My (mostly) eHarmony-Free Life

First of all - thanks for the kind letters that a lot of you have sent asking how things have been going for me since I left eHarmony.

To be honest - it's been a challenging transition period for me. But I'm still convinced that it's the right thing to do.

Sadly, I turned to eHarmony because no one in our local community has made any significant effort to bring Jewish singles together to meet. My pre-eHarmony (and occasional during-eH) efforts to get local Jewish organizations to take a more proactive stance have all been pled to deaf ears.

And, after eHarmony? Pretty much the same.

So, since no local organizations are willing to pick up the slack, I've been forced to do it myself.

It's a slow process, but, months later, my group seems to be building some steam. Not a lot - my mailing list only has about 30 people on it - but some.

But, in the end? It's just the right thing to do.

In the Jewish tradition, there's a kabbalistic concept called "Tikkun Olam". To oversimplify, it posits that the messiah isn't present, because the world is broken. And it's our responsibility to do our part to repair the world so that a messiah or messianic age can occur.

Now, whether you believe in mysticism or not - it does seem the right thing to do.

And, maybe, this is one little corner of the world that I can help to fix.

But don't cry for me, folks. I do have a double date this weekend....

PS. The "mostly" part? Okay, I didn't give up cold turkey. But I restricted my geography to the local area. Matches are so slow that I only check in on Free Communication weekends. Two have gone by without matches.

I'm fine with that.

Phase 3 revisited

Yeah, it's been a long "tomorrow". Sorry, folks. Busy life.

Moving on...

Rebuilding Phase 3

Again, I feel like most of the pre-written questions at this phase ARE important.

However, they are intimate. And most people don't like to talk about them until they get to know a person well.

And the answers create barriers, instead of helping couples discover their compatibilities.

Now, a lot of my wiser readers will point out, "People don't NEED to ask picky questions. In fact, eHarmony lets people write their own questions, if they want to."

And, yes, I think that self-written questions should remain an option.

However, when you provide inappropriate pre-first-date questions as your "stock" choices, it encourages people to write questions in a similar fashion.

So, is there a better alternative?

I think there is.

A long time ago, the emails that eHarmony used to notify people that they had a new match available contained some sentences that helped to demonstrate commonalities.

For example, it pointed out that people shared interests in travel. Or movies. Or valued their friendships.

Truth be told, I didn't like these emails that much, and was happy when eHarmony changed them. Alone, this data is too vague to create interest.

But, if they used this data to create question stems that encouraged people to describe things they may have in common... I can see something that might work well.

For example, if both people like travel, eHarmony could suggest stock questions like: "Describe the best vacation you've ever taken". Or, "What is your favorite vacation spot? Why is it your favorite?"

If relationships are important, ask them to describe them. Good questions might include, "Tell me about your best friend." Or, "Tell me about a quality that you and your best friends share."

And when people share interests in movies or books? Encourage people to talk about them.

Remember: The goal of matchmaking is to demonstrate commonalities - not to build walls.

eHarmony Communication - Revisited

As I mentioned in yesterday's article... the process of getting to know someone online should be fun.

However, as it stands, eHarmony's guided communication process... isn't.

Here's how I'd go about changing it.

Phase 1: Change "Closed Ended Questions" to, "Interested?"

eHarmony's "guided communication" starts with the process of asking "Closed ended" (multiple-choice) questions from a list.

And, unless you're prone to asking stupid questions, or giving stupid answers... it's a pretty benign beginning. A nice way for the timid to break the ice.

But, the questions are rarely useful. So, why not get rid of 'em?

Make "Phase One" simple. Have someone initiate.

Once initiated, the other person gets a notification. Only, instead of three stupid questions, they get one important one.

"_____ has read your profile, and is interested in talking with you. (Profile is displayed) Would you like to:

A) Talk further
B) Politely decline
C) Think about it."

Why make it more complicated than that?

They answered A? The ice is broken. Move on.

Must Haves/Can't Stands - A good idea, poorly executed

In the next phase of guided communication, couples are required to create a list of ten "Must Haves" and "Can't stands" from a multiple choice list.

And, during "Phase two" of guided communication, they are required to share those lists with each other.

I'll give credit to Dr. Warren on this one - the "Must Haves/Can't Stands" list isn't a bad idea. It's easy for someone to get caught up in the highs of early relationshiphood, and fail to realize that a relationship will, ultimately, lead to unhappiness. A list like this helps folks remember what's important... even when they're in a hormone rush.

And I'm quite sure that Dr. Warren would fight very hard to make sure that the Must Haves/Can't Stands list remains an integral part of the eHarmony process.

I respect his beliefs.

But, asking folks to share each other's lists?

In real life, did Dr. Warren actually encourage people to do this before they even met?

Don't get me wrong - intimate conversations should happen between couples. But they should take place when the attraction is established and comfort is present.

So, to tip our hats to Dr. Warren? Encourage folks to create their lists.

Remind them of their lists before the first date.

If eHarmony wanted to create guidance after the first date, they could encourage folks to exchange them after a few dates.

But, before the first date... sharing such a list creates antagonism.

And it can be a real attraction-killer.

I'll move on in tomorrow's article...

eHarmony's Biggest Flaw. (And how they can fix it.)

In my original blog, I've written a lot of advice on how guys can get better results from eHarmony.

And, although I've often been critical of some of their services, I've been pretty restrained in my criticism of the eHarmony system itself.

After all, my goal was to help guys do better on eHarmony. And telling folks that "Your failure is all eHarmony's fault" would prevent many guys from making changes that could lead to their happiness with the eHarmony service.

But, yes, I have one major criticism.

The problem is not the personality matching system. This is what makes eHarmony unique. And, in my experience, it does successfully narrow the field to folks that I stand a better chance of getting along with.

The problem is in what happens after the match is made. It's because eHarmony's guided communication system assumes that attraction is a left-brained activity, much like it's personality matching algorithm.

It's not.

As it stands, the guided communication process helps it's members come up with reasons to avoid meeting each other. Rather than helping it's members explore the commonalities that they may share.

And it encourages people to openly discuss topics that, in my opinion, can only be shared after a sense of attraction and basic comfort is established.

Bottom-line? It needs a major rewrite.

And, in my infinite generosity... I'll begin a draft of a new "Guided Communication System" in my next article.

Are geeks hot?

As I've often mentioned in eHarmony Cracked... I'm a a nerd.

I'm not socially inept, like the stereotypes... but, yes, when people get to know me, my varied and eccentric (and, some might say, geeky) interests will always come through to some degree.

And I've noticed an interesting thing.

A lot of women like it.

In fact, I've had some women privately confess (in the words of a former girlfriend's email), "You guys don't realize how hot that is."

And this has always fascinated me.

Taking my ego out of the game... yes, I suppose that it could be because I attract women who think that my latent geekiness is sexy. But I'm far from the only guy who's noticed this.

And it makes me wonder. Since the majority of eHarmony Cracked's readers were women, I wondered if some of the ladies out there would like to comment. Is "geek appeal" sexy to you? And, if so... what makes geeks sexy?

Is it the challenge of "discovering" a guy's closet nerdiness?

Of discovering new experiences?

The challenge of nurturing a man out of his bizarre little world?

The creativity these men can demonstrate in their relationships?

The feeling that they can be trusted not to stray?

I've heard all of these theories. And, in the end, I'm still not convinced.

So... ladies: Help me out. Can you explain it to me?

The new Auto Industry Ads

Okay, no more beating up on the auto industry. Promise!

( The first ad comes from Conservative Blogger. Source of the second ad is unknown. Click on the images for better views.)

Religulous? Eh...

For some reason, the recent movie "Religulous" seems to come up often in conversations with my friends.

And, yes, I think that says something about my social circle... but I'll leave that alone for now.

But, yes, I saw it. And I got a few laughs from the cheap shots at narrow-minded, brain-dead religious fundamentalism.

Now, is it a legitimate attack on religion?

As a non-atheist... I'd have to answer that with a solid, "No."

Unfortunately, the things that made this movie an effective comedy also made it ineffective as an argument against religion.

A serious discussion would have created a discussion with religious proponents who were the most capable of intelligent discourse. And, if you asked religious leaders where the very best theological minds ccould be found, I'm sure that none of them would have suggested interviewing the guy who plays Jesus Christ at "The Holyland Experience" theme park in Orlando, Florida.

So, no. We're not on fertile intellectual ground. Funny stuff? Sure. A source of cheap laughs? Why not.

But rhetorically? It's completely ineffective.

And, yes, in the final scenes, it finally sums up what I consider the "Radical Atheist" argument.

Essentially, that religion is, ultimately an irrational source of conflict. And war.

And, because of this, "Radical Atheists" feel that they need to convince others to abandon religion.

Okay, if I were an atheist (and I'm not), this might make me feel a little more empowered and self-righteous. But will it really advance world peace?

Let's assume that the first part of the radical atheist dogma is right, and that religion creates irrational and irresolvable differences among people.

I don't quite buy into this extreme, but, yes,religion does create differences. And this gets my "amateur psychologist" going.

The fact is, psychologists have long pointed out that differences can create conflict. One of the most famous experiments simply involved dividing children into arbitrary teams.

These teams can be divided by anything. Rational, or irrational. Religion. Eye color. Tosses of a coin. It doesn't matter.

But, yes, once the separation is in place, people on the same side tend to ally themselves against the "enemy".

But radical atheists aren't promoting world peace by preventing religion from starting. Clearly, they're too late to do that.

So, their efforts end up being spent on become a "third team".

Which, in itself creates another separation.

And another source of conflict.

And, to me, that seems counterproductive.

Is there a solution to these conflicts? Psychologists do have some insight into this as well.

When you're dealing with separated teams, it's best to find goals that everyone shares.

Are there common threads between groups that can be agreed upon?

Can mixed groups be formed to solve these problems?

This, in my mind, is what will ultimately reduce conflict among groups. Including religions.

And, if radical atheists really do want to work toward the goal of reducing interreligious violence, perhaps they should spend their efforts building bridges.

And not by denigrating "delusional" folks like myself.