people markets

Look at an online dating site - match.com, nerve.com, etc. - a search in google for "online dating" will yield lots. Think about what qualities are people trying to assess, what are the signals they are using to do so.

The world of online dating is a classic signaling system, in which personal essays and photos are the signals - but what are the qualities they are meant to represent? Drawing from the readings above, describe the process in terms of signaling.

here we go, delving into the nerve personals (and of course, not being distracted by the articles along the way)...

some immediate, self-reported input: age, sex, location, vital physical stats (size + color), personal vices, job, education, ethnicity, religion, relationship status, children status, sexual orientation, sexual intention, and traits desired in mate.

since all of the questionnaire kind of fields (age, ethnicity, children) are brainless to complete, with merely checking off of boxes or inputting an arbitrary number, there is relatively more room for deception within them. however, most of them could be crosschecked against a photograph (although, truth in a picture can also be easily malleable). however, simple stats like this are a natural way to run search queries and to more easily sort and categorize the lot.

depending on how choosy they are in describing their ideal mate, you could infer how selective (could be read as having high standards, fetishesque preferences, of unreachable status, or closemindedness) or open (could be read as tolerant, adventurous, or desperate) they are in the discernment of potential mates.

the alias and headline become the 'first impression' most personals browsers face in a list, so there's pressure to be insightful, eyecatching, or interest-piquing here. to pick a few examples, aliases include muchrandomness, thefinalerack, and laterz_13. without even looking at the profile or picture, one might infer some qualities of the posters, such as poetic or spontaneous, self-deprecating or modest, and fratboyish and partyloving, respectively. the headlines are also a great showcase for succinct humor ("i want a zebra...zelda looks lonely. i want a zebra.", profundity ("the storm starts when the drops start dropping"), slogan ("i've got places to go, people to see"), banality ("i like walks on the beach)", or wit ("Better than chocolate cake.").

the online activity ("last active ... ") indicator may be a good signal to see if the person is internet-savvy, or obsessive about checking up on their personals profile, or antisocially computer-bound, or a frequent reader of nerve.com, or even that someone else might be using their machine under their account. the signal of activity, although absolute, is ambiguous in its meaning and can be interpreted in differing ways, bad or good.

freeform essay topics include: Last great book I read:, Most humbling moment, Favorite on-screen sex scene, Celebrity I resemble most, Best or worst lie I've ever told, If I could be anywhere at the moment, Song or album that puts me in the mood, The five items I can't live without, Fill in the blanks:____ is sexy; ____ is sexier, In my bedroom, you'll find, Why you should get to know me, More about who I'm looking for.

as an atmospheric slant of taste, nerve.com tints everything with a tongue-in-cheek brashness of sexuality, with provocative profiles as de rigeur and more risqué sorts of writings. however, because of its design and slickness, nerve manages an attempt to showcase individuals as sexy, smart, and attractive as possible.

qualities i think are salient to display + signals utilized to publicly channel them:

appearance and attractiveness.
here, of course the photograph is a significant factor. however, images can be easily digitally altered, beautified, or even falsified by either identity (it's another person) or time (this was about 10 years and 20 pounds earlier). however, between a photograph (several together or a gallery are more convincing) and the physical statistics of hair color and height, one gets a pretty good idea of what someone's appearance looks like. the photograph becomes a powerful tool when one wields it not only like an album, but an artistic display. for example, this one guy's profile has three pictures: one traditional portrait-style which is clear and self-explanatory, one where he's doing a handstand in the outdoor wilderness which indicates his adventurous spirit, and a highly stylized and artsy-blurry-colorful group shot. not only do you get a pure physical presence, but also a personal representation of self.

sexual activity and history.
well, sexual orientation and history of children or past relationships would be a good start. flirty or suggestive answers to some of the essay questions might imply a more sexually forward perspective. however, i have a suspicion that many profiles who feel empowered and liberated to write witty, provocative things online might have some troubles or awkwardness channeling the same sexual energy in real life. i have a feeling though that none of the profilers on nerve.com are prudish or frigid, since nerve.com is such a sexually experimental website. this guy definitely is trying to put on the moves before the moves even started moving: "In my bedroom, you'll find Me, a big ass bed, and the stairway to heaven."

health, fitness.
photographs of people doing active stuff (participating in physically active things, wearing exercise clothing) or more physical indications (showing some skin, exposing muscles or curves, wearing body-conscious clothing, good skin) becomes a good signal for being healthy. also, writings about health habits (vegetarianism, gym adherence, going camping every fall) indicates levels of fitness. however, as brought up often, pictures can deceive (that sporty hunk in the photo might have turned muscle into fat after several seasons thereafter), or self-reported factoids might not be entirely true ("i go to the gym" could mean "i go to the gym about once a month").

genre of lifestyle. hobbies, interests.
this probably is the best quality reflected from the essay questions. between favourites in books, music, and movies, "items cant live without", and "if i could be anywhere," readers can form a personality between the lines. by mere cultural awareness, you can probably infer everything from religious adherence (he reports he's jewish, but his favorite meal is bacon and eggs) to political slants (favorite book: america by jon stewart) to artistic flavors (favorite music: rap-reggae) to unforgettable items ("wi-fi"). the package becomes even sweeter if the information is given in an individual style, through witty or poetic or nontraditional means.

education, intelligence.
although one can input past education and jobs (and past rhode scholarships), i believe the best indicator of intelligence is in correct spelling and grammar (or lack thereof), good presentation style, vocabulary usage, and poetic intrigue. not only are people looking for facts and figures in the profile, but also very much in the delivery of such goods. you might also be able to glean from certain books or lifestyles the person favors, war and peace over da vinci code.

more below... i'll finish shortly.

financial independence, resources.

family background, roots.

sensitivity, kindness.

self-confidence.

one thing that's interesting is the option to create multiple profiles on one account. you can transform into coffee casual, friends with benefits, sassy swinger, or marriage material in a simple switch of identity.

What are the costs of writing a profile - terms of effort? money (here are some notes on how pay sites impose useful costs)?

writing a profile is the single most difficult part of posting, due to the high cost of time and effort to create a public persona that is simultaneously attractive, unique, specific, accepting yet discerning, witty, approachable, and beating out the rivalries.

for a truly effectively written profile, one must sink much time and thought into it. the more intelligent or well-crafted a profile appears, a high-prestige individual has a much higher proclivity to reading or responding. the profiles that seem rushed, ill-thought, or simple indicate someone who failed to put enough time and effort into their writing. the quality given off is carelessness and thoughtlessness; if someone doesn't even care about their own online persona, why would they extend that to care for anyone else? profound, poetic, or prolific profiles, on the other hand, indicate intelligence, education, artistic craft, and patience. not only do readers get a better idea of who the writer is through mere Q's and A's, they can form much higher-level assessments from the profile's overall style or aura.

money may be a cost directly (pay sites) or indirectly (the time spent setting up and writing the profile is an opportunity cost for other activities). if sites require subscriptions or fees, this may be a good deterrent to fake profiles (spam) or casual users who are curious to see what's out there but who aren't willing to invest their own profile into the system. you also may be screening out those who can't financially afford such a service, married folks (since credit card statements might reveal truths), people with bad credit or who don't believe in plastic money, or commitment-phobics.

other sorts of costs include educational background (squaredating, for instance, only allows alumni from ivy league schools), in-the-know information (i would argue that nerve personals are a tad more obscure than match.com), or easy network accessibility. one might also desire to create a profile that differs from their real-life identity, either for reasons of appearing more attractive (putting the spin on one's job), doing it for fun (i'll try something new--buddhism!-- and see who i meet), or shielding their profile from being revealed from browsing friends and family.

What are the costs of including a photo? What is the function of the photo? Is physical appearance a signal or a quality - and is that different than its function in the face to face world?

the technical costs of posting a photo is (1) accessibility to a digital camera or a film camera + developed prints + scanner + software, (2) figuring out things like cropping, resizing, and resolution, and (3) color-correcting, removing red-eye, airbrushing, or more photoshop edits. for those without a digital camera (which is a relatively high monetary cost), step 1 might be a hassle to assemble all the materials. i personally think step 2 is the biggest pain, to resize and format for a certain context, which takes time and patience and a bit of computer memory. step 3 has a high learning curve, with those who are photoshop-savvy with definite advantage, and yet has the highest benefit since cleverly implemented photograph edits can alter one's appearance to be significantly more attractive.

within the context of the photograph itself, there are many costs within and without. (it's said that every little trivial detail within a fashion advertisement photograph is planned and intentional; absolutely nothing is a mistake.) in a photograph for a personals profile, the clothes, hair, makeup that are on the person may be expensive or exclusive or well-tailored; the setting may be somewhere exotic to indicate travel or outdoors to indicate adventurousness; being shown in a crowd of friends infers popularity and social activity; and background objects such as pets, cars, or bedroom tell more of personal life details. also, the photograph itself as medium of representation signfies plenty: an abstracted black-and-white off-center portrait screams "i'm a moody artist" while a bright-flash crammed-drunk-heads pic says "i love partying".

the function of the online photograph includes (1) indirectly showing access to image capture tools and software and knowledge to manipulate them, (2) physical appearance, (3) props (objects, people, or worn accessories) to illustrate lifestyle, prestige, or activities, (4) personality through representational style, and (5) with a gallery, showing different views or facets of the person.

here, i believe the strongest signal is not in the person's pure physical appearance but in the way that it's expressed to the viewers. the signal is how, not what. the mood of the photograph, the inclusions and exclusions, the moment that it's capturing... it's almost like discussing a piece of work at a museum. here, the artist is the profiler, and the viewer becomes the audience, guessing and judging what the artist is trying to express in his or her creation. because every photograph published includes an element of selection and craft, they should be interpreted as such.

this is slightly different from the real world, because an online photograph becomes a very specific framing of a person, a snapshot in which to represent an entire person. a lifestyle is boiled down to a handful of images; each one should express something very specific and significant. offline, you take in everything about the person at once; you get their physical appearance, voice, possessions, manners, environment, lunchbox, everything. the person has less control over what is and what is not perceived by others. there's more of a general context or aura perceived by taking all disparate elements together to form an impression that's more organic, variable, and comparable to others. online, the persona remains static and discrete; each online image therefore increases in its representational value.

What are the costs to the receivers? What are the assessment signals in these sites? What signals denote qualites mainly by convention?

if the dating site requires all users to have memberships (signing up, creating a profile) before viewing or responding, receivers first suffer the costs that all profilers do (taking time to write something attractive, posting a photo, paying a subscription, etc.). this might make them more educated on how to read profiles, i.e. knowing better how difficult it is to advertise oneself intelligently, what's entailed with selecting a photograph, and how easy it can be to twist certain facts.

a profiler's level of deception can vary, from lying about location (okay, so he really lives in wellesley, not boston proper) to sinful habits (maybe she imbibes a little more than to be classified as a social drinker) to relationship status (posting as a single when really in a committed relationship). therefore, the cost to the receiver can run shallow to deep, depending on the severity of lie coupled with the openness or forgiveness of the reciever. it may be a matter of inconvenience (say, the location), or disappointment (thinking someone is truly of a religious faith when they practically aren't), or vast deception (not knowing the other is polygamous). some online daters know to take everything with a grain of salt, aware of the ease of online deception, and use time as an indicator to prove or disprove certain assumptions; these people don't immediately invest much resources at the onset. however, receivers who may be a little more gullible or naive may invest much more resources (money, time, loveydovey thoughts) immediately; in this case, deception ("i knew he was too good to be true!") results in sunk costs, broken hearts, and in the worst cases, permanently altered lives (pregnancies, STDs, run-ins with the law, disownment, outcasting).

assessment signals: spelling, grammar, vocabulary, artistry, length and breadth of profile, timeliness of message responses, last online activity, lifespan of that particular profile, alias, headline. here, the qualities are much more cerebral, and a well-written profile is high-cost and relatively difficult to replicate if one does not own the qualities of intelligence and self-expression. timely responses indicate the person keeps good tabs on their profile and invests time into their dating identity as well as time to other dating candidates. as far as online activity + user lifespan goes, qualities inferred might range from obsessive to conscientious to experienced to newbie, but the costs to constantly log in to one's website account or to create a new user profile (especially on a pay site) remain high.

convention signals: self-reported data, photographs, self descriptions, testimonies. here, the cost to deceive are very low, since there is no good way to enforce a truthful description. most moderated sites only can screen for inappropriate obscenities, not white lies. photographs may or may not portray the actual user, and image editing is now easy and rampant. testimonies from other users may be helpful, but usually they're inside jokes, abnormally positive, or completely irrelevant.

What are some kinds of deception that could occur (if you can't think of any, trying searching for "online bad dates")? What mechanisms are in place now for minimizing this?

examples of deception can pretty much crop about anywhere. everything from the wrong body type to the wrong reported career to the wrong gender. someone can seem very gregarious and witty online, but translate into a shifty, socially awkward person in the flesh. a photograph can show someone quite attractive and surrounded by cool, fashionable things, yet offline the person can project a vastly different image without the artful cropping and high contrast filter. also, perhaps the profile isn't even written by the person at all; someone else is commissioned or requested to write, a la cyrano de bergerac, in the name of another. even worse, they could plagiarize from another user's attractive profile. i described some examples of deception on the receiver costs entry, but there are thousands of channels in which a wrong assumption or an effectively spun entry could lead to surprise or disappointment.

minimizing deception means increasing the cost for being dishonest while decreasing the cost for being honest. cost increases might include a subscription fee, lengthy lengthy profile inputs (like eharmony.com), harse penalties if caught plagiarizing or significantly misrespresenting onself, or a well-designed reputation system (such as greatboyfriends.com). decreasing the cost, or providing benefits, for truthful profiles includes perks for those selected to write dating blogs (nerve personals), more positive feedback from the community, and perhaps more tokens (lavalife.com) for emails or chats to reward successful dates or through a gift-giving mechanism.

Could information be shared among the participants? Would this be helpful? How could you redesign the system to allow for this? Think about the reputation systems we discussed in class. How would this impose costs on deception?

reputation systems! there could be testimonies from other people, such as on crush27 or thefacebook or greatboyfriends, but like in the reputation systems, the testimonies should be specific and focused on certain aspects of a person, rather than an overall assessment of positive or negative. perhaps the best testimonies would be from previous romantic partners, since they would have the best judgment on how the profiler really stacks up in a relationship, but then again, how could you fully trust the words of someone that was either rejected or the rejector of a past relationship? there odds of revenge or past grudges might be higher than normal. also, who's to enforce the truthfulness of the rater? statements like "he says he's 27 online but he's really 35, i peeked at his driver's license" are of different helpfulness than "he claims to be liberal but he's against gay marriage!" people aren't more subjective as when they're eying another person in a relationship setting.

i dont think it's altogether fair for a profiler to deceive online, but somehow i dont think it's fair either to have public displays of catty disappointments of another, of everyday human fallibility. maybe you could design something like references (such as degrees or friends on social networks) that someone could talk to or message to ask specific questions about a certain profiler. similar to references listed on a job application, you'd want to only recruit those references who are close, willing to help out, but also not a suspiciously close friend or family member. of course, these references could definitely string along the lies of deception, but crosschecking among separate sources might decrease the likelihood of this happening. this is also similar to asking favors on linked-in; people help out because they know that their friend will help out in later times. also, specific questions for references can glean more relevant information than blatant published public service announcements like "she doesn't know how to match her bags to shoes!"

How is dating similar or different from other types of "people markets"? Any employment situation is potentially such a market, as is the market for tennis partners, book club members, etc. The costs of deception differ in these cases, as do the structure of the market (are there repeated interactions? is information likely to be shared? what is the relationship among competitors? [Read Gates and Nissen for additional examples]

dating is such a complex system because people can be viciously strategic, possessive, deceptive, and altogether unmanagable in the mating game. there are different styles of relationships and intentions (short-term dating, marriage partners, one-night stands), to different attitudes and perspectives on dating, to knowledge and discretion on what to reveal and hide online and offline, immediately and with time. the social network is manipulated to faciliate (meeting people through people) as well as disciminate (competing against nearby rivals). and in general, people tend to seriously date one person at a time, so one someone is taken, they're off the market for any others.

[i'll use finding a singer for a band as the example to contrast with here.]

differing costs of deception: someone wanting a singer may deceive with their musicianship, technical proficiency, capital, bookings, performance facilities, and style/genre, but this may be crosschecked by sticking the guitarist's or drummer's name in google, for instance, to see what other projects they might have participated in, and quering what other sorts of existing bands they'd classify themselves similar to. musicianship can be verified from listening to a demo (which may be cleverly engineered in a way that a photograph can be edited), or a live set. however, the cost to motivation to start a band (very high in terms of time and money), collect band members who are all enthusiastic, and the artistic training involved are high enough that deception would remain relatively low. musicality and tonefulness might be easier to assess immediately than, say, gentlemanliness throughout a long-term relationship.

although both scenarios entail some sort of commitment, playing with a band remains an artistic project or collective, whereas dating someone branches out into all sorts of social ripples, such as adding to one's romantic history while having knowledge circle about friendship circles and social networks. one's performance in playing with a certain band might increase chances of playing with other groups or collaborating with other musicians for extended projects or one-time shows. a singer in one band probably would have the liberty to do other projects, with respect to leftover time and energy, but it wouldn't necessarily be a one-to-one relationship. also, i could see a scenario where the singer might take a hiatus from a band, but joining back together wouldn't be such a big deal. however, in relationships, "going back to him or her" signifies a huge shift in terms of forgiveness, vulnerability, change of judgment, etc. leaving a dating relationship indicates a lack of net positive benefits to continuing, and brands both parties with one more 'ex' notch.

as far as competition goes, wanted artists pretty much have the luxury of choice. in the case of bands needing lead singers, the singers probably can be more choosy, picking the band that could best reflect their talents and jibe with their style of expression. bands themselves might be competing for a common singer, although the competition would be more in tailoring themself to attract the singer rather than insulting the other parties (similar to scenario of several companies recruiting a common applicant). and i would argue that online dating works similarly; there isn't much in facilitating put-downs of rivals as there is over-accentuating one's own assets. if reputation systems were implemented in ways similar to ebay or social networking sites, perhaps negative ratings or put-downs would be incorporated into the system, but for now, since lowering the competition isn't an easy option, upping the self seems like the only direction for attraction to go.