conventional dating advice. Dating >advice typically covers certain scenarios and stages, but doesn’t really discuss how >to glue those pieces together and transition (e.g. when you are starting a first date, >how do you go from exchanging pleasantries to starting a conversation that flows, in >the minimum amount of steps and the minimum amount of awkwardness?)
I think that you are somewhat unfairly criticizing conventional dating advice because the goal of that advice is not your goal. The goal of my advice was not to create a high percentage of first dates that are “successful” and that lead to second dates or whatever. The goal of my advice was to allow both people to effectively determine how interested they are in the other person so that they accurately know if they want to have a second date.
I tend to think that the kind of advice you are looking for would make the filtering function of dating more difficult. A person who tends to make a conversation flow very well regardless of who it is with will always seem attractive and compatible on a first date. The other party will then have to spend more time and effort determining actual compatibility than they otherwise would. I am much more worried about a “false positive” on a date that leads to subsequent time and energy wasting dates than I am about “false negatives” in which compatible people can’t get past their communication shortcomings to see that they are actually made for each other. I just think that there are too many good options for most people (especially since the advent of online dating) to worry too much about false negatives. Everyone can find someone as long as they put some effort into searching and are honest about their status and who would be interested in them.
I am much more worried about a “false positive” [...] than I am about “false negatives” in which compatible people can’t get past their communication shortcomings to see that they are actually made for each other. I just think that there are too many good options for most people.
Funny, I think there are very few options and thus I’m willing to tolerate a lot of initial bumpiness in communications to see whether we’re ultimately compatible. To each his own. (I had a lot of communication problems early in life, and still do to a lesser extent, and that may be part of it too.)
Everyone can find someone as long as they put some effort into searching and are honest about their status and who would be interested in them.
If I take this as a statement meant to be strictly true, it rings false. It seems very unlikely that people would happen to occur in the proper proportions so that everyone would find someone. At least it seems there would be something like a 50% chance of there being an ‘odd man out’ even if everything else worked out perfectly.
Online dating sites appear to offer a counterexample to the assertion that “society resists better attempts to taskify social interaction (especially dating and mating)”.
Given the dynamics on those dating sites, I’d have to disagree. The potential efficiency gains from more straightforward behavior and interactions made possible by the forum seems to be completely lost. People behave just like they would in live interactions, seemingly doing their best to keep the dynamics untaskified. I admit the mere existence of those sites does count as a bit of taskification, though.
Sure, I was being polemical. Society indeed approves of taskifying dating in particular ways, yet even so, there is a deep-seated ambivalence over taskification.
Take your example of online dating. People who engage in online dating can be seen as losers, or accused of looking at prospective online partners like items on a menu.
Online dating is only a very small part of the taskification of dating. Even though a website provides an avenue where people can contact each other, what do you do then? And if you do end up meeting someone, what do you do?
The closer we get to the nitty-gritty of what people actually do when they are in front of each other, the more ambivalent society becomes about taskifying.
Hugh, your complaint as I understand it is that society not only doesn’t provide rituals which turn “dating and mating” into a well defined process with agreed upon rules, but in fact actively resists the demands of people who would use such rituals.
Yet when one researches the question “what are the formalized rituals of dating and mating”, well, there’s plenty of information out there. May I suggest that it would be wortwhile to yourself and to your readers to do the research, and report back on what you found, and then possibly point out any remaining large gaps?
Disclosure: I may not have much to say about dating and mating in general, as I have been out of the dating market for twenty years.
I do have a little experience in deliberately transforming myself (from 2000 onwards) from an introverted geek with no friends into an avid business networker with an excellent reputation. I found excellent procedural information for doing so in a book called “Why Should Extroverts Make All The Money”.
Back around that time I formulated an informal theory that made the parallel between “finding a job through the want ads” and “finding a partner through classifieds”. The gist of the theory was that in both cases there were too many incentives to lie and one would get burned quite easily. The strategy that relied on building up a social network looked a lot more appealing to me, at least in the professional domain.
This seems to some extent taskified, Google “speed dating”. My point isn’t that encounters on online dating sites systematically lead to speed dating, but that “society” has come up with at least one taskified version of the supposed “problem” of the first meeting with a prospective date. Speed dating wouldn’t exist if “society” were as reluctant as you say it is to taskify in matters of intimacy.
That rather depends on the specifics of your problem statement. The “problem” of sexual encounters is at least partly taskified (think “oldest profession in the world”)...
Dating already involves enough rules and rituals. I’m not advocating adding any more. What I want to see is more specification of how to perform under the existing rules and constraints (e.g. the constraint of the typical desires of the people you are trying to date).
Although it’s often difficult to define in advance how to behave in a particular situation, it can sometimes be possible to codify the types of things to avoid, or to know what result your behavior needs to achieve, even if you must improvise how you get to that result.
Furthermore, on a more global level, it’s possible to taskify the problem of learning how to date. For instance, learning how to increase your attractiveness in general, or learning how to dynamically improvise in situations of uncertainty.
I’m arguing that society is blocking problem-solving on both local problems (“what do I see when I approach the attractive stranger at this party?” or “what do I need to accomplish with the first few things I say to this person?”) and global problems (“what do I need to do to develop into the kind of person who knows what to say to attractive strangers at party without even needing introspection?”).
What makes you think I haven’t? Yes, I haven’t really got specific about what exactly I think is lacking in conventional dating advice, though I might in the future if I consider it on topic for LessWrong. For now, my main topic has been an attitude about breaking down dating—and the process of learning how to date—into tasks to the extent that this is possible.
One’s social network is important in both business and dating. Social network is a big plus, but it isn’t a prerequisite for dating.
Most people do not have a problem statement that can be solved by the oldest profession.
I’ve considered the problem “how to get bulk practice in sexual techniques without completely exhausting my partners?” It may not satisfy the craving for affection but it may well satisfy perfectionistic tendencies.
You″re right, I have no reason to assume you haven’t done the research. (And I regret bringing up prostitution—not a helpful example.)
I suppose what I want to say really boils down to: I am unconvinced by your assertion that “society” has this attitude you’re describing, and giving more concrete details would help.
Here we go: more concreteness with some examples of conventional advice vs. the perspective I am advocating.
Point taken, and I’ll try to get more concrete in the future.
Seconded.
To put it rather crudely, you can pay for a hole to ejaculate into, but it’s a lot harder to buy genuine sexual desire or a meaningful romantic relationship.
Not as charitable as it could be. Contrary to Morendil, I think he did have a weak reason to assume you hadn’t, and even if he didn’t, you could still simply say “I have.”
In this context, society’s enforcement mechanism is social pressure/shame. Your examples—speed dating, online dating, prostitution—are all considered more or less shameful (I know because I’ve seen the shamed body language of people admitting to them). This shows that society’s enforcement measures are working.
I don’t know what’s your reference group, but I don’t know anyone computer-literate who considers online dating shameful at all. It’s a mainstream activity, and is almost becoming the default way to find people to date.
It’s been a couple of years since I heard censure of online dating too, and I agree that it’s almost completely accepted among all the relevant people. I definitely meant it on the “less shameful” end of the spectrum.
But it’s been a while since I’ve heard anyone condemn gays, or atheists, or blacks. I try to ward myself against availability bias by reminding myself that my social group is likely to be a weird little bubble relative to the whole world. If I encountered people thinking online dating is shameful a few years ago, then I can be sure that many people still think so. I’m confident I could find them if I try.
Ok, I just tried, with a google search, and found this, from March 2009. It looks like online dating is still shameful for some people.
When I was recently considering signing up for OkCupid, I asked a few friends (actually on a forum, but a small intimate one) about their thoughts on this:
(...which is what I was worried about. Of course, “a witty saying proves nothing”, but it makes sense—if there weren’t a stigma, there would be less need to defend it against claims that there’s still a stigma, and fewer people trying to.)
(...which is a pretty good point too. So I took the plunge and joined.)
If that were the case, I’d expect to find a lot more people than I do on the main dating sites. Perhaps you meant to limit your statement to a certain demographic.
Where have you been looking, and what demographics are you after?
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/plentyoffish.com—huge, free, mostly 20s
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/match.com—huge, paid, mostly 30s
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/eharmony.com—huge, paid, marriage-oriented, mostly 40s
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/okcupid.com—not as huge, free, mostly 20s, smartest demographics of the major sites as far as I can tell
Yes, this matches my impression of the subject.
The algorithm for what to do when you meet someone is simple. You talk about yourself and listen to them talk about themselves and ask them questions about themselves. The goal is to get to know them and help them get to know you so that you both decide whether you are interested in spending more time together. If you are compatible and open the conversation will flow naturally, and you will both have a good time. This algorithm won’t work well for you if your communications skills are poor or if you are genuinely unlikeable/unattractive. I had to work on both of those issues to become successful at dating. My communication skills are still pretty terrible, but I focused enough effort on becoming attractive that eventually it worked out.
As you admit, the simplicity of this algorithm is dependent on one’s communication skills.
Interestingly, a lot of conventional dating advice insists that people shouldn’t talk about themselves too much.
This is an example of advice that is trivially correct, but encourages the wrong focus. Yes, there is a danger of talking about oneself too much, but there is also a danger in talking about oneself too little.
In my experience, the best way to get someone to talk about themselves and open up is not to just start asking them questions. Instead, talk about yourself for a bit, and then ask them questions or simply shut up and they will often start talking about themselves. People tend to feel more comfortable opening up after you have shared something about yourself.
Another very common piece of dating advice is “ask open-ended question rather than close-ended or yes/no questions. Open-ended questions are great, but you can’t just jump into them with someone you don’t know very well, or when the conversation isn’t lubricated yet.
To develop enough rapport to transition to open-ended questions, I will instead make statements, or talk about myself or what I’ve been up to, or I’ll free associate on something in the environment. Or I will use close-ended questions! Close-ended questions are actually very powerful for several reasons:
You can use them to give the other person a choice to give either a short response. The type of answer I get will let me gauge how engaged the other person is in the conversation. If they aren’t engaged enough to give an extensive answer, then I just keep talking, and then try another question soon.
You can use them precisely because they will elicit a short response. A property of many questions is that people will often give a short answer and ask them right back. You can make use of this. Pick a subject you want to talk about. Ask a close-ended question that relates to it (or I might use an open-ended question that I don’t expect them to be ready to answer extensively). If they give a long answer, great, let them talk. But if they don’t, they will often ask the question right back. And then you can answer the question any way you want. And when they listen to what you are saying, it will get them thinking about the subject and engaged. Then you bring in the open-ended questions and you will actually get interesting answers.
In short, for a conversation to flow, there are certain tasks that need to be accomplished:
The other person has to be comfortable with you, to a degree that increases with the intimacy of the conversation.
To talk about certain subjects, the other person needs to get thinking about them (questions like “what is your favorite music?” or “what is your type in people you are into?” are actually cognitively hard for many people to answer on the spot)
So as you can see, I agree with your advice, but I can break it down even further into the nuts and bolts of actually how to have a conversation that flows. I think about it at a much greater level of granularity because that is what has been useful for me (other people’s mileage might vary). All the stuff I mention, many people already do without being conscious of it. For people who experience conversation as a problem, this greater granularity might be helpful. I’m interested in taking what is intuitive to socially-skilled people, and breaking it down into pieces and articulating it, making it accessible for people who don’t currently have intuitive social skills.
For instance, I asked the question, what do you do when you end up meeting someone (e.g. from an online dating website)? Your answer was that you talk about yourself and listen to them talk about themselves and ask questions. But you skipped a step or two. A date doesn’t start in the middle of conversation. It starts with saying “hi” and a few pleasantries. How do you get from there, to people talking about themselves? That’s not an incredibly hard problem, but how do you do it in a strong way with minimum awkwardness, such as a long uncomfortable pause after pleasantries? Transitions between different types of conversation is a nontrivial problem for many people.
It’s this level of granularity that is lacking from conventional dating advice. Dating advice typically covers certain scenarios and stages, but doesn’t really discuss how to glue those pieces together and transition (e.g. when you are starting a first date, how do you go from exchanging pleasantries to starting a conversation that flows, in the minimum amount of steps and the minimum amount of awkwardness?)
I would recommend auditing a counseling class. My fiancee is studying to become a professional counselor, and has had at least one class on how to talk to people who might be reluctant to talk. She can transcend smalltalk with my relatives in just a few steps and have actual conversations with them, something I’d love to be able to do.
Great skill to have. If we can find a way to teach it to LW, that would be awesome. I’ve seen more women than men who could do it, but it’s definitely not gender-exclusive and not inborn.
I guess I would say that the algorithm is simple regardless of communication skills, but the effectiveness and pleasantness changes. i have a lot of social anxiety so I would find talking about myself on a first date (something I’ll hopefully never have to do again) to be very unpleasant. And yet, I know exactly how to do it in the sense that I know how to express thoughts verbally and I know what thoughts are “about myself.” I would be awkward and the woman would typically form an accurate opinion of me, and especially my lack of social skills, and conclude that she didn’t want a second date. This is the correct outcome.
I think that you are somewhat unfairly criticizing conventional dating advice because the goal of that advice is not your goal. The goal of my advice was not to create a high percentage of first dates that are “successful” and that lead to second dates or whatever. The goal of my advice was to allow both people to effectively determine how interested they are in the other person so that they accurately know if they want to have a second date.
I tend to think that the kind of advice you are looking for would make the filtering function of dating more difficult. A person who tends to make a conversation flow very well regardless of who it is with will always seem attractive and compatible on a first date. The other party will then have to spend more time and effort determining actual compatibility than they otherwise would. I am much more worried about a “false positive” on a date that leads to subsequent time and energy wasting dates than I am about “false negatives” in which compatible people can’t get past their communication shortcomings to see that they are actually made for each other. I just think that there are too many good options for most people (especially since the advent of online dating) to worry too much about false negatives. Everyone can find someone as long as they put some effort into searching and are honest about their status and who would be interested in them.
Funny, I think there are very few options and thus I’m willing to tolerate a lot of initial bumpiness in communications to see whether we’re ultimately compatible. To each his own. (I had a lot of communication problems early in life, and still do to a lesser extent, and that may be part of it too.)
If I take this as a statement meant to be strictly true, it rings false. It seems very unlikely that people would happen to occur in the proper proportions so that everyone would find someone. At least it seems there would be something like a 50% chance of there being an ‘odd man out’ even if everything else worked out perfectly.