[ Lessons for Interviewing & Dating ]
In economics, there's a concept called bad equilibrium. It's a strategy that all the players in the game can adopt and converge on, but it won't produce a desirable outcome for anyone. We decided to research this problem in the context of online dating, a prototypically perfect lab full of bad equilibrium.
First dates are all about strategies that both parties can agree to but which won't help them learn if the date was effective. Think of a first date: We try to express ourselves and learn about the other person, but not express ourselves too much or offend by being intrusive. We default to friendly over controversial, even at the risk of sounding dull. "We have so much in common," says one character in the movie Best in Show, exemplifying what first-date strategies yield. "We both love soup and snow peas, we love the outdoors, and talking and not talking. We could not talk or talk forever and still find things to not talk about."
It's easy to talk about our views on the weather or food. But while that may guarantee that we don't fail on this date, it does nothing to get us closer to success, as it provides us little useful information on whether we are a long-term romantic match.
In our research, we picked apart what we were hoping would be the juicy details of first introductions between potential matches. But what we found was a whole lot of bad equilibrium. Text analysis supported the idea that people like to maintain boring equilibrium at all costs. Whatever interesting things they may have had to say, they didn't say them, and instead presented themselves as utterly insipid in their written conversations. The dialogue was boring, consisting mainly of questions like:
We sensed a compulsion to avoid rocking the boat, and so we decided to push these hesitant daters overboard. So with a certain group of daters who agreed to the experiment, we limited the type of discussions that online daters could engage in. We literally stripped them of the right to ask anything they wanted to and assigned them a list from which they could select questions to ask.
The questions we chose had nothing to do with the how many siblings someone might have or if their favorite show was Mad Men. Instead, we made sure all of the questions were personally revealing, like:
How about those ice breakers!
What we did, essentially, is rig the market by imposing an artificial risk level that would help prevent a bad equilibrium. Daters had no choice but to ask questions generally considered "out of bounds" for a first date.
And their partners responded in kind, creating much livelier conversations than we had seen when daters came up with their own questions. Instead of talking about the World Cup or their favorite pie, they shared deeply felt fears or told the story of losing their virginity. Both senders and repliers reported that they were happier with the interaction.
We believe that restricting the market in such ways can get people to gravitate toward behaviors that are produce better results for everyone. (Remember, in dating, learning sooner that you're not compatible is a better result than wasting time being polite to each other.) More generally, this research suggests that some restricted marketplaces can yield more desirable outcomes. Maybe you can use this idea to energize your next meeting. Create questions that people must address, or topics that aren't allowed to help avoid bad equilibrium.
Where the Free Market Fails: Online Dating
In economics, there's a concept called bad equilibrium. It's a strategy that all the players in the game can adopt and converge on, but it won't produce a desirable outcome for anyone. We decided to research this problem in the context of online dating, a prototypically perfect lab full of bad equilibrium.
First dates are all about strategies that both parties can agree to but which won't help them learn if the date was effective. Think of a first date: We try to express ourselves and learn about the other person, but not express ourselves too much or offend by being intrusive. We default to friendly over controversial, even at the risk of sounding dull. "We have so much in common," says one character in the movie Best in Show, exemplifying what first-date strategies yield. "We both love soup and snow peas, we love the outdoors, and talking and not talking. We could not talk or talk forever and still find things to not talk about."
It's easy to talk about our views on the weather or food. But while that may guarantee that we don't fail on this date, it does nothing to get us closer to success, as it provides us little useful information on whether we are a long-term romantic match.
In our research, we picked apart what we were hoping would be the juicy details of first introductions between potential matches. But what we found was a whole lot of bad equilibrium. Text analysis supported the idea that people like to maintain boring equilibrium at all costs. Whatever interesting things they may have had to say, they didn't say them, and instead presented themselves as utterly insipid in their written conversations. The dialogue was boring, consisting mainly of questions like:
- Where did you go to college?
- What are your hobbies?
- What is your line of work?
We sensed a compulsion to avoid rocking the boat, and so we decided to push these hesitant daters overboard. So with a certain group of daters who agreed to the experiment, we limited the type of discussions that online daters could engage in. We literally stripped them of the right to ask anything they wanted to and assigned them a list from which they could select questions to ask.
The questions we chose had nothing to do with the how many siblings someone might have or if their favorite show was Mad Men. Instead, we made sure all of the questions were personally revealing, like:
- How many romantic partners have you had?
- When was your last breakup?
- Do you have any STDs?
- Have you ever broken someone's heart?
- How do you feel about abortion?
How about those ice breakers!
What we did, essentially, is rig the market by imposing an artificial risk level that would help prevent a bad equilibrium. Daters had no choice but to ask questions generally considered "out of bounds" for a first date.
And their partners responded in kind, creating much livelier conversations than we had seen when daters came up with their own questions. Instead of talking about the World Cup or their favorite pie, they shared deeply felt fears or told the story of losing their virginity. Both senders and repliers reported that they were happier with the interaction.
We believe that restricting the market in such ways can get people to gravitate toward behaviors that are produce better results for everyone. (Remember, in dating, learning sooner that you're not compatible is a better result than wasting time being polite to each other.) More generally, this research suggests that some restricted marketplaces can yield more desirable outcomes. Maybe you can use this idea to energize your next meeting. Create questions that people must address, or topics that aren't allowed to help avoid bad equilibrium.
By forcing people to step out of their comfort zone, risk tipping the relationship equilibria, we might ultimately gain more than if we just fall back on those tropes that are safe for everyone, and useful to no one.
********************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment