I believe the main issue is the bad matchmaking process.
I don’t think that’s likely. Compared to previous generations, modern matchmaking is orders of magnitude larger and more detailed than it was.
The main issue (IMO, as an outside view, having been married and glad of it for many years) is broken expectations of participants. Most young people seem to feel that they need to find the perfect partner out of millions, who’s a great fit for them and will somehow know it. Most DON’T seem to want to get to know a few dozen (at most) potential mates well enough to figure out how to change to match better, and how compatible they are in terms of communication and compromise.
As to your direct question, this kind of questionnaire-based matching has been around forever. AI doesn’t really change the basics, though chatbot-elicitation of personality traits may have promise. The problem is that people lie to themselves and others, and it gets Goodharted almost immediately, so loses much of it’s objectivity.
I don’t know how the “average number of dating partners before marriage” has changed over time, but I suspect it spiked massively in the internet era. Of course, a lot also depends on the threshold for “getting to know” someone, and whether that’s a first date or the point of exclusivity, or sex.
@Dagon Indulge me in a hypothetical. Let’s say the average person gets to know one new person a day (which is probably an exaggeration). 365 new people a year. half of them probably the wrong sex (182) 1⁄3 is the wrong age (120). 8⁄10 they don’t find attractive (24). 2⁄3 don’t like them back (6).
That’s 1 person every 2 months that you like and likes you back. And that’s even before you go an a date, and all the things that could mess that up.
Now imagine if you had 10 of those people every month. 10 people that you like, and like you back and want the same things as you, at least in theory.
I can’t imagine anyone not wanting to go on dates with compatible people they find attractive.
Now sure, that wouldn’t solve the psychological issues and traumas, or knowing to be a good partner, but at least people would be able to experiment and learn. I feel like now, people have kind of given up because it’s so hard to find good matches.
How can you learn to play the guitar if you only have access to it once a month?
365/year is probably a bit low for most people, and it’s bursty rather than continuous, but sure. I think I’d disagree with any model for which only the most attractive 20% are candidates, and where there’s a single point-in-time opportunity to date.
Almost everyone I know dated people they’d known for a while and NOT dated for some time before considering romance. Each candidate partner has a full life of their own, and their circumstances will change even as yours do.
I don’t think that’s likely. Compared to previous generations, modern matchmaking is orders of magnitude larger and more detailed than it was.
The main issue (IMO, as an outside view, having been married and glad of it for many years) is broken expectations of participants. Most young people seem to feel that they need to find the perfect partner out of millions, who’s a great fit for them and will somehow know it. Most DON’T seem to want to get to know a few dozen (at most) potential mates well enough to figure out how to change to match better, and how compatible they are in terms of communication and compromise.
As to your direct question, this kind of questionnaire-based matching has been around forever. AI doesn’t really change the basics, though chatbot-elicitation of personality traits may have promise. The problem is that people lie to themselves and others, and it gets Goodharted almost immediately, so loses much of it’s objectivity.
It takes getting to know more than a few dozen potential mates, at least for some people
I don’t know how the “average number of dating partners before marriage” has changed over time, but I suspect it spiked massively in the internet era. Of course, a lot also depends on the threshold for “getting to know” someone, and whether that’s a first date or the point of exclusivity, or sex.
I think plenty of guys would be willing to settle for less than perfect.
@Dagon Indulge me in a hypothetical. Let’s say the average person gets to know one new person a day (which is probably an exaggeration). 365 new people a year. half of them probably the wrong sex (182) 1⁄3 is the wrong age (120). 8⁄10 they don’t find attractive (24). 2⁄3 don’t like them back (6).
That’s 1 person every 2 months that you like and likes you back. And that’s even before you go an a date, and all the things that could mess that up.
Now imagine if you had 10 of those people every month. 10 people that you like, and like you back and want the same things as you, at least in theory.
I can’t imagine anyone not wanting to go on dates with compatible people they find attractive.
Now sure, that wouldn’t solve the psychological issues and traumas, or knowing to be a good partner, but at least people would be able to experiment and learn. I feel like now, people have kind of given up because it’s so hard to find good matches.
How can you learn to play the guitar if you only have access to it once a month?
365/year is probably a bit low for most people, and it’s bursty rather than continuous, but sure. I think I’d disagree with any model for which only the most attractive 20% are candidates, and where there’s a single point-in-time opportunity to date.
Almost everyone I know dated people they’d known for a while and NOT dated for some time before considering romance. Each candidate partner has a full life of their own, and their circumstances will change even as yours do.