Life dissected, for your voyueristic pleasure.

Monday, January 11, 2010

New and improved way of matchmaking

I have an idea. I foresee a matchmaking website that avoids subjective self-description by using a bullet-point list to ensure compatibility. It has been statistically proven that using the word "warm" in your personal ad will improve people's impressions of you. (I think I got this factoid from Freakonomics.) All these superfluous fluff needs to be eliminated, and we should pair people based on how compatible they are on the things that are indisputable. Here are a sample list of questions that every user in this proposed matchmaking site has to answer:
  1. Right side or left side of the bed?
  2. Dogs or cats?
  3. Kids or no kids?
With regards to point 2, my roommate and I have pretty compatible lifestyle habits, but we are fundamentally different in that she's a cat person and I'm a dog person. Now, if she were a potential partner, this might not be something that either of us is willing to compromise, so that's why it's very important to get these essential compatibility points out of the way first.

I am slightly inspired by the lifestyle questionnaire I had to fill out in order to best match me with a roommate.

Photobucket
So in the proposed matchmaking site, there should be a list of questions like these. The site can recommend most compatible partners according to your gender preference. This works like Flixster, y'know? Pairing people up based on how similar their movie ratings are? Alternatively, you can run through the list of questions and create a profile for your "ideal" partner, and the site will produce a list of people who most match that profile.

Isn't it ingenious? I think this way of matching people up will be extremely efficient. It will reduce the chances of shocking revelations like finding out that your partner brushes his teeth with appalling infrequency, or that she is a strict vegan.

Of course, this method of pairing people up takes the fun out of discovering personality quirks, but we get enough unpleasant surprises as it is.

No comments: