Social experiment in dating

[an1m3n00b]

For awhile now I've been single and trying various methods of being not single. You've probably guessed at this point that sex holds no real appeal to me; more often than not I find it disgusting. And as an introvert dating (IRL and online) is exhausting and frustrating, not fun. Moreover, online dating as an entity seems to be entirely a meat-market with pretty much everyone of both genders just looking for cheap sex. Suffice it to say that the conventional methods of finding 'love' just don't work for me. And I'm guessing I'm not alone; if there's any group that's dissatisfied it's probably the ones looking for an emotional relationship but not sex.

I've been tossing this idea around in my head for a while now in various forms. Something kinda struck me when I was watching the finale of Doctor Who (bear with me) the line something like "love is a promise", and I find it fits quite nicely with my personal beliefs and experiences on the matter. My theory therefore goes something like this "any two people who are committed can have a fulfilling emotional relationship". Combine this with my appreciation for textual communication, globalization and of course the scientific process and I come up with the following:

Pair any two individuals completely at random with respect only to gender preference (gender = mental not physical sex), have them promise to emotionally support the other for 90 days, and then have them communicate by textual means only - SMS, email, IM etc. Then after 90 days, have them complete a satisfaction and status survey.

Am I nuts?

[Sally]

You probably are not nuts, but I certainly wouldn't expect emotional support from a neo-Nazi just because they're the right gender. Who they are is important, and that's going to come through even if the only communication is "textual".

[Ficulnean]

Yes, I'd agree with the OP. Avoid basic differences that cannot be reconcliled. This is easily done with a "are you open to differing fundamental beliefs" question. But, pray tell, what would be the point of this? Also, some people want more than textual support. Maybe you're just proposing what would work well (very well I think) for you. Essentially, expect a wider range of void data than you're anticipating. And do some useful analysis of it.

[Certified Cake Decorator]

I agree with Sally, however, i think the outcome might be different if you paid the people.

That might be interesting as well?

[Ficulnean]

I agree with Sally, however, i think the outcome might be different if you paid the people.

That might be interesting as well?

Also, different categories like instant chat only, email chat only, and both. If we're recomending additions now.

Also, each group has X number of meetups (can last as long as they like as the dependent variable), with a control meet in person group. A really interesting one would also be Skype (add to my above two categories, and leave us with I think seven categories.

[an1m3n00b]

Yes, I'd agree with the OP. Avoid basic differences that cannot be reconcliled. This is easily done with a "are you open to differing fundamental beliefs" question. But, pray tell, what would be the point of this? Also, some people want more than textual support. Maybe you're just proposing what would work well (very well I think) for you. Essentially, expect a wider range of void data than you're anticipating. And do some useful analysis of it.

To be honest you're probably right, but what I'm proposing is more of a "relationship substitute feasibility study". I and a HUGE number of people have had bad luck with relationships, asexual or otherwise, but really, it's the loneliness that's a killer for me. I'm still holding out for Ms. Probably-doesnt-exist, but that shouldn't mean loneliness has to be the only alternative to love. I really actually do think it might work better with at least a few options "is into at least one of the things i'm into and is tolerant of my beliefs", but I'd hesitate to add too many lest it end up as the meat-market of online dating in general.

I agree with Sally, however, i think the outcome might be different if you paid the people.

That might be interesting as well?

I believe something like this exists. I remember hearing about this service where men paid women to pretend to be their girlfriend. It just sounds so unbelievably fake to me, although maybe I should try it before I knock it, who knows?

[Ficulnean]

Ah, then I don't think that 90 days is required. 40, for textual communication, max. For those busy people. It seems like a good idea.

[The Wreyck]

I would take part in this though more for fascination and experimentation than a need to fill an emptiness or loneliness on my part. I just think that the social sciences of such a project could reveal a lot. But in that respect as an experiment for science and learning, I really would rather keep the credentials to gender only. Because I want to see how willing people are to support one another whether we share interests and world views or not, simply to support each other as fellow human beings who thus automatically have the ability and right to have a chance at receiving our love and care and a part I each others lives, respect and understanding. I support a theory that relationships/friendships are formed by shared experiences, and such an experiment could likely give more support to my theory. I would also keep location out of the picture for the first 90 days of the relationship. I think seeing each other in person, especially early on creates an entirely different dynamic, and in a study you would want to keep things as equal as possible since only some people would actually want to meet IRL. But I think that it should not be limited textual communication. For many people such is difficult, and I think voice chatting would be very beneficial to such a tryout.

[Jarndyce]

I think it would be even more interesting and possibly more successful to pay (or otherwise dupe) two 'compatible' people to disagree and argue for 90 days. They'd have to see it through, so they would have to find a way to argue decently. They'd have to find things on which they disagree, which would force them to get to know one another quite well - what we dislike or disagree with is often more telling about our personality than what we do like.

Actually, to manage to disagree and argue for 90 days, the two people would have to cooperate to a higher degree than if they had to support one another for that period I suspect.

[lycanrising]

I think that sounds interesting.

You probably are not nuts, but I certainly wouldn't expect emotional support from a neo-Nazi just because they're the right gender. Who they are is important, and that's going to come through even if the only communication is "textual".

I agree that fundamental philosophy differences wouldn't go down well, but then again think of the context - if you were a racist and told that you may be speaking to someone black for the next 40 days, chances are you'd pass. Or you'd show your true colours early and that experiment could be terminated. Or you'd actually engage correctly and maybe something positive will come of it. All valid scenarios and all end fine.

Ah, then I don't think that 90 days is required. 40, for textual communication, max. For those busy people. It seems like a good idea.

I think 40 is a good number too.

One way to make the experiment more 'secure' is if people were told to download a separate messaging app where your phone is identified by a username or random string as opposed to phone number. That means that both parties retain the ability to end the experiment and not have any further contact.

I think it would be even more interesting and possibly more successful to pay (or otherwise dupe) two 'compatible' people to disagree and argue for 90 days. They'd have to see it through, so they would have to find a way to argue decently. They'd have to find things on which they disagree, which would force them to get to know one another quite well - what we dislike or disagree with is often more telling about our personality than what we do like.

Actually, to manage to disagree and argue for 90 days, the two people would have to cooperate to a higher degree than if they had to support one another for that period I suspect.

I don't necessarily agree. I think a 90 day argument would just be tiresome and end up with cycles of the same arguments leaving no-one feeling satisfied. I think the interesting thing about a 90 (40?) day supportive experiment is that it could demonstrate that actually most people are compatible with one another on an emotional level. Or at least capable of communicating at an emotional level.

[Jarndyce]

I think you're right, 90 days would be way too long. I stand by the idea though, perhaps for a fortnight, or some other shorter period.

[SorryNotSorry]

What the OP is proposing (a 90-day period of texting back and forth between potential partners to iron out uncompatibilities, if I understand it right) sounds a bit like the "interview dating" idea I had a few weeks back, a bit like speed dating except you sit down with the other person, each of you has a laundry list of what you're looking for in a partner, and essentially it's like a job interview, except you're interviewing each other for the "job" of SO.

The reasoning behind this is also to iron out incompatibilities right at the beginning in order to give a better shot at forming a relationship that has a better chance of holding together than the cold-approach methods. TTBOMK not even any of the expensive professional matchmakers offer anything like "interview dating". You'd pretty much have to start your own meetup group and offer it yourself.

[lycanrising]

What the OP is proposing (a 90-day period of texting back and forth between potential partners to iron out uncompatibilities, if I understand it right) sounds a bit like the "interview dating" idea I had a few weeks back, a bit like speed dating except you sit down with the other person, each of you has a laundry list of what you're looking for in a partner, and essentially it's like a job interview, except you're interviewing each other for the "job" of SO.

The reasoning behind this is also to iron out incompatibilities right at the beginning in order to give a better shot at forming a relationship that has a better chance of holding together than the cold-approach methods. TTBOMK not even any of the expensive professional matchmakers offer anything like "interview dating". You'd pretty much have to start your own meetup group and offer it yourself.

But I think the difficulty with interview dating is that people make up their minds relatively quickly about whether they're interested in pushing forward, that's why speed dating is so popular. If you sit down with someone and within the first few minutes realise that you wouldn't want to go on a date, then where does that leave you for the rest of the interview?

[SorryNotSorry]

What the OP is proposing (a 90-day period of texting back and forth between potential partners to iron out uncompatibilities, if I understand it right) sounds a bit like the "interview dating" idea I had a few weeks back, a bit like speed dating except you sit down with the other person, each of you has a laundry list of what you're looking for in a partner, and essentially it's like a job interview, except you're interviewing each other for the "job" of SO.

The reasoning behind this is also to iron out incompatibilities right at the beginning in order to give a better shot at forming a relationship that has a better chance of holding together than the cold-approach methods. TTBOMK not even any of the expensive professional matchmakers offer anything like "interview dating". You'd pretty much have to start your own meetup group and offer it yourself.

But I think the difficulty with interview dating is that people make up their minds relatively quickly about whether they're interested in pushing forward, that's why speed dating is so popular. If you sit down with someone and within the first few minutes realise that you wouldn't want to go on a date, then where does that leave you for the rest of the interview?

You could have the option of cutting the thing short... but even that would come after picking which other group members you'd want to interview. Totally unlike speed dating, in which random people are just hashed together---a very hit-or-miss approach.

[lycanrising]

You could have the option of cutting the thing short... but even that would come after picking which other group members you'd want to interview. Totally unlike speed dating, in which random people are just hashed together---a very hit-or-miss approach.

But at least in speed dating you know you're only talking for a short maximum. Cutting it short verbally is awkward and embarrassing. And yeah, it's hit and mostly miss but I appreciate that won't find love at first sight but it is a viable step to potential compatibility.

[Frigid Pink]

I and a HUGE number of people have had bad luck with relationships, asexual or otherwise, but really, it's the loneliness that's a killer for me. I'm still holding out for Ms. Probably-doesnt-exist, but that shouldn't mean loneliness has to be the only alternative to love. I really actually do think it might work better with at least a few options "is into at least one of the things i'm into and is tolerant of my beliefs", but I'd hesitate to add too many lest it end up as the meat-market of online dating in general.

I highly recommend this article: http://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/be-a-happy-single/.

If "loneliness" is your main issue, then I think it's best to find alternative ways to deal with that "loneliness" prior to getting involved with another person romantically.

Basically, I don't think it's healthy to depend on another person to "fix" or solve our problems, which includes "loneliness" and any other problem(s) we may have.

[PatheticGirl]

I agree with you. You are same as me.