Love is a many splendored thing! It is also a many irrational thing! Loving and leaving are the hobbies of many who simply love being in love perennially !! True love is divine and permanent ! No amount of hatred,derision or divisiveness will break up such love!! Such TRUE love existed between Lyla and Majnu!! Cheers.
2
For me at least as an older person there is a certain lack of urgency around creating relationships at least those passionate all consuming ones. I do not know whether it is good or bad but it sure releases a burden that I do not miss. Good luck to you all and thank you for sharing so deeply.
9
We live as part of a species that discriminates between particular arrangements of 'pockets of fat' and muscle. We can be pretty certain that over our history, this has even shaped our genetic heritage through 'pocket-packaging-selection'.
The bad news is that nature keeps us fooled by hiding flaws and surprises within the packages.
The good news (or not) is that we're rapidly approaching the point where at least the physical attributes of a prospective package can be manipulated to suit current spectrum of 'fat pocket' fads.
I would also note that the emergence of the 'independent woman' seems to have unleashed the 'dogs of female sexual preferences' which surprisingly seem to be quite similar to their male counterparts..........one learns something every day. Don't tell conservatives. It will drive them nuts!.......except, of course, for the more progressive, 'unleashed women' among them.
The bad news is that nature keeps us fooled by hiding flaws and surprises within the packages.
The good news (or not) is that we're rapidly approaching the point where at least the physical attributes of a prospective package can be manipulated to suit current spectrum of 'fat pocket' fads.
I would also note that the emergence of the 'independent woman' seems to have unleashed the 'dogs of female sexual preferences' which surprisingly seem to be quite similar to their male counterparts..........one learns something every day. Don't tell conservatives. It will drive them nuts!.......except, of course, for the more progressive, 'unleashed women' among them.
3
Maybe love is not on the wane, but enchantment is. As well, I'm guessing, as the willingness to say "This is it, for good." How else do you explain the use of "relationship" to mean "romance," as in, "Do you think this friendship will turn into a relationship?" Isn't friendship a relationship?
I may have only a short life remaining, but I don't think I'll ever hear a non-humorous popular song that goes "I'll Take Relationship."
I may have only a short life remaining, but I don't think I'll ever hear a non-humorous popular song that goes "I'll Take Relationship."
2
Yeah, a person's looks are actually not the primary component of good relationships, as simple observation of most marriages and relationships obviously attests. It's getting to know the totality of a person, over time. But many have married for financial reasons, say, or reasons not directly related to a persons' qualities.
Apply this to politics and social policy, Mr. Brooks. Are employees just costs for business, are people just customers to be utilized for profit? Are citizens just to be utilized as steps to power, or are they due some respect by those they elect to represent them? Are citizens ends in themselves, or something to be manipulated for another's ends?
Are our big $$$ political campaigns ways of getting to know the true intentions and character of candidates, or just their manufactured surfaces promoted by public relations? Will the relationship be mutually beneficial, or only one sided? Any deep thoughts on that, Mr. Brooks?
Apply this to politics and social policy, Mr. Brooks. Are employees just costs for business, are people just customers to be utilized for profit? Are citizens just to be utilized as steps to power, or are they due some respect by those they elect to represent them? Are citizens ends in themselves, or something to be manipulated for another's ends?
Are our big $$$ political campaigns ways of getting to know the true intentions and character of candidates, or just their manufactured surfaces promoted by public relations? Will the relationship be mutually beneficial, or only one sided? Any deep thoughts on that, Mr. Brooks?
3
DATING BEFORE AND AFTER THE ENCHANTMENT LEAP
On websites on which people date
targets are commodified,
The women whom the males select
must be aesthetically correct.
goddesses who’re godified
by nature ones with whom they’ll mate,
if they’ll agree, which will depend
on how the males appear to them,
though women are more often choosers
of men who are in looks the losers,
since they’re less likely to condemn
a man for looks that are low-end,
though when webseekers meet meet they must
both take a great enchantment leap,
and, enraptured, modify,
and thereby decommodify,
the candidates with whom they sleep
because of love and not mere lust.
[email protected]
On websites on which people date
targets are commodified,
The women whom the males select
must be aesthetically correct.
goddesses who’re godified
by nature ones with whom they’ll mate,
if they’ll agree, which will depend
on how the males appear to them,
though women are more often choosers
of men who are in looks the losers,
since they’re less likely to condemn
a man for looks that are low-end,
though when webseekers meet meet they must
both take a great enchantment leap,
and, enraptured, modify,
and thereby decommodify,
the candidates with whom they sleep
because of love and not mere lust.
[email protected]
1
Aahhhh, gemli, thank you for writing a comment that has elicited so many Brooks-as-Rorschach-blot replies, folks again projecting onto him and reading in his columns their own fantasies, fears, and phobias.
2
Thank you commentators for reminding me about the sorrows and struggles of being youn and creating relationships.
1
I will soon be 66 y/o. It's been 5 years since my husband died. Talking with my twin sister we both declared that even if Brad Pitt showed up at the door with a limousine we wouldn't have the energy to get up and go...sorry I have to wash my hair!
4 years ago when I was in NYC I saw many women wearing t-shirts that said "My third husband will be a dog!" "You had me at Woof!"
This week we had the State of the Union speech with a president who came out swinging...and Brooks is talking about OKCupid?
I can only guess that this website along with Tinder are matchmaking sites. People really think they can meet wonderful mates via the Internet? People meeting on the 'net for possible marriage? I know that In the bible belt Christian Mingle and Other Fish in the Sea are popular.
I wonder if you can maintain your entire relationship online? Have a website where you can get married...Think of the money you will save! With imagination you can get married on one of Jupiter's moons! Don't even have to move in together...just stay in your basement and keep sending each other stock pictures of a beautiful couple honey mooning in Hawai'i! Live in a resort in Lake Como Italy in a compound that looks EXACTLY like George Clooney's! More stock pictures for pregnancy, childbirth, infants growing into teenagers who are ALL accepted at private universities (Online of course) and go on to marry and have families just like you did!
Zero population growth. Equality=all classes.
4 years ago when I was in NYC I saw many women wearing t-shirts that said "My third husband will be a dog!" "You had me at Woof!"
This week we had the State of the Union speech with a president who came out swinging...and Brooks is talking about OKCupid?
I can only guess that this website along with Tinder are matchmaking sites. People really think they can meet wonderful mates via the Internet? People meeting on the 'net for possible marriage? I know that In the bible belt Christian Mingle and Other Fish in the Sea are popular.
I wonder if you can maintain your entire relationship online? Have a website where you can get married...Think of the money you will save! With imagination you can get married on one of Jupiter's moons! Don't even have to move in together...just stay in your basement and keep sending each other stock pictures of a beautiful couple honey mooning in Hawai'i! Live in a resort in Lake Como Italy in a compound that looks EXACTLY like George Clooney's! More stock pictures for pregnancy, childbirth, infants growing into teenagers who are ALL accepted at private universities (Online of course) and go on to marry and have families just like you did!
Zero population growth. Equality=all classes.
6
In a capitalist society we learn to quantify everything. Now we're quantifying potential life-mates. Lovely. At least someone's making money.
4
You heteros and your problems.
1
That anyone would take Rudders findings seriously reveals at best, ignorance, at worst a deep intellectual deficit. Perhaps a few conclusions are accurate across the board, like the power of physical attractiveness. After that the forming of conclusions based on the most puerile simplistic, non contextual questions calling for black and white responses posed in three or four multiple choice answers seemingly provided by inebriated teenagers is meaningless. The site in its entirety should be returned to the drawing board it is incredibly unsophisticated at every turn. That being said one learns to determine what is significant and what is not and then to decode the rest. The algorithms are so funky one can find more matches on your own than the site search results produce.
Anyone else reminded of the "menses" guy on Will & Grace? The cloying boyfriend who I'm sure would use words like fertile and enchantment and passionate right before he tries to awkwardly rub your shoulders or something?
Not that I want women who talk about mani-pedis or men who can't spell hooping (is that a basketball thing?), but there's just something wrong about these love columns. Politics I can deal with. This not so much.
Not that I want women who talk about mani-pedis or men who can't spell hooping (is that a basketball thing?), but there's just something wrong about these love columns. Politics I can deal with. This not so much.
3
I'm a senior citizen, male. I have had perhaps 4 or 5 deep, serious, "enchanted" relationships with women in my life, one after the other (plus a slew of lesser ones). Not only has each meaningful relationship been unique but each one was a total surprise to me, in that I could not have consciously predicted her arrival in my life. All of them pre-date on-line dating sites, but I find it ludicrous that anyone could actually fill out a form itemizing the qualities and characteristics required for their next relationship partner and then look only at these pre-defined candidates as possible mates.
Perhaps this is part of the 'vulnerability' David spoke of, an openness to the unexpected. And as for his qualifications to pen such an essay, David has always shown a deep and heartfelt interest in the social, emotional and moral issues that good citizens need to incorporate into their political decision-making. That's why I read his column and listen to him on NPR.
"What is Good, Phaedrus, and what is not Good… Do we need anyone to tell us these things?"
Perhaps this is part of the 'vulnerability' David spoke of, an openness to the unexpected. And as for his qualifications to pen such an essay, David has always shown a deep and heartfelt interest in the social, emotional and moral issues that good citizens need to incorporate into their political decision-making. That's why I read his column and listen to him on NPR.
"What is Good, Phaedrus, and what is not Good… Do we need anyone to tell us these things?"
20
First the piece on 'Partyism', then 'Meaning' and now this. I love you, David Brooks - Will you date me??
2
Online dating is exactly like meeting someone in a bar, plus a few pieces of info to get the convo started. It's neither the endpoint or the only part of a dating strategy. But it's a nice compliment to hoping you'll meet the one in real life by happenstance.
16
You can love, and love deeply, with someone you couldn't possibly marry or live with. Trust me on this. Moreover, being in love is not the same as loving, and certainly not necessarily congruent with desire. You can be intensely physically attracted to someone you despise.
This entire discussion, with a few exceptions, suffers from definition fog. Until we define our terms of what love is - a task at which the philosophers, poets, scientists, theologians, and just ordinary people have striven in vain for millennia - we will just be throwing around fine-sounding words.
The best statement I've ever read on love is in Carson McCullers' The Ballad of the Sad Café. I recommend reading the entire novella. But here is a link to the most significant and piercing passage:
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/952665-the-ballad-of-the-sad-caf-th...
This entire discussion, with a few exceptions, suffers from definition fog. Until we define our terms of what love is - a task at which the philosophers, poets, scientists, theologians, and just ordinary people have striven in vain for millennia - we will just be throwing around fine-sounding words.
The best statement I've ever read on love is in Carson McCullers' The Ballad of the Sad Café. I recommend reading the entire novella. But here is a link to the most significant and piercing passage:
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/952665-the-ballad-of-the-sad-caf-th...
5
ACW,
The brilliant theme of unrequited love, as only Carson McCullers' was able to write of it and at a young age. It is also a favorite of mine, and often brings to mind that in a pairing of souls, there is one who loves, and the other who lets him/her self be loved - there are rare occasions where two persons are reflecting each other in a mirror, and this is enchantment indeed.
When in a romantic frame of mind, it might also cause one to wonder whether it is better to love than to be loved. Perhaps in hindsight, having loved and been loved, it brings back tender thoughts. Glad you brought this up, and many thanks.
The brilliant theme of unrequited love, as only Carson McCullers' was able to write of it and at a young age. It is also a favorite of mine, and often brings to mind that in a pairing of souls, there is one who loves, and the other who lets him/her self be loved - there are rare occasions where two persons are reflecting each other in a mirror, and this is enchantment indeed.
When in a romantic frame of mind, it might also cause one to wonder whether it is better to love than to be loved. Perhaps in hindsight, having loved and been loved, it brings back tender thoughts. Glad you brought this up, and many thanks.
1
Does this man ever say anything interesting????
5
Keep reading what he has to say, and you may find the answer for yourself.
This is the most meaningless column I have read in the NYT yet! David, you certainly can find another subject on which to comment by reading the front page of your newspaper!
8
Sexuality, personality, adaptability, intellectuality:
These are what I suppose cupid matching is about, though it doesn't shock if I'm only 180 degrees in comparison to ye.
Seemingly qualities that are immeasurable, except subjectively/subconsciously in the perceptions of mutual beholders.
Videos are exchanged in the phenomenon, and digital & actual
conversations may distill those seemingly compatible.
Granted: it's better to try for "perfection" than not, although subsequent disappointment is inevitable, isn't it?
I've been married to one person since 1970, and it's doubtful
any screening process would have produced our hit.
And, if nuthin pseudo-scientific works, blind dating w/falling asleep
watching WHO"S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF? (it
happened, recalling Sandy Dennis) could work.
These are what I suppose cupid matching is about, though it doesn't shock if I'm only 180 degrees in comparison to ye.
Seemingly qualities that are immeasurable, except subjectively/subconsciously in the perceptions of mutual beholders.
Videos are exchanged in the phenomenon, and digital & actual
conversations may distill those seemingly compatible.
Granted: it's better to try for "perfection" than not, although subsequent disappointment is inevitable, isn't it?
I've been married to one person since 1970, and it's doubtful
any screening process would have produced our hit.
And, if nuthin pseudo-scientific works, blind dating w/falling asleep
watching WHO"S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF? (it
happened, recalling Sandy Dennis) could work.
1
There is no such thing as perfection to my knowledge, and even the statue of David has a chip on his shoulder. In the meantime, a pleasure to hear that your marriage took place in 1970 and wishing you many more years of domestic understanding, without any scientific studies in mind, or a sheep of mine called Virginia Woolf who persists in eating wild roses.
1
Don't these online services match shared interests? So, speaking of enchantment, what happens to "Corny as Kansas and Emile"? It would be interesting to input data from the greatest lovers and see if such services make a match. (David, are you getting married? "Devotion Leap" sounds like you are about to propose?)
@gemli
Part of the fun when reading a gemli comment is trying to find the paranoid anti-liberal allusions that he projects into David Brooks columns.
"Look he's wearing a blue shirt with a red tie! And over there look at the beginning of each paragraph they start with consonants and not vowels! And if you tape the column and listen to it backwards you can clearly hear Brooks saying Mfllugg Mccmffirgg which is conservative speak for me good rich you poor bad!
In many ways the weekly contrast between Brooks's clearheaded mature prose vs the emotional self congratulatory paranoia as reflected in the "me too/let's get em" gemli and commenter gang (that has all the vibe of a bunch of whooping schoolyard bullies beating down on a victim who can not respond) is reflective of the general debate between the conservatives/i.e. adults in this country and the new age of extended tantrum childhood known as liberalism.
Brooks's weekly topical choice to totally ignore the tantrum and march right on with clarity and maturity according to his individualistic agenda (to the extent that I can almost see the bemused look on his face) is instructive on how to deal with the new adult kids on both a micro and political level.
Part of the fun when reading a gemli comment is trying to find the paranoid anti-liberal allusions that he projects into David Brooks columns.
"Look he's wearing a blue shirt with a red tie! And over there look at the beginning of each paragraph they start with consonants and not vowels! And if you tape the column and listen to it backwards you can clearly hear Brooks saying Mfllugg Mccmffirgg which is conservative speak for me good rich you poor bad!
In many ways the weekly contrast between Brooks's clearheaded mature prose vs the emotional self congratulatory paranoia as reflected in the "me too/let's get em" gemli and commenter gang (that has all the vibe of a bunch of whooping schoolyard bullies beating down on a victim who can not respond) is reflective of the general debate between the conservatives/i.e. adults in this country and the new age of extended tantrum childhood known as liberalism.
Brooks's weekly topical choice to totally ignore the tantrum and march right on with clarity and maturity according to his individualistic agenda (to the extent that I can almost see the bemused look on his face) is instructive on how to deal with the new adult kids on both a micro and political level.
5
Glad this was not an essay when attending the joys, the joys of school, or our literature teacher would have taken a red pen and slashed it with 'Out of Subject'.
For the hell of it (pun intended!) I did the eHarmony questionnaire. It came back with no matches for me, presumably because I told the truth about my religious affiliation (none). This tickled me so much that I had a bumper sticker made (I usually hate them) saying "I was REJECTED by eHarmony!" It got me some dates.
10
I've done online dating. I've also done my share of offline dating. One thing I've learned is that with people I meet in real life, I have less to go on than people I meet online. In my experience, the odds are not particularly great when meeting somebody online, but they are somewhat better than when meeting somebody in real life.
It's very simple to explain too: Online, I know something other than how the person looks or speaks. I know something about what this person is interested in, how they write, whether they can spell, what kind of work they do, and so forth. I'm doing the same thing I'd be doing out on the town of sorting out who might be worth getting to know, but simply doing so in the comfort of my own home without wasting a lot of time and money on people I'd be incompatible with.
It's not perfect, but it's not the worst way to meet somebody. And yes, if you're looking for a hook-up rather than a relationship, you can find that online. But you could find that in a singles bar too. Online or offline has very little bearing on what turns into a lasting and positive relationship.
It's very simple to explain too: Online, I know something other than how the person looks or speaks. I know something about what this person is interested in, how they write, whether they can spell, what kind of work they do, and so forth. I'm doing the same thing I'd be doing out on the town of sorting out who might be worth getting to know, but simply doing so in the comfort of my own home without wasting a lot of time and money on people I'd be incompatible with.
It's not perfect, but it's not the worst way to meet somebody. And yes, if you're looking for a hook-up rather than a relationship, you can find that online. But you could find that in a singles bar too. Online or offline has very little bearing on what turns into a lasting and positive relationship.
7
In another century, a small cameo portrait was presented to the aspirant of a heart and as rule, this was an introductory step (here an interruption from an elegant British swan in Paris, having received a book I sent called the long fatal chase, while speaking on the phone). 'We're having a discussion on whether these romantic web-sites in America are helpful', I added, and she was curious. There's the singles bar too, mentioned as well, but we both, now widows, expressed reservations.
One of the most powerful encounters, between a young doctor and a barmaid. takes place in a London pub, as found in Maugham's 'Of Human Bondage'.
To cut to the red ribbon, online dating might also be considered as an 'introductory step' before venturing out to meet someone who tugs at one's heart strings, rather than taking a plunge over beer, and it is impossible for this person not to forget the infamous 'Looking for Mr. Goodbar' based on a true story many years ago, but when it comes to a lasting and positive relationship, and regardless of how one meets, that may be another tender story for another day.
One of the most powerful encounters, between a young doctor and a barmaid. takes place in a London pub, as found in Maugham's 'Of Human Bondage'.
To cut to the red ribbon, online dating might also be considered as an 'introductory step' before venturing out to meet someone who tugs at one's heart strings, rather than taking a plunge over beer, and it is impossible for this person not to forget the infamous 'Looking for Mr. Goodbar' based on a true story many years ago, but when it comes to a lasting and positive relationship, and regardless of how one meets, that may be another tender story for another day.
This all presumes that marriage is about love. In the successful ones, at least historically, it's not.
It's about advancing shared values, creating stability, bringing families together, and making a mutually beneficial financial arrangement.
It's about advancing shared values, creating stability, bringing families together, and making a mutually beneficial financial arrangement.
24
jenn has just made the most cogent argument possible for two things. I'm endorsing #1; #2, not endorsing, but saying, hm.
1. Marriage equality. As many before me have noted, marriage equality is deeply conventional and conservative.
2. Arranged marriages. It has been observed that marriage for love starts out with the swept-away pair enthralled by each others' pluses (often very superficial - 'hey, his favourite colour's blue, too!' - and no incentive to look for the high-dampening minuses. In an arranged marriage, however, you have every incentive to look for the positives in the person - that is, to grow to love them. Whereas when the novelty wears off and the first flush of rapture fades, you start falling out of love - sometimes very fast. Romeo and Juliet took less than a week from first dance to double suicide; they never faced any negatives except that imposed from outside by the feud. Juliet never had the chance to yell at Romeo for leaving the toilet seat up. or catch him sexting Rosaline. Whereas after 25 years, Tevye and Golde - 'the first time I met you was on our wedding day' - end up in love.
1. Marriage equality. As many before me have noted, marriage equality is deeply conventional and conservative.
2. Arranged marriages. It has been observed that marriage for love starts out with the swept-away pair enthralled by each others' pluses (often very superficial - 'hey, his favourite colour's blue, too!' - and no incentive to look for the high-dampening minuses. In an arranged marriage, however, you have every incentive to look for the positives in the person - that is, to grow to love them. Whereas when the novelty wears off and the first flush of rapture fades, you start falling out of love - sometimes very fast. Romeo and Juliet took less than a week from first dance to double suicide; they never faced any negatives except that imposed from outside by the feud. Juliet never had the chance to yell at Romeo for leaving the toilet seat up. or catch him sexting Rosaline. Whereas after 25 years, Tevye and Golde - 'the first time I met you was on our wedding day' - end up in love.
1
The current state of love in America?
Love is in a bad state in America. Supposing we set aside for a moment the obvious negative manifestation of love as "an obsessive desire, focus, on one person or thing" and simply consider it as one's, well, love for a person or art or aspect of life--what one really enjoys doing or the act of being with whom one wants to really be with--we still have love compromised by both the utilitarian and religious and experimental aspect of America.
The negative aspect of the utilitarian is obvious--a person is just a commodity, a tool to be used, etc. The religious should be obvious in its harm to love as well. Christianity is no friend of love; love worships where it will but Christianity dictates where one will love and what acts one should love. Christianity in America today apparently dictates that one should love one's opposite sex, God (whatever), guns, country, money and avoid things which are rather unproductive like art and literature--essentially adore where WE say you should adore. History of religion really.
And then there is the experimental nature of America, the mixing and matching of sexes every which way or whether one should have a single relationship at all...Hard really to even understand what love is in America. First it seems one needs a crash course in knowing oneself. The only safe course seems to be try not to harm anyone, including yourself, too much. After that, wide open country of learning about self and life.
Love is in a bad state in America. Supposing we set aside for a moment the obvious negative manifestation of love as "an obsessive desire, focus, on one person or thing" and simply consider it as one's, well, love for a person or art or aspect of life--what one really enjoys doing or the act of being with whom one wants to really be with--we still have love compromised by both the utilitarian and religious and experimental aspect of America.
The negative aspect of the utilitarian is obvious--a person is just a commodity, a tool to be used, etc. The religious should be obvious in its harm to love as well. Christianity is no friend of love; love worships where it will but Christianity dictates where one will love and what acts one should love. Christianity in America today apparently dictates that one should love one's opposite sex, God (whatever), guns, country, money and avoid things which are rather unproductive like art and literature--essentially adore where WE say you should adore. History of religion really.
And then there is the experimental nature of America, the mixing and matching of sexes every which way or whether one should have a single relationship at all...Hard really to even understand what love is in America. First it seems one needs a crash course in knowing oneself. The only safe course seems to be try not to harm anyone, including yourself, too much. After that, wide open country of learning about self and life.
1
Brooks has served up his usual dose of pop psychology that generally follows on the heals of some conservative critique of Obama, the Democrats or liberals in general. I'm not sure what the point is perhaps other than too soften the reader for his next political jab.
5
I wonder not how many people find love from the dating sites, but how many stay together?
Many years ago in school I remember reading an abstract of someone's doctoral work. That work showed that people that met in "highly romantic" situations stayed together as a couple in far higher percentages than any other types of initial meeting.
I do not see that online dating is anything close to a highly romantic situation.
Of course I am biased. My girl and I have been together since 1982 when we met by chance in a train station in a far away land from our homes in the USA.
Many years ago in school I remember reading an abstract of someone's doctoral work. That work showed that people that met in "highly romantic" situations stayed together as a couple in far higher percentages than any other types of initial meeting.
I do not see that online dating is anything close to a highly romantic situation.
Of course I am biased. My girl and I have been together since 1982 when we met by chance in a train station in a far away land from our homes in the USA.
3
The fact women rate men lower on the attractiveness scale then men rate women may just reflect the natural consequences of a historically male dominated world. Men's preference for attractive women made this group more likely took reproduce and genetics took us from there. In a parallel universe, with gender equality, the guys might actually be good looking too.
3
In love, of course, the shift starts with vulnerability, not calculation. [Lovers] move from selfishness to service, from prudent...to poetic thinking, from...selection to...need, from... conscious thinking to... brilliant emotions.
"Of course!!"
1. See CS Lewis, "Four Loves"--actually five Greek words/concepts translatable by "love"-- Philia (friendship), Eros (sexual desire), Storge (parental care), Agape (charitable care), Imeros (intense liking for whatever--e.g loving ice cream etc.) All are variations on care--desires to benefit and/or protect from harm ("don't let the ice cream melt!").
2. Benefit/harm have many variations. And many degrees of "selfiness" and "otherness"--from extreme self regard (psychopaths) to extreme other regard (self sacrifice).
3. Most "loves" blend self and other. Even normal (!) sexual desire (demeaned as physical vs spiritual and selfish vs altruistic) is more spiritual and altruistic than Christian detractors (Augustine, Aquinas) realized. It's the desire to (a) please and to (b) be pleased AND (c) to please by being pleased.
The desires to (a) make the other feel good; (b) let other to make you feel good; (c) make the other feel good about making you feel good (explaining faked orgasms).
Even parental love is special care for your kids. Charitable care presumes relations of superior/inferior--recipients make benefactors feel superiority. Real friendship needs a rough equality for co-operative activities.
"Of course!!"
1. See CS Lewis, "Four Loves"--actually five Greek words/concepts translatable by "love"-- Philia (friendship), Eros (sexual desire), Storge (parental care), Agape (charitable care), Imeros (intense liking for whatever--e.g loving ice cream etc.) All are variations on care--desires to benefit and/or protect from harm ("don't let the ice cream melt!").
2. Benefit/harm have many variations. And many degrees of "selfiness" and "otherness"--from extreme self regard (psychopaths) to extreme other regard (self sacrifice).
3. Most "loves" blend self and other. Even normal (!) sexual desire (demeaned as physical vs spiritual and selfish vs altruistic) is more spiritual and altruistic than Christian detractors (Augustine, Aquinas) realized. It's the desire to (a) please and to (b) be pleased AND (c) to please by being pleased.
The desires to (a) make the other feel good; (b) let other to make you feel good; (c) make the other feel good about making you feel good (explaining faked orgasms).
Even parental love is special care for your kids. Charitable care presumes relations of superior/inferior--recipients make benefactors feel superiority. Real friendship needs a rough equality for co-operative activities.
2
According to Lewis, mere sexual desire is Venus and not a love. Eros is the kind of love that lovers are "in."
Also, Storge (what Lewis calls Affection) is family love, not just parental care. It can occur between parents and children in both directions, between siblings, between extended kin, even between a cat and a dog. Storge can even replace Eros as couples age.
1
Online dating is one of the reasons I gave up on dating anyone for the past two years. I have nothing good to say about it. And Mr. Brooks is completely correct. Romance is dead. That's why I prefer to be alone. Alone at least I can dream, without having my heart and soul truly stomped on. My worst fear is not to be alone but to become as soulless as the people who do online dating.
1
Not Mark Schaeffer...his ex actually. Oh...I am sorry your Online dating experience was so bad you have given up. I am so naive and romantic I keep going back to it...though my online dating experiences have been bad too.
But I met Mark, my ex. online...and our first meeting was a disaster. But I got to know him and grew to like him. He drew my heart when he paid for my car repair when we were just friends and I was sort of using him for rides. :)) He paid for an expensive car repair without me asking for it. I jokingly said, "Thanks for paying. But you did not have to do that. And I want you to know I do not sleep with men for that kind of money. I expect a lot more!"...Mark, the socially clumsy nerd he was, actually looked sad and said, "I am not that kind of a man!". I had to kiss him on his cheek and say, "That was a joke sweetie.", He fell head over heels in love with me, and I found him to be a loving guy that I "grew to love". Our marriage was like an arranged marriage...where love and passion came later. If he had not been seriously affected by a terrible neurodegenerative illness we'd be still married. and would have had some beautiful smart kids. I was his caregiver for a short time, and a rotten one at that. Though Mark will deny that graciously. Online marriage can happen. I am banking on it for my second marriage. And this time I am paying for the guy's repair to sleep with him. Ha, ha ,ha...:))
But I met Mark, my ex. online...and our first meeting was a disaster. But I got to know him and grew to like him. He drew my heart when he paid for my car repair when we were just friends and I was sort of using him for rides. :)) He paid for an expensive car repair without me asking for it. I jokingly said, "Thanks for paying. But you did not have to do that. And I want you to know I do not sleep with men for that kind of money. I expect a lot more!"...Mark, the socially clumsy nerd he was, actually looked sad and said, "I am not that kind of a man!". I had to kiss him on his cheek and say, "That was a joke sweetie.", He fell head over heels in love with me, and I found him to be a loving guy that I "grew to love". Our marriage was like an arranged marriage...where love and passion came later. If he had not been seriously affected by a terrible neurodegenerative illness we'd be still married. and would have had some beautiful smart kids. I was his caregiver for a short time, and a rotten one at that. Though Mark will deny that graciously. Online marriage can happen. I am banking on it for my second marriage. And this time I am paying for the guy's repair to sleep with him. Ha, ha ,ha...:))
1
Finding someone on a dating site is more efficient than a blind date. You have a huge selection, not just your best friends cousin. You get to have some input into who you choose and you can say no without hurting your friends feelings.
After that it still comes down to pheromones released or not upon meeting in person. Same old same old.
After that it still comes down to pheromones released or not upon meeting in person. Same old same old.
2
It is fascinating watching a man evolve before our eyes. While many in his generation found out much of what he has been exploring during the tail end of hippy, David is discovering it now. I think he is re-evaluating his youth wasted on National Review and wishes he had been at Evergreen College or working as a trimmer in Humbolt or a ?. This could be 'growing a conscience despite bein g conservative
4
Amazing!. But I think when the phase is enchanting people automatically take the leap. But It is the only question that lurks in my mind - How does one know when phase is vocational?
I was really excited about signing up for OKCupid. But then my wife caught me typing. Seriously I can't comment from a woman's perspective but I think the best place for a guy to troll (physically) is at the bars in the better steak houses.
Every one I eat at will usually have a ladies group (all divorced) at the bar; which one must traverse to get to the dining room. These attractive ladies - usually in late forties to early fifties - are doing their own form of trolling - eying all unescorted males and sometimes with a hungry eye. And even the males with a partner are not neglected by the scanning.
My theory for this phenomenon is that these women perceive steak house regulars as financially well off, high testosterone guys. So guys, forget OKCupid and get thee to Ruth's for action.
Every one I eat at will usually have a ladies group (all divorced) at the bar; which one must traverse to get to the dining room. These attractive ladies - usually in late forties to early fifties - are doing their own form of trolling - eying all unescorted males and sometimes with a hungry eye. And even the males with a partner are not neglected by the scanning.
My theory for this phenomenon is that these women perceive steak house regulars as financially well off, high testosterone guys. So guys, forget OKCupid and get thee to Ruth's for action.
14
Tom Paine,
Meet me this evening at Ruth's, and if you fork out your wallet for a filet mignon on my behalf, I may be willing to give you a very fine scanning by reading the lines in your hand and looking closely at your eyes.
Meet me this evening at Ruth's, and if you fork out your wallet for a filet mignon on my behalf, I may be willing to give you a very fine scanning by reading the lines in your hand and looking closely at your eyes.
3
Nothing on what Black women think of Asian, Latino or White man. An ABSOLUTELY nothing about what gay or lesbians think.
Really David. How eighties of you.
Really David. How eighties of you.
3
Do you really expect a straight white man to to write about these things when there are others with better firsthand experience?
1
I guess anything beats talking about the atrocities your political party is hoisting on average Americans, Mr. Brooks. That's okay - we're finding out from actual reliable sources and you will hear such an uproar it cannot be ignored.
4
Here, as usual, David Brooks is full of superficial and highly judgmental pronouncements on matters that he smugly rises above. I think it's well past time to accept social networks as a fact of life and move on to more profound questions.
I know numerous couples who have found their soul mates online. And I know many more couples whose relationships have failed, having met the old-fashioned way.
I know numerous couples who have found their soul mates online. And I know many more couples whose relationships have failed, having met the old-fashioned way.
12
Don't judge a book by it's cover--in politics and on dating sites. Read the fine print behind the billboard, read the legal terms of agreement that is ussually skipped. In this quick, consumable culture we gravitate toward surface rather than substance, and we get burned. That may be the lesson for this age. What is behind the curtain? It reminds me of Piggy in Lord of the Flies. He is the smartest, always has sound ideas, but gets denied a leadership role because of his looks. Jack, the good looking charismatic one, ends up ruling the island like a dictator.
8
I guess the data support the old adage that "men marry products and women marry projects"
5
Online dating certainly isn't an exact science but there are so many ways to improve your odds for success. For boomers in particular there's no better venue for meeting a potential life partner.
Online dating is popular for a reason. It works.
Online dating is popular for a reason. It works.
5
12 Step groups are popular, too. But their success rates hover around 5%.
Popularity is never a good performance measure.
Popularity is never a good performance measure.
3
"can we lower the boundaries between self and self. They have to stop thinking in individual terms and start feeling in rapport terms." Good column with astute observations. Wether it be religion, science, or the humanities, there is a longing to be guided by "a power greater than yourself". The kindness of nature and it's great power is demonstrated, when it is given a chance but only then, to be experienced in the most familiar of things, like say sex. When sex is good, there is a point that comes when you are no longer directing it, but it is guiding you. If this can mature to the rest of the aspects of a relationship, than the relationship will grow into love. Not all physical attraction means that love is in the offering, but all love most have this aspect, as I have have said, it is for most of us, or can be, the beginning of participating in a "power greater than yourself." Therefore, the needs of society as the dominant factor in choosing partners, including your parents wishes, should never be the driving force in choice of partners. This shift begun with what was called, 'the meeting of the eye," kind of love, rather than an arranged marriage to solidify economic or political power. It is true this could fill the need for the transcendent through selfless duty, but it's day has passed, and the learning before us now is that of romantic love; let not an old fashioned conservative mindset, rooted in societal power, stop this flow. Let woman be free to chose!
1
My mother claimed that "God sits above and pairs beneath" (only she said it in Yiddish, and I think she used the expression, most often, with an air of exasperation; to wit, [throwing up her hands] "there's nothing I can do about this relationship; it's in the hands of a higher power.") Emily Dickinson says, "The soul selects her own society, and then shuts the door..." (and by that I think she means there is something mysterious about who pairs with whom, and it happens in a metaphysical way). Anyhow, attraction appears to be a mystery, evinced, I think best, by the story of Beauty and the Beast (and the many frog-prince iterations) which appeals to us on a subconscious level, bespeaking this curiosity...algorithms notwithstanding.
22
I'll go out on a limb, here, and say that perhaps people act differently in different social contexts and that statistics from one realm of behavior may not be valid in another.
It has long been known, for example, that well-behaved young men will act differently when they move away from the community they were raised in and go to another country to work as unskilled laborers. Or when they go to war in a foreign country. Or when they go off to college. Wonder why that is?
People who interact on the internet will behave differently when confronting real people. Maybe that's why they interact on the internet.
Maybe this is why Republicans are always stirring things up. People will behave differently when shouting than when thinking and calmly discussing issues. It's also like that on the news. Ever noticed that Martha Raditz is to "go-to" girl when things are getting hysterical. Her face says it all -- "Let's all panic and freak out!"
It has long been known, for example, that well-behaved young men will act differently when they move away from the community they were raised in and go to another country to work as unskilled laborers. Or when they go to war in a foreign country. Or when they go off to college. Wonder why that is?
People who interact on the internet will behave differently when confronting real people. Maybe that's why they interact on the internet.
Maybe this is why Republicans are always stirring things up. People will behave differently when shouting than when thinking and calmly discussing issues. It's also like that on the news. Ever noticed that Martha Raditz is to "go-to" girl when things are getting hysterical. Her face says it all -- "Let's all panic and freak out!"
3
i'm white and I find Black women attractive; my brother does too. We often wondered what influenced that. Our parents were first generation Polish and generally respected other nationalities, but preferred we hooked up with a Polish lady. We both married white ladies, but when we both divorced we each dated Black women and loved our respective partners. We never did marry twice.
My theory is that separate but equal was a family value -- sort of a Malcolm X perspective. We may have leaned towards MLK without realizing it.
My theory is that separate but equal was a family value -- sort of a Malcolm X perspective. We may have leaned towards MLK without realizing it.
4
Stop saying "enchantment".
That word is for fairy-tales and little girls' magical tea-parties (bleah).
Love is not a fairy-tale.
Neither is a relationship, a job, or even a "vocation".
And it certainly has nothing to do with what makes boot-camp grunts into a cohesive unit.
"Enchantment" is Audrey Hepburn & Gregory Peck in Rome, not real love.
Pick something else.
That word is for fairy-tales and little girls' magical tea-parties (bleah).
Love is not a fairy-tale.
Neither is a relationship, a job, or even a "vocation".
And it certainly has nothing to do with what makes boot-camp grunts into a cohesive unit.
"Enchantment" is Audrey Hepburn & Gregory Peck in Rome, not real love.
Pick something else.
5
Interesting piece.
Absolutely enthralling and highly entertaining reader comments.
Thank you all!
Absolutely enthralling and highly entertaining reader comments.
Thank you all!
2
And thank you, G. Sears! It helps to know about the temperature of love in a technological climate, and it appears to be blooming as always.
To G. Sears: Interestingly you are not hearing from all of us.
I wrote a response that was critical of this post and it is missing entirely. Not just buried, but not included at all. Apparently, responses are carefully controlled. If I had written some kind of hateful, crazy diatribe, it would make sense and be justified. It was not and I am not. Disappointing that a "real" debate is not allowed here.
I wrote a response that was critical of this post and it is missing entirely. Not just buried, but not included at all. Apparently, responses are carefully controlled. If I had written some kind of hateful, crazy diatribe, it would make sense and be justified. It was not and I am not. Disappointing that a "real" debate is not allowed here.
1
To sr:
Your poor dear.
Your poor dear.
1
Chemistry, which is the basis of enchantment, cannot be quantified. Bruno Bettelheim wrote a book, years ago, called The Uses of Enchantment. His subject is the children's fairy tales that (back in the day) most of us grew up with and the uses to which enchantment can be put. It's still very timely. Go back and read it. You will be glad you did.
2
The future of love?
I doubt there is much future for love. Which is to say I doubt in future if people will be expected to be in love to have relationships, children, good standing in life. Love seems to be--whatever else it is--an obsessive focus on one person which historically has been compromised by, among other things, people--especially men--desiring multiple relationships, and in the modern age is compromised by emphasis on intellect, which is to say not only on raw intellectual power but capacity to turn focus where one wishes at any time which of course diminishes uncontrolled, obsessive focus on one person.
Already for many people love is somewhat like American country music: A pack of cliches (right boots, deep voice, cowboy hat, God, guns, country) and after all that, a little music. This is not to say love will entirely die out--of course it will not die out. But it will become much more clear--perhaps even purified and allowed to finally really exist--when two people just want to be together and "love" is no longer necessary in a system to raise children, produce outstanding citizens. I just believe in the future children will really be cared for collectively, and trained, educated by a truly concerned public, and marriage, love, means of having children as we understand now will diminish. We improve means and results of production in all aspects of society and can expect the same in human relationships and production and training of children. What is love?
I doubt there is much future for love. Which is to say I doubt in future if people will be expected to be in love to have relationships, children, good standing in life. Love seems to be--whatever else it is--an obsessive focus on one person which historically has been compromised by, among other things, people--especially men--desiring multiple relationships, and in the modern age is compromised by emphasis on intellect, which is to say not only on raw intellectual power but capacity to turn focus where one wishes at any time which of course diminishes uncontrolled, obsessive focus on one person.
Already for many people love is somewhat like American country music: A pack of cliches (right boots, deep voice, cowboy hat, God, guns, country) and after all that, a little music. This is not to say love will entirely die out--of course it will not die out. But it will become much more clear--perhaps even purified and allowed to finally really exist--when two people just want to be together and "love" is no longer necessary in a system to raise children, produce outstanding citizens. I just believe in the future children will really be cared for collectively, and trained, educated by a truly concerned public, and marriage, love, means of having children as we understand now will diminish. We improve means and results of production in all aspects of society and can expect the same in human relationships and production and training of children. What is love?
In "Still Life With Woodpecker", Tom Robbins asks how to make love stay and suggests "Tell love you are going to Junior's Deli on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn to pick up a cheesecake, and if loves stays, it can have half. It will stay." as if love were a thing that can be persuaded by the right cheesecake or the right words in a dating profile.
In "Let Me Be Frank With You", Richard Ford, whose best fiction has been described as "regularly exploring the search for connection, for those silent intimacies that bridge human loneliness." observes "Love isn't a thing after all, but an endless series of single acts".
In "Let Me Be Frank With You", Richard Ford, whose best fiction has been described as "regularly exploring the search for connection, for those silent intimacies that bridge human loneliness." observes "Love isn't a thing after all, but an endless series of single acts".
20
True. Love is not a rock, something you have. It's clay. You have to keep reworking and reshaping it, every day. And if you stop, it hardens into a rock. And that's it.
2
The title of your op-ed is intriguing Mr. Brooks. It challenges the very nature of the angels path and whether love is coordinated. If a person is spiritually oriented and has a faith in a supreme being, the leap of faith is not difficult. Like a nimble feline, we will always land on our feet no matter the depth or height of the jump.
It reminds me of Psalm 86 from King James bible which is a prayer to the power of God by David. "Tried But Trusting: {A Prayer of David.} Bow down thine ear, O LORD, hear me: for I am poor and needy. Rejoice the soul of thy servant: for unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul. For great is thy mercy toward me: & thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell."
This biblical passage isn't poetic or particularly noteworthy except that it was composed by David in forfeiture of his ego and pride as he supplicates himself to the divine. Now the question is whether love in its divinity is predetermined or if their is some sort of intervention by a higher power. Without the belief in a soul or having faith, love becomes an act of self sacrifice to the sexes. When one is deeply religious, love, devotion & sacrifice are intertwined and attachment to someone a person becomes attracted to becomes a proof of one's faith.
Attraction is an interesting phenomena if one believes that there is a spirit beyond the boundaries of biology. The difference between mere biology & faith is the mystery of spirituality which is difficult to decipher from OK Cupid.
It reminds me of Psalm 86 from King James bible which is a prayer to the power of God by David. "Tried But Trusting: {A Prayer of David.} Bow down thine ear, O LORD, hear me: for I am poor and needy. Rejoice the soul of thy servant: for unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul. For great is thy mercy toward me: & thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell."
This biblical passage isn't poetic or particularly noteworthy except that it was composed by David in forfeiture of his ego and pride as he supplicates himself to the divine. Now the question is whether love in its divinity is predetermined or if their is some sort of intervention by a higher power. Without the belief in a soul or having faith, love becomes an act of self sacrifice to the sexes. When one is deeply religious, love, devotion & sacrifice are intertwined and attachment to someone a person becomes attracted to becomes a proof of one's faith.
Attraction is an interesting phenomena if one believes that there is a spirit beyond the boundaries of biology. The difference between mere biology & faith is the mystery of spirituality which is difficult to decipher from OK Cupid.
12
'mere biology ' is the most intense source of wonder and magic I have encountered. How can you say 'mere biology?' One good Botany or Zoology text book will teach you more about humans than any scripture, though I like reading scripture also.
2
I don't know for sure, but enchantment began with a chance encounter. Not the first time for either of us with another, but somehow different than all the others.
We've had 40 years now and the enchantment continues.
When the person you are with makes you want to be a better person, not like them, but because of them when you are together, then you may know all is right.
There's practicality too. Love more than doubles joy and can halve all sorrows. Look for that early on, and the enchantment.
Love does not favor device - neither implement, nor electronic.
We've had 40 years now and the enchantment continues.
When the person you are with makes you want to be a better person, not like them, but because of them when you are together, then you may know all is right.
There's practicality too. Love more than doubles joy and can halve all sorrows. Look for that early on, and the enchantment.
Love does not favor device - neither implement, nor electronic.
3
Some day some historian with a severe psychological methodology is going to use all your columns, Mr. Brooks, to write your story. I do feel like I am reading the meanderings of a man who is on the downside of a recent divorce.
I have several friends who meet their spouses first via an online dating service. Perhaps you tried it and found the "women have unforgiving eyes"? Don't give up, there is enchantment out there.
I have several friends who meet their spouses first via an online dating service. Perhaps you tried it and found the "women have unforgiving eyes"? Don't give up, there is enchantment out there.
2
These op-ed pieces are becoming a bit tedious: a long list of random findings in the latest social science "research, ending with a concluding paragraph that makes bizarre claims about culture, politics, happiness, sadness, character, etc. Mr. Brooks journey into social science research is amateurish, with little understanding of the deep methodological problems with the quantification of human behavior. That alone should put on lid on these types of articles, but those last Dr. Phil paragraphs are not the kind of standard I would expect from the NYT. I would strongly recommend that Mr. Brooks return to writing about politics in general and how conservative's think in particular---he knows something about these topics and helps do provide me with guidance how conservatives construct a worldview ---- as scary as that might be.
9
How about instead 'Love in Chilly Weather Grows Fonder with Emerging Hedge Funds'?
Malcolm Gladwell has written many popular books based on similar types of observations whether the science is as sound as he presents it or not. This is not a science column it's an Op-ed. People seem to be into this type of social observation so there's nothing wrong with writing about it especially since he quotes his sources.
1
With regard to the part on African-Americans being rated lower, in attractiveness: I note we assess how whites, Latinos, and Asians feel about blacks as prospective mates - but not how blacks feel about anyone. Big gaping data hole much?
If you did do a full comparison of all ethnic groups, I'm betting you'd find what I call the 'I want a girl just like the girl who married dear old dad' syndrome. Which could also be called the 'birds of a feather' syndrome. Blacks and Asians are more radically different in appearance from each other than whites or Hispanics are from Asians. I'll bet if you were to survey blacks, they'd find Hispanics more attractive than whites or Asians because as a group, they tend to be darker-skinned.
As Anita (Puerto Rican) sang in West Side Story: One of your own kind, stick to your own kind. Other things being equal - which, of course, they never are! - you will tend to be attracted to people who fit the template you formed in your earliest youth, which will reflect the people surrounding you. And although we like to say 'opposites attract', and maybe novelty does have its short-term charms, when it comes to the long haul, you're more likely to want someone who shares your basic life perceptions. (Not necessarily your ethnicity. I've had great rapport with superficially different people who had the same kind of family dynamic - dominated by one handicapped member - or the same kinds of traumatic experiences, or same literary and cultural interests.)
If you did do a full comparison of all ethnic groups, I'm betting you'd find what I call the 'I want a girl just like the girl who married dear old dad' syndrome. Which could also be called the 'birds of a feather' syndrome. Blacks and Asians are more radically different in appearance from each other than whites or Hispanics are from Asians. I'll bet if you were to survey blacks, they'd find Hispanics more attractive than whites or Asians because as a group, they tend to be darker-skinned.
As Anita (Puerto Rican) sang in West Side Story: One of your own kind, stick to your own kind. Other things being equal - which, of course, they never are! - you will tend to be attracted to people who fit the template you formed in your earliest youth, which will reflect the people surrounding you. And although we like to say 'opposites attract', and maybe novelty does have its short-term charms, when it comes to the long haul, you're more likely to want someone who shares your basic life perceptions. (Not necessarily your ethnicity. I've had great rapport with superficially different people who had the same kind of family dynamic - dominated by one handicapped member - or the same kinds of traumatic experiences, or same literary and cultural interests.)
1
We can judge on looks in other ways, too.
Intelligence and interesting are also part of our looks.
Intelligence and interesting are also part of our looks.
1
True, Charles, intelligence and interesting are part of our appearance, along with common sense too. 'If Claudia would sit quietly by her fire, bows and arrows out of sight, then sooner or later her prey would emerge like a unicorn, and place his head on her lap. Not only would she feel satisfaction but much of the urgency would go from her longing (naturally the hunter must be wearing the right perfume and not have a face like an oil-rig, but given that, this is good advice). Snapping teeth, gleaming claws and weapons alarm the timorous male - no one wishes to be devoured, particularly creatures who are by themselves, by nature, predatory'. From the late author Thomas who wanted to be a nun but married her publisher instead, and had more than five children. She's a wry wicked soul and a favorite quote of hers is 'Men love Women; Women love Children; and Children love Hamsters'.
1
The top 1% get half the attention. Check.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks can explain why that's a problem.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks can explain why that's a problem.
3
When your main interest is appearance it is important to see what their parents look like.With plastic surgery at an all time high, the child may not look like either one of you .
2
David's nicely chosen examples of enchantment with math and with vocation argue against a conclusion that it requires the humanities and religion for incubation. It may also be counter cultural only in the sense that it is always exceptional.
1
looking for love in the wrong place. Need to begin with eye contact.
3
The dating sites get things exactly backward.
Under normal circumstances you a drawn to someone first, get to like them by interacting, and then things progress from there.
In online dating, you get to know the person first, but only when you meet them (if you do) do you find out whether or not you are drawn to them.
The online dating experience is about as dehumanizing as it can get, as it reduces people to commodities to be picked up and discarded like any other consumer item. Many of the people on the sites are survivors of that special brutalization only a failed love affair can deliver, many are vulnerable and lonely. To be treated like objects only compounds their misery.
Under normal circumstances you a drawn to someone first, get to like them by interacting, and then things progress from there.
In online dating, you get to know the person first, but only when you meet them (if you do) do you find out whether or not you are drawn to them.
The online dating experience is about as dehumanizing as it can get, as it reduces people to commodities to be picked up and discarded like any other consumer item. Many of the people on the sites are survivors of that special brutalization only a failed love affair can deliver, many are vulnerable and lonely. To be treated like objects only compounds their misery.
3
I disagree.
Around 2 am in a midtown bar is about as dehumanizing as it gets...
Around 2 am in a midtown bar is about as dehumanizing as it gets...
4
When I want to buy a type of shoe, I prefer looking at lots of them from different companies ON LINE before I order one pair, and I still won't find they fit until I try them on. If they don't fit, I send them back....... But I don't try on shoes all over town to find some I like. That's a lot of gas and a lot of time. In the final analysis you know you have to MEET the person you want to date (duh) and possibly fall in love with. Then, and only then, will you 'fall in love'. The objective of on-line matching companies is to find people of the right general age, who are also interested in something possibly close to 'falling in love'. I don't think anyone is deluded enough to think that looking a picture and chatting on line IS 'falling in love'. It's just that walking around in the real world looking for that person is very very time consuming. This is a short cut.
7
There are no short cuts to finding someone. A short cut will only end up with both persons in pain. It takes time and even after marriage it takes more time. The marriage can't last unless both parties are willing to take time to be with and talk to one-another because it can only get better or worse, but can never remain the same.
1
The good ones are already taken. Online dating when you are middle aged especially is just a quicker, more comprehensive , efficient method for coming to that realization. I'd love to see a TV ad for an online dating service that came on and said "a quicker, less expensive way to find out that the good ones are already taken".
5
I'm reminded of an exchange from the movie {and possibly the book} "Fight Club"
Tyler Durden: My dad never went to college, so it was real important that I go.
Narrator: Sounds familiar.
Tyler Durden: So I graduate, I call him up long distance, I say "Dad, now what?" He says, "Get a job."
Narrator: Same here.
Tyler Durden: Now I'm 25, make my yearly call again. I say Dad, "Now what?" He says, "I don't know, get married."
Narrator: I can't get married, I'm a 30 year old boy.
Dating, as a strategic pursuit, seems to largely hinge on what is expected of you.
Tyler Durden: My dad never went to college, so it was real important that I go.
Narrator: Sounds familiar.
Tyler Durden: So I graduate, I call him up long distance, I say "Dad, now what?" He says, "Get a job."
Narrator: Same here.
Tyler Durden: Now I'm 25, make my yearly call again. I say Dad, "Now what?" He says, "I don't know, get married."
Narrator: I can't get married, I'm a 30 year old boy.
Dating, as a strategic pursuit, seems to largely hinge on what is expected of you.
2
Mr Brooks makes mountains by kicking over ant hills.
9
And sometimes they're fire-ant hills.
More and more often, Brooks' columns just wander around in sociology, with little data, much conjecture. The NYT columns should be a tad more focused on important information.
15
Why put down something interesting and relevant to millions of people?
3
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
Mr. Brooks picks online dating as indicative of something that has been lost in our culture. We have lost the enchantment of romance, the search for true love.
I am of an age with Mr. Brooks. I too was a liberal arts major. I remember long conversations with friends in college about what we knew were meaningful things. We read novels and listened to what we knew was important music and thought about how important culture was in our lives. Other students spent their time at frat parties, focused on looking good and finding someone to hook up with.
Today, there are still college students working on liberal arts degrees and having meaningful discussions. And there are others more interested in hooking up. These online dating sites are not an indication of a big change, just a different venue.
Mr. Brooks picks online dating as indicative of something that has been lost in our culture. We have lost the enchantment of romance, the search for true love.
I am of an age with Mr. Brooks. I too was a liberal arts major. I remember long conversations with friends in college about what we knew were meaningful things. We read novels and listened to what we knew was important music and thought about how important culture was in our lives. Other students spent their time at frat parties, focused on looking good and finding someone to hook up with.
Today, there are still college students working on liberal arts degrees and having meaningful discussions. And there are others more interested in hooking up. These online dating sites are not an indication of a big change, just a different venue.
4
Does OkCupid ask about the political leanings of their seekers? God forbid they line up opposing party members. That said, my reaction to this column is "So what?"
5
Males have dominated females in diverse cultural venues. But, women remain the gatekeepers. They (I believe) are more socially aware and have greater insight than men. This may be the result of being nominally being (at least) subservient to males.
There is a difference between the sexes (on average). If so, it may have been the result of a Darwinian evolution where women have adapted to the power and strength of males.
I have noted that no matter the "IQ," women can size up others they have never met before in minutes. Men often take days or weeks or longer to evaluate others in social situations.
E.g., I was with a woman for many years. Her knowledge of the world was zip-- but often she would do a "thumbs up or down" with speed and acuity. I, being a clinical psychologist would not realize... Well until much later. Go figure!
Looks matter and can lead to the "halo effect" -- where physical attractiveness impacts other far more important traits -- socially and in the business world. And, in this superficial and materialistic society, this effect becomes magnified.
As far as racial bias, of course, it is present. But compared to years ago, much has changed for the better. Just look in the streets of Manhattan and you will see many biracial couples walking hand in hand with a real degree of affection present. Even two decades ago: not so much.
If they actually meet, the most operative effect is if the "infatuation effect" takes hold. And, then...
There is a difference between the sexes (on average). If so, it may have been the result of a Darwinian evolution where women have adapted to the power and strength of males.
I have noted that no matter the "IQ," women can size up others they have never met before in minutes. Men often take days or weeks or longer to evaluate others in social situations.
E.g., I was with a woman for many years. Her knowledge of the world was zip-- but often she would do a "thumbs up or down" with speed and acuity. I, being a clinical psychologist would not realize... Well until much later. Go figure!
Looks matter and can lead to the "halo effect" -- where physical attractiveness impacts other far more important traits -- socially and in the business world. And, in this superficial and materialistic society, this effect becomes magnified.
As far as racial bias, of course, it is present. But compared to years ago, much has changed for the better. Just look in the streets of Manhattan and you will see many biracial couples walking hand in hand with a real degree of affection present. Even two decades ago: not so much.
If they actually meet, the most operative effect is if the "infatuation effect" takes hold. And, then...
3
And if the Infatuation Effect doesn't kick in at the first meeting, there's not much incentive to stick around and get to know someone better. Without that incentive it's goodbye forever. And both parties to the meeting know it.
But that's also true of personal ads and meeting someone at a party.
But that's also true of personal ads and meeting someone at a party.
2
"Miriam," Of course, you're right. As the pols say, 'I misspoke.' As I originally stated it's not the way I live my life.
1
I don't think you misspoke, David; I was just adding to what you said.
As for goodbye forever, that's just a general rule. I was once set up on a blind date for a man I was warned was "not the handsomest guy." And he wasn't, but I, at least saw enough in him for a brief friendship; what he saw in me may have been different.
As for goodbye forever, that's just a general rule. I was once set up on a blind date for a man I was warned was "not the handsomest guy." And he wasn't, but I, at least saw enough in him for a brief friendship; what he saw in me may have been different.
The main premise of this article rests on the underlying assumption that people are using dating services like OkCupid to find love or to find a long term relationship. While I don't have data, I think it more likely that they are hoping to hook up. If this is true, the focus on the superficial makes sense. And there is nothing new about hook ups.
4
Pleassse. Write about what you truly know about, not otherwise. Every dating site is different. Choose wisely. Know what you are looking for and say so. I tried only one site after a long-term, horrible marriage that I finally ended. I was looking for involved commitment. I didn't post my picture for months. I took the two-hour questionnaire, was amazed at how closely I matched many respondants. I went through lots of frustration, since many men don't know what they are looking for or how to communicate other than to complain. But I persisted over two years. I met face-to-face only five; I corresponded with over 50; only dated three for short periods of time. The person with similar desires finally appeared. It does happen. I did not expect anything much from the picture, yet in person he was more than a picture revealed. We have been together for eight years. Our strengths are our differences as well as our similarities. We never would have met without the dating site and as one of my friends said to me; we were separated by almost 200 miles. I am grateful for a way to meet someone who makes my life far better than I would be alone, though I don't have any problems being alone. David Brooks knows little about online dating--it is not dating; it is just the first step in meeting someone and yes the long questionnaire did weed out incompatible individuals. It was a positive.
13
"They pay ridiculous amounts of attention to things like looks, which have little bearing on whether a relationship will work."
David, that's why it's called dating.
David, that's why it's called dating.
3
Online pursuit of love is a result of failed social institutions. Engaging in church functions, living on-campus, and participating in common interest groups were once the effective venues for finding a mate.
Now, the venues for mate finding are the bar and the internet; seems appropriate for people who spend their time cruising the internet and working the dumb functions of the "smartphone".
Now, the venues for mate finding are the bar and the internet; seems appropriate for people who spend their time cruising the internet and working the dumb functions of the "smartphone".
People also have found mates through mutual friends, but that resource is only as good as your circle of friends and your friends' circles of friends.
1
This sweeping indictment of online dating, with its accompanying call for the cultivation of enchantment, and the downright sneaky insertion celebrating religion--carries the distinct sign of someone ready to find something wrong with online dating before he sat down to write. Internet dating is more straightforward than the data about it suggests. It's merely one of many ways where people meet people and the chance of finding someone you want to date is slim.
It's glib and mean of Mr. Brooks to dismiss people who go to online dating sites as "shopping for human beings." Is going to a party, a bar, or out on a blind date, not "shopping for human beings" as well? Granted, you can't experience the specific charm of a human being on the Internet. But discovering someone's charm always follows looking. When we go to a party and look around the room, our initial decision to approach a person is based on looks; only from there do we move on to charm, intelligence, humor, and, ultimately, falling in love.
The error here lies in linking romantic enchantment to other forms of enchantment, such as a student's enchantment with math or the feeling of belonging in the military. Unless, that is, Mr. Brooks is flogging, yet again, his tired theme about how human beings yearn for something beyond the self and their best bet is to turn to religion. Come to think of it, given his broad swipe at Internet dating, perhaps that's what's really going on here.
It's glib and mean of Mr. Brooks to dismiss people who go to online dating sites as "shopping for human beings." Is going to a party, a bar, or out on a blind date, not "shopping for human beings" as well? Granted, you can't experience the specific charm of a human being on the Internet. But discovering someone's charm always follows looking. When we go to a party and look around the room, our initial decision to approach a person is based on looks; only from there do we move on to charm, intelligence, humor, and, ultimately, falling in love.
The error here lies in linking romantic enchantment to other forms of enchantment, such as a student's enchantment with math or the feeling of belonging in the military. Unless, that is, Mr. Brooks is flogging, yet again, his tired theme about how human beings yearn for something beyond the self and their best bet is to turn to religion. Come to think of it, given his broad swipe at Internet dating, perhaps that's what's really going on here.
4
It seems to me that Mr. Brooks is promoting the pre-electronic good old days, when we could supposedly meet all our needs face to face. Wasn't true even then.
Religion is not the cure-all for matelessness. Where I used to work, the lunchroom TV had a commercial for a Christian dating service. One coworker snickered at the thought of yet another Christian thing.
I didn't have the presence of mind to answer him then, but I say this in true esprit de l'escalier: if you're a middle-class New Yorker outside the ethnic enclaves, devoted to your faith as your philosophy of life and not just as a cultural label, and your local congregation does not include any potential mates, it may be time to look farther afield. Dating services are one way to look farther afield.
And sometimes they work. A widower of my acquaintance (not very religious AFAIK) found his true love through online matchmaking.
Religion is not the cure-all for matelessness. Where I used to work, the lunchroom TV had a commercial for a Christian dating service. One coworker snickered at the thought of yet another Christian thing.
I didn't have the presence of mind to answer him then, but I say this in true esprit de l'escalier: if you're a middle-class New Yorker outside the ethnic enclaves, devoted to your faith as your philosophy of life and not just as a cultural label, and your local congregation does not include any potential mates, it may be time to look farther afield. Dating services are one way to look farther afield.
And sometimes they work. A widower of my acquaintance (not very religious AFAIK) found his true love through online matchmaking.
3
It worked for us! Now happily married. I think it really helped to have a search engine of people. We would not have met otherwise, and now I just can't imagine that.
6
Consider your comment recommended. I can't get the Recommend button to work.
1
Congratulations, Mr. Rotmil, and much happiness to Mrs. Rotmil. An important breakthrough that Cupid is well and alive in our times.
1
I think Mr. Brooks is overthinking things. For me, who did do online dating 5 years ago, the answer lies more in the numbers.
I think we judge more shallowly when the choices seem limitless. If you meet someone available, and attractive enough, in real life, and strike up a conversation, You're getting a first impression of that person all alone--not in competition with 300 other "profiles." With no other possibilities right then and there, you take the time to invest in this person. After all, there isn't a field of other possibilities waiting right behind him.
Social scientists have studied the impact of choices--and how many--people have when it comes to products, or even mates. I remember when I'd come home from Italy and get paralyzed at the choice of shampoos in a drug store competing for my attention--when back home in Milan, there were only two.
Too many choices, in products or potential love interests, can be paralyzing and, and, in the case of dating, demeaning. Before you can transition to love and devotion, you have to respect the person. Something you can't do unless you are one on one, with no options to yell 'next' if something doesn't immediately align.
I think we judge more shallowly when the choices seem limitless. If you meet someone available, and attractive enough, in real life, and strike up a conversation, You're getting a first impression of that person all alone--not in competition with 300 other "profiles." With no other possibilities right then and there, you take the time to invest in this person. After all, there isn't a field of other possibilities waiting right behind him.
Social scientists have studied the impact of choices--and how many--people have when it comes to products, or even mates. I remember when I'd come home from Italy and get paralyzed at the choice of shampoos in a drug store competing for my attention--when back home in Milan, there were only two.
Too many choices, in products or potential love interests, can be paralyzing and, and, in the case of dating, demeaning. Before you can transition to love and devotion, you have to respect the person. Something you can't do unless you are one on one, with no options to yell 'next' if something doesn't immediately align.
82
Please note, in the section on racial bias, that Brooks does not even bother to note the preferences of black women. Or black men, for that matter.
This guy....
This guy....
43
He wouldn't have a clue.
3
Oh my goodness, Mr. Brooks --- after writing earlier about the words of my father "there are many fish in the sea" ---- I just realized, something that was never discussed in the American Literature class I was in ----- Hemingway's, "Old Man and the Sea" ----- it was a girl! (the big fish that sunk his boat was a girl --- he ended up killing himself.) Please be careful girls and boys, always keep 51% of your heart for yourself. (yes, I know people say he was gay) Oh my goodness --- it is also a personal revelation, and now, I understand why I awoke after reading that book to find Hemingway on the line. (a very long story)
2
There used to be many fish in the sea. Overfishing and pollution have changed that. Maybe we need a new saying. "Lots of carbon in the air"?
7
Wow, the haters are out in full force on this one. He can't have an opinion on love and on-line dating without citing a randomized, controlled study as evidence? A lot of comments prove his larger point, which seems to have been lost in the haste to criticize: love (and vocation) require a commitment to something larger than oneself, which is the opposite of the "shopping" that is at the core of online dating -- and much else in our culture.
Why is that opinion so offensive?
Why is that opinion so offensive?
17
As someone who met my wife online, I have to add that the algorithms that mostly fail, do actually work. I never met anyone as perfect for me in so many little ways than my wife, many that I didn't even know mattered until we had children. It also allowed my wife who has a high prestige career to date and marry me, someone she would never have dated if a friend of hers said, "I know this great guy...but your friends won't find his career very cool."
In the end, it's not about how you meet someone, but what you're looking for, or mature enough to look for, from a relationship you are seeking.
In the end, it's not about how you meet someone, but what you're looking for, or mature enough to look for, from a relationship you are seeking.
85
How long y'all been together?
David is struggling with dating? This column is TMI.
1
Yes, "the devotion leap"
Three words: Surprised By Joy (C.S. Lewis)
Three words: Surprised By Joy (C.S. Lewis)
4
Yet I wonder how much any of this actually produces a superior life result. Saw a study once that indicated no significant difference in self reported satisfaction with the marriages of those who did so for love as is the Western norm and those whose couplings had been arranged by their families in traditional manner.
Which I suppose is because the success of any relationship depends upon a willing surrender of self to the interests of the union, whether you had been originally brought together by attraction or happenstance. To a degree, a marriage succeeds because the partners decide to conduct themselves in such a manner that makes it so. And, strangely, in so doing, that is when you really "love" your partner, because s/he becomes such a part of you that you cannot envisage life without her and therefore act in ways that we have come to define as loving. In which case, love is what you do, not what you feel.
I get the idea that mutual attraction provides the incentive to make that willing surrender to union. But I also wonder if the social expectation putting the onus on you that you will make a marriage work regardless of initial attraction would not produce similar result.
I would not wish to marry someone I did not love, but I wonder, human nature being what it is, if the Western paradigm of the earth shaking romantic love popularized in Hollywood just raises expectations beyond the feasible, leading us all to be too picky and actually militating against happiness.
Which I suppose is because the success of any relationship depends upon a willing surrender of self to the interests of the union, whether you had been originally brought together by attraction or happenstance. To a degree, a marriage succeeds because the partners decide to conduct themselves in such a manner that makes it so. And, strangely, in so doing, that is when you really "love" your partner, because s/he becomes such a part of you that you cannot envisage life without her and therefore act in ways that we have come to define as loving. In which case, love is what you do, not what you feel.
I get the idea that mutual attraction provides the incentive to make that willing surrender to union. But I also wonder if the social expectation putting the onus on you that you will make a marriage work regardless of initial attraction would not produce similar result.
I would not wish to marry someone I did not love, but I wonder, human nature being what it is, if the Western paradigm of the earth shaking romantic love popularized in Hollywood just raises expectations beyond the feasible, leading us all to be too picky and actually militating against happiness.
29
The concept of love espoused by Brooks here ignores the entire equation of relationship. A more fuller consideration is the tension between intimacy and anxieties that we all have and finding a person with whom we can modulate the inevitable need to move back and forth on the spectrum of intimacy/anxiety.
I've solved this at my OKCupid profile by adding some anxiety provoking elements that are also provocative and entertaining to the individual who would probably fall withing the range of intimacy and tolerance for anxiety that after a hard look at myself know in the long run will work for me over time.
I was approached by OKCupid when they were doing their experiments with more attractive people because for my age I am above average. I turned them down. It's not important to me. That said, the hits I get are mostly ignored being of the "you have beautiful eyes" or "call me" with a phone number variety. Why even bother? They are just typing with their nether regions.
If I were to say anything to guys here who want a response from good women, really say something about yourself, venture something when you respond to a profile. If it's well intended and you have chosen well, you will get a response. Choose poorly or not well intended, you'll get what is deserved: silence.
And note, we do wait for you to contact us. I know it's "the rule" but the power valences in today's culture do bear out that the other way around does not really work very well.
I've solved this at my OKCupid profile by adding some anxiety provoking elements that are also provocative and entertaining to the individual who would probably fall withing the range of intimacy and tolerance for anxiety that after a hard look at myself know in the long run will work for me over time.
I was approached by OKCupid when they were doing their experiments with more attractive people because for my age I am above average. I turned them down. It's not important to me. That said, the hits I get are mostly ignored being of the "you have beautiful eyes" or "call me" with a phone number variety. Why even bother? They are just typing with their nether regions.
If I were to say anything to guys here who want a response from good women, really say something about yourself, venture something when you respond to a profile. If it's well intended and you have chosen well, you will get a response. Choose poorly or not well intended, you'll get what is deserved: silence.
And note, we do wait for you to contact us. I know it's "the rule" but the power valences in today's culture do bear out that the other way around does not really work very well.
3
I guess, I am doing good, then --- I sent my girlfriend, my best friend since second grade, a Gandhi quote yesterday!
When I think about the men I have fallen in love with or became infatuated with, it was always something they said or did, and mostly what they knew. I, once, fell in love with a guy, watching him work a pair of tube cutters!
I was never looking, so looks are out. I just somehow, unfortunately, ended up needing something he had, and it's not what you are thinking. But, I do think, this is how we fall in love ---- we need something the other possesses and we are willing to offer anything to get it, hence, the sex act. And, I guess, the other side is happy to oblige, and before you know it, here comes "Happy to Oblige" with a baby carriage!
But, thank God, my father taught me at a very young age, "there are many fish in the sea." So, I've never had my heart broke, even though some tried to break it! I see these girls boo-hooing --- oh, Lord. I guess, I was born with enough of myself to take cover in such matters. Who knows?
I did once spend some time considering/wondering if we might be better off spending time with the one that needs us, rather than the one we need? Don't know?
Have fun, but I think those dating sites are like trying to choose a book by its cover ---- I guess you could read all the books. I have a mega-wealthy great uncle who did it all backwards, ----- he ended up marrying a gal from a house of ill repute!
When I think about the men I have fallen in love with or became infatuated with, it was always something they said or did, and mostly what they knew. I, once, fell in love with a guy, watching him work a pair of tube cutters!
I was never looking, so looks are out. I just somehow, unfortunately, ended up needing something he had, and it's not what you are thinking. But, I do think, this is how we fall in love ---- we need something the other possesses and we are willing to offer anything to get it, hence, the sex act. And, I guess, the other side is happy to oblige, and before you know it, here comes "Happy to Oblige" with a baby carriage!
But, thank God, my father taught me at a very young age, "there are many fish in the sea." So, I've never had my heart broke, even though some tried to break it! I see these girls boo-hooing --- oh, Lord. I guess, I was born with enough of myself to take cover in such matters. Who knows?
I did once spend some time considering/wondering if we might be better off spending time with the one that needs us, rather than the one we need? Don't know?
Have fun, but I think those dating sites are like trying to choose a book by its cover ---- I guess you could read all the books. I have a mega-wealthy great uncle who did it all backwards, ----- he ended up marrying a gal from a house of ill repute!
4
How did it work out for your uncle?
1
Well, they stayed married --- she died first, and he never remarried. So, I'm assuming there was enough love to keep the marriage afloat.
1
I'm not quite sure what David is saying here, except that he's perhaps subtly bragging that he once got a woman to date the homely guy. Every single species with eyes, including our great ape homo sapien selves, judges potential mates based on appearance. It's natural, by which I mean it's what happens in nature. For examples, see: peacocks, rutting impalas, and so on.
Perhaps what David is actually asking his readers to do is to behave unnaturally and settle for a less appealing mate. The enchantment leap is that moment when self-delusion overwhelms the senses we've evolved. Though, perhaps that's natural too -- it may be better to pass one's genetic legacy on combined with a less appealing mate than to not pass it on at all. The question then becomes "when is the optimal moment to give up?"
Perhaps what David is actually asking his readers to do is to behave unnaturally and settle for a less appealing mate. The enchantment leap is that moment when self-delusion overwhelms the senses we've evolved. Though, perhaps that's natural too -- it may be better to pass one's genetic legacy on combined with a less appealing mate than to not pass it on at all. The question then becomes "when is the optimal moment to give up?"
"Every single species with eyes" - presumably including species whose males and females come together for copulation only, and those for whom smell carries more meaning than sight?
Actually Dave, love can be broken down into physical attraction and subconscious responses to certain stimuli. Dating sites just don't go in depth enough. In our workaholic lives people are just trying to increase th eodds of finding a partner in between shifts.
2
"In between shifts" - that's the key phrase. Our gainful employment - which is both our means of survival and the current version of a dowry - is a poor means of finding a mate. What if the relationship doesn't work out and you still have to work with that person on a near-daily basis? Grrr.
1
Love, enchantment, devotion, the letting go of the self, all of what Mr Brooks is speaking, is indeed not only a countercultural act, but a revolutionary one. And it is being systematically breed out of the human race, as we quantify everything. When we eliminate recess and art in schools, when we make believe that any higher education makes a better worker, when apprenticeships no longer exist, when labor is considered at best a line item, when our understanding and compassion for others goes out the window, because life becomes only about money, all of this contributes to our collective inability to see the real, and we become increasingly unable to make that leap toward that revolutionary countercultural act of devotion to anything.
18
Laura, you succinctly described my secret fear of the current/future state of things. Couldn't agree more. Thank god I'm not a teenager.
1
I think you have a revelation here. As someone who has fought to protect wildlife and the environment my entire life, I find that one of the greatest hurdles is that nothing is held sacred anymore. Not mountains or rivers, not lakes or forests, not even bison, bears, or wolves. All just commodities to be exploited, or problems to be overcome that stand in the way to financial success. Business is business, but human relationships to each other and the earth are not business. When we entirely lose devotion to each other and all other living beings, we will soon cease to exist.
4
In pre-online dating times, one had to judge beyond the looks after a few meetings, or the meetings stopped if either party was serious about wanting to find the "right person" for eventual marriage.
It seems that today's young people aren't always looking for marriage partners but people they can have a "good time" with, and that good time covers more territory than it might have in my dinosaur dating days.
I think that the problem with enchantment is that it is so temporary. Enchantment isn't love but can turn into love once its given enough time. Equating enchantment with developing a love of math isn't quite the same when it involves people. Most math lovers don't fall out of enchantment. People who are enchanted too often do eventually.
Choosing by looks reminds me of the old adage that one should not judge a book by its cover. But if you are not a reader and only look at the cover and reject it because you think it too dark or too unattractive, then being a shallow person looking for another shallow person seems reasonable to me.
It seems that today's young people aren't always looking for marriage partners but people they can have a "good time" with, and that good time covers more territory than it might have in my dinosaur dating days.
I think that the problem with enchantment is that it is so temporary. Enchantment isn't love but can turn into love once its given enough time. Equating enchantment with developing a love of math isn't quite the same when it involves people. Most math lovers don't fall out of enchantment. People who are enchanted too often do eventually.
Choosing by looks reminds me of the old adage that one should not judge a book by its cover. But if you are not a reader and only look at the cover and reject it because you think it too dark or too unattractive, then being a shallow person looking for another shallow person seems reasonable to me.
5
"Capacity for enchantment" is a brilliant phrase and a brilliant concept. And I would agree completely that being involved in reading and music might be more effective at building that capacity than passive non-activities.
2
I can't say I know any of these services like eHarmony, OkCupid and Tinder first hand (really!) but I used to be a data worker - I guess I still am - so maybe some do have an algorithm but the gulf of the human psyche and mathematics is still a mysterious leap. As Pascal had said, the heart has its reason which reason doesn't understand.
The real question is this: do people going to these sites and apps have a specific mindset before they go or does the setup provide a set of conditions to make them behave a certain way.
The problem is objective observers may see the clienteles of these sites monolithic, only differentiate their cultural heritage. Is it really?
Perhaps these are just another avenue - like churches, civic activities, school mixers of old and even single bars - for people to meet, but they fit into our Zeitgeist and provide people with the illusion of safety,
It is true that vulnerability (or openness) is probably part of the equation of genuine love - the recent claim of making someone falling love with oneself with 38 questions does make sense - but vulnerability is not that simple either. Didn't Christine Brinkley fall love after a plane crash? Then what's next?
Ultimately, the chasing is fun, the moment intoxicating but eventually the two people need to grow together
The real question is this: do people going to these sites and apps have a specific mindset before they go or does the setup provide a set of conditions to make them behave a certain way.
The problem is objective observers may see the clienteles of these sites monolithic, only differentiate their cultural heritage. Is it really?
Perhaps these are just another avenue - like churches, civic activities, school mixers of old and even single bars - for people to meet, but they fit into our Zeitgeist and provide people with the illusion of safety,
It is true that vulnerability (or openness) is probably part of the equation of genuine love - the recent claim of making someone falling love with oneself with 38 questions does make sense - but vulnerability is not that simple either. Didn't Christine Brinkley fall love after a plane crash? Then what's next?
Ultimately, the chasing is fun, the moment intoxicating but eventually the two people need to grow together
1
I've been on an online dating site for over a year now. I'm a black woman but the majority of the men are non-black..actually mostly white French men. I had thought that French men have a thing for black women (more so than white American men). Perhaps it's because I made it very clear that " I am looking for love and not for an occasional casual sex. Skirt-chasers should abstain."
Perhaps because I put out a selfie rather than my best photo forward? Or, perhaps, like David noted, "racial bias is prevalent." Either way, I'm still hopeful.
Thanks David, for an enlightening article....
A plug: I am a very nice, loving, caring and intellectually aware, educated (PHd econ) 57 year-old African-American woman currently living in Paris. If you would like to have coffee or a drink, don't hesitate to say so. I shall be checking the comments again later tomorrow. LOL
Perhaps because I put out a selfie rather than my best photo forward? Or, perhaps, like David noted, "racial bias is prevalent." Either way, I'm still hopeful.
Thanks David, for an enlightening article....
A plug: I am a very nice, loving, caring and intellectually aware, educated (PHd econ) 57 year-old African-American woman currently living in Paris. If you would like to have coffee or a drink, don't hesitate to say so. I shall be checking the comments again later tomorrow. LOL
51
Here's my advice, my sister: get a really good photo, take out half the words in your profile and lower your age. I'm sorry to advise thus but trust me: it will work.
1
Also: Note that Brooks doesn't even bother to mention the preferences of black women. (Or men.)
I would not turn to Brooks for enlightenment on much of anything, myself....
I would not turn to Brooks for enlightenment on much of anything, myself....
5
I love your comment, and I envy you. Paris! Good luck finding someone.
3
Data analytics is a field that will continue to reveal a tremendous amount about our preferences, habits, and approaches to problem-solving or mate selection.
I like to think of this piece as the book-end to the piece by Mandy Len Catron in the Sunday NYTimes where she described the thirty-odd questions of deep vulnerability and, more importantly, the impact from four minutes of unbroken staring into another's eyes. Vulnerability shared is a major ingredient to what we think of as "love", and it makes you wonder how we are redefining the meaning of "love" in an age of "characteristics", on-line profiles, hook-ups, and bisexuality.
Love is more complicated. As CS Lewis described, it can be affection, friendship, romance (eros), and unconditional (agape); and most relationships are anchored by one or two of these with a dominant among the two.
What you get from OKCupid or a hookup relationship is directly related to how you get in to it. One based on sexual attraction could actually outlast its benefits to one or the partners, broadly viewed, but it could endure only based on increased vulnerability. "Criteria-based" love could skirt true vulnerability and leave unexplored and bonding behavior out of the relationship, leaving it open to drift.
While it is unlikely we will see many Tevya and Golde forms of love in our modern age, the dating sites do skirt the edges of "what is love?", "are we meant for monogamy?", and "what sustains love?".
And stats begin the story.
I like to think of this piece as the book-end to the piece by Mandy Len Catron in the Sunday NYTimes where she described the thirty-odd questions of deep vulnerability and, more importantly, the impact from four minutes of unbroken staring into another's eyes. Vulnerability shared is a major ingredient to what we think of as "love", and it makes you wonder how we are redefining the meaning of "love" in an age of "characteristics", on-line profiles, hook-ups, and bisexuality.
Love is more complicated. As CS Lewis described, it can be affection, friendship, romance (eros), and unconditional (agape); and most relationships are anchored by one or two of these with a dominant among the two.
What you get from OKCupid or a hookup relationship is directly related to how you get in to it. One based on sexual attraction could actually outlast its benefits to one or the partners, broadly viewed, but it could endure only based on increased vulnerability. "Criteria-based" love could skirt true vulnerability and leave unexplored and bonding behavior out of the relationship, leaving it open to drift.
While it is unlikely we will see many Tevya and Golde forms of love in our modern age, the dating sites do skirt the edges of "what is love?", "are we meant for monogamy?", and "what sustains love?".
And stats begin the story.
16
Love, what's next, gardening? Medicine? Is there any topic this guy doesn't consider himself entitled to pontificate about?
123
Nope. Not one. Nor is there one he cannot turn into a right wing parable.
10
Amen. And, per usual, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Really, it's impressive to be so consistently, obliviously wrong!
6
My thoughts exactly. Mr. Brooks these days sounds like a frustrated Rabbinical student in the middle of his class at the yeshiva.
6
Really glad that I am the outlier in all of this. The dating site matched me with someone who I thought that I had nothing in common after reading the profile. (But yes, I thought that she was attractive.) From the moment we met, we completed each other's sentences. Going on eight years of happiness.....
11
Stephen Leahy,
Well done, and wishing you both at least another eight years of happiness and more.
Well done, and wishing you both at least another eight years of happiness and more.
Mr. Brooks is silent on whether his comments apply to men dating men and women dating women. Is it because the "enchantment leap" or "devotional leap' is unique to heterosexuals only?
6
That's a matter for other columns, at least one by a gay man and at least one by a lesbian.
'Could you find Mr. Kingfisher on the web for me'? once asked a friend overseas in her late forties, to which I responded my pleasure, and followed her direction. When I looked at the photos, I let out a yell because these gentlemen looked like a motley crew and I had forgotten that years had passed since my romantic days. True, I wondered if I would place my photo on the web for inspection even if I looked like Dolly Parton.
Recently a man of 45, old enough to be my son, while checking out my eyes in his office, asked if I was dating any one, which caused a peal of laughter, surprise and delight on my part, and we began about dating in these contemporary times.
The women he meets apparently wish to tell him all about themselves on the first date. There was a moment of silence. They're nervous, and sometimes lonely, I suggested. A far greater empathy I have for women, and as for men with few exceptions, I enjoyed leading them on a merry path with a show of some sensitivity and good manners.
Impossible to meet your mate on the web? It took two years for a divorced friend of mine at 50 to find what is known as 'his soul-mate' and they've been married, each with children now grown, happily for over a decade.
Ladies and Gentlemen, do not give up, and be sensitive to each other when meeting. Be prepared with a list of topics when it comes to a first exchange. Keep asking the man about himself, and he may think you are a great conversationalist. Give him a chase :-)
Recently a man of 45, old enough to be my son, while checking out my eyes in his office, asked if I was dating any one, which caused a peal of laughter, surprise and delight on my part, and we began about dating in these contemporary times.
The women he meets apparently wish to tell him all about themselves on the first date. There was a moment of silence. They're nervous, and sometimes lonely, I suggested. A far greater empathy I have for women, and as for men with few exceptions, I enjoyed leading them on a merry path with a show of some sensitivity and good manners.
Impossible to meet your mate on the web? It took two years for a divorced friend of mine at 50 to find what is known as 'his soul-mate' and they've been married, each with children now grown, happily for over a decade.
Ladies and Gentlemen, do not give up, and be sensitive to each other when meeting. Be prepared with a list of topics when it comes to a first exchange. Keep asking the man about himself, and he may think you are a great conversationalist. Give him a chase :-)
5
I guess the self-checkout robotic aisles are down at the supermarket today (Is someone from Christie's office indulging in payback?). We're all stuck a traffic jam in the human cashiered lanes today, impatiently gazing at the covers of and leafing through the tabloids on the impulse purchase racks, and there, among the miracle diet and anti-aging ads, we find . . . ?
2
"We live... in a technical culture in which humanism, religion and the humanities, which are the great instructors of enchantment, are not automatically central to life."
Another blithe Brooksism that is incorrect on several fronts. First of all, nothing is an "instructor" of enchantment as it is a state of being not studied, but experienced.
Secondly, it's not the "technical culture" that limits enchantment, it's the "it's cool to be dumb" culture. Critical thought is out the window, and living an unexamined life is all the rage. Technology is not the issue, it's how we choose to use it - filling our minds with mindless tweets and posts, without examining their effect, diminishes self-examination and self-awareness which stimulate enchantment, and encourages egocentricity which kills it.
And nothing is less friendly to critical thought than religion. To suggest that a method used for thousands of years to control populations and impose ignorance is an enabler of enchantment is, to me, a whopper indeed.
Another blithe Brooksism that is incorrect on several fronts. First of all, nothing is an "instructor" of enchantment as it is a state of being not studied, but experienced.
Secondly, it's not the "technical culture" that limits enchantment, it's the "it's cool to be dumb" culture. Critical thought is out the window, and living an unexamined life is all the rage. Technology is not the issue, it's how we choose to use it - filling our minds with mindless tweets and posts, without examining their effect, diminishes self-examination and self-awareness which stimulate enchantment, and encourages egocentricity which kills it.
And nothing is less friendly to critical thought than religion. To suggest that a method used for thousands of years to control populations and impose ignorance is an enabler of enchantment is, to me, a whopper indeed.
171
Well said!
1
Blithe Brooksism"!!!!!!! Excellent!
1
So, David, that explains why Republicans are not attractive to women. They are doomed, as 'pretty face' rules.
1
Dear Coolhunter,
Enough with the donkeys and elephants already, let's have a day off with Cupid instead.
Enough with the donkeys and elephants already, let's have a day off with Cupid instead.
3
For most creatures having four or more legs, the male's contribution to the next generation ends at the first instant of conception, so reproduction is very cheap for males and expensive for females. Evolution makes such males strongly motivated to mate with as many females as possible, and also makes such females strongly motivated only to mate with males having the very best genes.
For critters with two legs, unless they are cuckoo, the male must contribute if the couple is to have grandchildren. Someone has to sit on the eggs, so either the male must keeps worms on the table, or he must sit so the female can go off and feed herself. And both parents must work hard to keep the children fed. So every two-legged female has a strong drive to mate with a male who has the very best genes (97th percentile or above) and a strong drive for a male who will be faithful, and it's mathematically impossible for a female to have both, since the males in the 3% are inundated with irresistible demands for sex from many, many females.
So most females who use dating sites specify that they want a 66: a male who is at least 6 feet tall with an income of at least 6 figures (a month). And he must be younger than 40.
For critters with two legs, unless they are cuckoo, the male must contribute if the couple is to have grandchildren. Someone has to sit on the eggs, so either the male must keeps worms on the table, or he must sit so the female can go off and feed herself. And both parents must work hard to keep the children fed. So every two-legged female has a strong drive to mate with a male who has the very best genes (97th percentile or above) and a strong drive for a male who will be faithful, and it's mathematically impossible for a female to have both, since the males in the 3% are inundated with irresistible demands for sex from many, many females.
So most females who use dating sites specify that they want a 66: a male who is at least 6 feet tall with an income of at least 6 figures (a month). And he must be younger than 40.
5
There is actually some truth in your cynical comments. I would point out the following:
a. Why wouldn't we be like birds and encourage a society and culture that prizes marriage, punishes harshly those men who abandon women with children (more so out of wedlock), and pauses before seizing on childcare and single-parenting as an equal good.
b. If women are the dominant arbiters of mate selection, what benefits have accrued from birth control where their selection responsibility is subordinated to orgasm and pleasure? Further, how does a culture of more available sex, from each other, serve the interests of women broadly when men can seek and procure sex before and during monogamy with virtually no risk to themselves?
c. In an age where less than 5% of the men earn six figures and 15% of the women fall prey to various forms of cancer, rendering their attractiveness and child-bearing less potent, how do we as a culture navigate all of the break-ups or unfulfilled pursuits of wealthy partners? The 66 year old man needs a consenting 40 year old woman to marry, and maybe we would have fewer cads if we had fewer security-seeking nubiles.
Love is economics. Love is the bedroom. And, increasingly, love knows no gender boundaries. You can get cynical about it until you realize our own complicity in basically wrecking a fascinating but tortured aspect of human relationships.
a. Why wouldn't we be like birds and encourage a society and culture that prizes marriage, punishes harshly those men who abandon women with children (more so out of wedlock), and pauses before seizing on childcare and single-parenting as an equal good.
b. If women are the dominant arbiters of mate selection, what benefits have accrued from birth control where their selection responsibility is subordinated to orgasm and pleasure? Further, how does a culture of more available sex, from each other, serve the interests of women broadly when men can seek and procure sex before and during monogamy with virtually no risk to themselves?
c. In an age where less than 5% of the men earn six figures and 15% of the women fall prey to various forms of cancer, rendering their attractiveness and child-bearing less potent, how do we as a culture navigate all of the break-ups or unfulfilled pursuits of wealthy partners? The 66 year old man needs a consenting 40 year old woman to marry, and maybe we would have fewer cads if we had fewer security-seeking nubiles.
Love is economics. Love is the bedroom. And, increasingly, love knows no gender boundaries. You can get cynical about it until you realize our own complicity in basically wrecking a fascinating but tortured aspect of human relationships.
1
I suggest you visit the Hall of Biology of Birds at the Museum of Natural History, if that hall is still around. Every mating pattern known to man is found in some species within Class Aves.
That includes promiscuity (coming together for copulation only), polygyny, polyandry, serial monogamy (for the time it takes to incubate and rear the young), and lifetime monogamy.
That includes promiscuity (coming together for copulation only), polygyny, polyandry, serial monogamy (for the time it takes to incubate and rear the young), and lifetime monogamy.
2
Miriam,
For some reason this brought to mind Zeus and Leda the Swan. Romance at its best, has always had mythological tones for this reader, and encouraging those, who are searching for their true love, that one can find their mate without webbed feet on the web.
For some reason this brought to mind Zeus and Leda the Swan. Romance at its best, has always had mythological tones for this reader, and encouraging those, who are searching for their true love, that one can find their mate without webbed feet on the web.
Smitten is a better word than enchantment. When one thinks of smitten we all know it is temporary and it will pass; so we can be shallow and selfish once more.
3
Besotted is even better.
7
Be careful. "Smitten" is now considered one of those $5 words fit only for Mitt Romney to use.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/us/politics/romneys-throwback-language...
Still, I know of another case (non-political, non-Mormon) where a self-reported "smitten" turned into a long-lasting marriage ended only by the husband's death.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/us/politics/romneys-throwback-language...
Still, I know of another case (non-political, non-Mormon) where a self-reported "smitten" turned into a long-lasting marriage ended only by the husband's death.
I like the part about how men find women more attractive than women find men attractive. That part is objectively true—they are, and we aren't, generally speaking, especially among younger folks. Women try harder to be attractive, and it works. Young men seem not to try at all, and it shows, and it doesn't work. And now we have the evidence.
14
Oh, for goodness sake, what is this Brooks is writing? Look David, if you are looking for a woman, I have an ex-wife that would perfect for you, and you (I promise) would be be perfect for her. Maybe you want her email?
15
David,
Just a guess, but is this a thinly veiled cry for help to find a girl to date, maybe fall in love with, maybe more?
Too much writing and cerebration can leave a man lonely and alone. I suggest that you ask someone you trust to arrange a date with the kind of girl you deserve. I've seen my girl do this successfully with a couple of my friends who got burned trying to find a girl online.
Good luck.
Just a guess, but is this a thinly veiled cry for help to find a girl to date, maybe fall in love with, maybe more?
Too much writing and cerebration can leave a man lonely and alone. I suggest that you ask someone you trust to arrange a date with the kind of girl you deserve. I've seen my girl do this successfully with a couple of my friends who got burned trying to find a girl online.
Good luck.
4
More discouraging then the fact I wasted ten minutes of an otherwise valuable life reading David Brooks thoughts on OkCupid is the fact that they are part of a multi billion dollar industry targeting dysfunctional urban singles. This is what our GDP is made of? This is one of the visionary enterprenors that must never be taxed or spoken harshly of?
32
Blessed are the "job creators".
12
David,
I appreciate your focus on the internal life of human beings, on the foundational importance of culture-making, and of the social process of human-being-making. Prudence, loyalty, love, forbearance, sacrifice, awe, humility, perseverance, empathy- all words of human character that grow only slowly, often painfully, and are woefully absent from our political and social discourse.
The liberal focus on material function, and the obliviousness to how policy and and government ignore human character, is greatly frustrating to me. However, it is equally frustrating that economic conservatives do not acknowledge how market forces incentivize the destruction of human character. From mass marketing consumer debt to unhealthy diets to instant sugar gratification to online dating, we have turned every foible of human biology into a cash machine for unscrupulous businesses to make millions.
You have to look no further than the local convenient store- Sugar, fat, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and pornography-all addictive to some degree- comprise the sum total of all products sold.
It is contradictory to aspire to a culture that refines the humanity in human beings and to defend a free market system (and political process) that profits from the debasement and lowest common denominators of the human animal.
I appreciate your focus on the internal life of human beings, on the foundational importance of culture-making, and of the social process of human-being-making. Prudence, loyalty, love, forbearance, sacrifice, awe, humility, perseverance, empathy- all words of human character that grow only slowly, often painfully, and are woefully absent from our political and social discourse.
The liberal focus on material function, and the obliviousness to how policy and and government ignore human character, is greatly frustrating to me. However, it is equally frustrating that economic conservatives do not acknowledge how market forces incentivize the destruction of human character. From mass marketing consumer debt to unhealthy diets to instant sugar gratification to online dating, we have turned every foible of human biology into a cash machine for unscrupulous businesses to make millions.
You have to look no further than the local convenient store- Sugar, fat, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and pornography-all addictive to some degree- comprise the sum total of all products sold.
It is contradictory to aspire to a culture that refines the humanity in human beings and to defend a free market system (and political process) that profits from the debasement and lowest common denominators of the human animal.
19
Since the human race became conscious of relationship, we have been attempting to define love. The Greeks tried to break it down into constituent parts such as eros and agape, but it is as difficult to define as life itself. Scientists might dissect a body, but destroy the thing they are trying to find and somehow love has that same quality of effernesense.
So often in an attempt to catch it people often choose to search for love in the qualities that the beloved is supposed to possess according to social standards. The ads for these on line sites feature good looking , intelligent people who have supposedly found their match. But love is not an enchantment experienced only in a particular moment no matter what romance novels or Mr. Brooks says. It involves an enormous commitment and the wisdom to let go when necessary. And the body changes and wrinkles and does not work the way it did. That is often the moment that love will display itself or not.
So often in an attempt to catch it people often choose to search for love in the qualities that the beloved is supposed to possess according to social standards. The ads for these on line sites feature good looking , intelligent people who have supposedly found their match. But love is not an enchantment experienced only in a particular moment no matter what romance novels or Mr. Brooks says. It involves an enormous commitment and the wisdom to let go when necessary. And the body changes and wrinkles and does not work the way it did. That is often the moment that love will display itself or not.
5
You might want to check out Erich Fromm's 1956 book, "The Art of Loving." He takes a pretty good stab at what love is, and isn't.
4
Women clearly have unforgiving eyes. But, then, they're just as clearly not on a dating service that looks to form pairings that morph into lifelong relationships: they're looking for reliable hook ups, just as the men are, and they may as well be as demanding as they can. In a universe of "off season", I can hardly blame them.
But, given the failure of sites to predict successful pairings by their own analyses, how come they don't just identify the ones they think WON'T succeed and publicly identify THEM as likely successes? That wouldn't be any more entertaining than the whole purpose of most dating sites, anyway.
Frankly, I think women are FAR more likely to make the "devotion leap" than men. And this is a problem, because I also believe that the men on these services are largely looking for a cardiac workout and not much else. Unless the five men who are looking for real relationships are capable of handling 5,000 women apiece, this will militate toward a ton of very cynical women ... with unforgiving eyes.
Why is it that I find myself doubled-up in uncontrolled hilarity at the thought of David Brooks plumbing the nature of OKCupid and the automation of appointments for the liberal and mutual application of oleo?
But, given the failure of sites to predict successful pairings by their own analyses, how come they don't just identify the ones they think WON'T succeed and publicly identify THEM as likely successes? That wouldn't be any more entertaining than the whole purpose of most dating sites, anyway.
Frankly, I think women are FAR more likely to make the "devotion leap" than men. And this is a problem, because I also believe that the men on these services are largely looking for a cardiac workout and not much else. Unless the five men who are looking for real relationships are capable of handling 5,000 women apiece, this will militate toward a ton of very cynical women ... with unforgiving eyes.
Why is it that I find myself doubled-up in uncontrolled hilarity at the thought of David Brooks plumbing the nature of OKCupid and the automation of appointments for the liberal and mutual application of oleo?
4
Though the rituals have changed, love itself has never changed through the ages, Mr. Brooks. Whether it's Neanderthals, cozy in a cave, looking into each other's eyes or modern humans stealing glances in a crowded bar, the imperative of love remains the same. Internet dating doesn't detract from the practice of love, rather it adds another layer of complexity to a very complex subject. The rituals of love are getting more interesting, not less. Then, of course, there is always the possibility that you will find your soulmate, or at least a mate, even though you first get to know each other as disembodied electromagnetic entities.
2
Another great column by David Brooks.
I find a lot of his columns to be thoughtful and insightful.
It is a shame so many liberal commenters seem to reflexively attack everything he writes.
I myself am liberal, but I find a lot of wisdom in things David says. Not that I always agree with him - sometimes I find myself thinking "are you kidding?"
These critical commenters should get over themselves and accept that there is wisdom in tradition. Not everything can be solved by research data and government programs. Science is spectacular but does not and will not ever have all the answers.
David talks about neuroscience, yes, but also poetry and literature and traditional wisdom. Maybe he's not perfect, but I find his stuff refreshing in the media world of gossip, horse-race politics, technology worship, academic gurus, etc. Who else is putting him/herself out there like this - talking about personal, emotional matters and life lessons in an intelligent way? Not many in the Acela clique.
I find a lot of his columns to be thoughtful and insightful.
It is a shame so many liberal commenters seem to reflexively attack everything he writes.
I myself am liberal, but I find a lot of wisdom in things David says. Not that I always agree with him - sometimes I find myself thinking "are you kidding?"
These critical commenters should get over themselves and accept that there is wisdom in tradition. Not everything can be solved by research data and government programs. Science is spectacular but does not and will not ever have all the answers.
David talks about neuroscience, yes, but also poetry and literature and traditional wisdom. Maybe he's not perfect, but I find his stuff refreshing in the media world of gossip, horse-race politics, technology worship, academic gurus, etc. Who else is putting him/herself out there like this - talking about personal, emotional matters and life lessons in an intelligent way? Not many in the Acela clique.
17
I disagree that many liberals reflexively attach Brooks for his conservative thinking. Brooks attracts ongoing criticism for his unceasing tendency to assert universal truths from cherry-picked social science anecdotes and for his repeated use of rhetorical templates that treat highly complex topics in a black and white, dualistic manner.
51
Thanks for this comment, JBC. I often feel as G Love does and was thinking pretty much the same thing, but your words help me see what generates these reactions. I fall somewhere in the middle I suppose, I think Brooks often has something relevant to discuss but chooses not to discuss and instead "announces." Making complex issues absolutes doesn't really work well. For me.
1
This is the rare Brooks column that doesn't use a nonpolitical topic as a segue to some conservative talking point - or to put it more directly, the old bait and switch.
It's a good start, Mr. Brooks. Keep 'em coming.
It's a good start, Mr. Brooks. Keep 'em coming.
3
David, you've missed the best metaphor for on-line dating: globalization. Instead of being stuck with the people you interact with everyday for date selection, suddenly anyone with a computer is an option. But while the consumer options have grown exponentially larger, so has the competition. This is documented in the data you cite, with the best looking people getting lots of contacts, while the average Joe (or Jane) is ignored. Where the global economy uses price as its dominant metric, in on-line dating, it's looks. It's a brave new world out there....
Mr. Brooks:
Kudos to you and the social sciences for tackling this daunting subject. As we know, many is the poet or philosopher whose talents have fallen short of the task. In this modern world everything needs quantification to fit into its techno-place. We have traded our capacity for enchantment for bigger profits, a sordid boon.
We certainly can use more enchantment. Not in Congress, where the Republicans remain in a perpetual state of fantasy. But, on a personal level where charity, the greatest form of love, seems lacking in our society. Perhaps people would feel less vulnerable if the future held some enchantment for them. Alas, that is not to be if we readeth not novels or music maketh not or casheth a sufficient paycheck not
Are we really a dried out culture? Is true love no longer extant in the land of once fertile plains? A nation of skeptics crying out in the wilderness? Love is for everyone, yes, corporations too. Thus may it ever be.
Well... enough of that. I am really and truly sorry that you think American life is so de-humanizing. Some of us have been complaining about that for years. Does the culture we need to counter include politics?
Kudos to you and the social sciences for tackling this daunting subject. As we know, many is the poet or philosopher whose talents have fallen short of the task. In this modern world everything needs quantification to fit into its techno-place. We have traded our capacity for enchantment for bigger profits, a sordid boon.
We certainly can use more enchantment. Not in Congress, where the Republicans remain in a perpetual state of fantasy. But, on a personal level where charity, the greatest form of love, seems lacking in our society. Perhaps people would feel less vulnerable if the future held some enchantment for them. Alas, that is not to be if we readeth not novels or music maketh not or casheth a sufficient paycheck not
Are we really a dried out culture? Is true love no longer extant in the land of once fertile plains? A nation of skeptics crying out in the wilderness? Love is for everyone, yes, corporations too. Thus may it ever be.
Well... enough of that. I am really and truly sorry that you think American life is so de-humanizing. Some of us have been complaining about that for years. Does the culture we need to counter include politics?
2
Online dating, 'speed dating', and the opposite extreme - those 'Bachelor' and 'Bachelorette' so-called 'reality' shows - are all part and parcel of the same thing. In my 'long-ago' youth (You actually had to ask an operator to connect you for a long distance call, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) the 'Three Bs' were usually considered to be Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. We now have our own Three Bs, judging from this endless preoccupation with all that's shallow: Bods, Bucks and Brainlessness.
Then again, interesting things happen when the masks finally come off. Suffice it to say that when it comes to laying the foundation (You should pardon the expression) for truly enduring, committed matches, those 'Bachelor' and 'Bachelorette' shows have proven about as statistically effective as the current flu vaccine. 'Devotion', indeed.
Then again, interesting things happen when the masks finally come off. Suffice it to say that when it comes to laying the foundation (You should pardon the expression) for truly enduring, committed matches, those 'Bachelor' and 'Bachelorette' shows have proven about as statistically effective as the current flu vaccine. 'Devotion', indeed.
7
I don't know quite what to make of this column. How many political pundits who write for a highly influential newspaper offer advice on dating services? I can't imagine Walter Lippmann, in my opinion the greatest and most influential columnist in our history, wasting his talent on this kind of piece. Like the clever and insightful gemli, I always suspect that Brooks has a rightwing political message hidden somewhere in a Trojan Horse sort of way, but I couldn't find it this time. Since I don't consider Brooks to be in any conceivable way versed on matchmaking, I would have passed on this altogether if I had known the subject. Since I did not have the satisfying chance to respond to the usual cynicism and myopia of Brooks's political views, I feel that I wasted my time on this odd offering?
8
Dave,
To the honest, I usually try to get a view of Mr. Brooks' topic without reading his views on the above, and leaving it to finer minds to figure out if we're being led like a flock of sheep in a specific direction, where the leader of the herd asks the lonely shepherd: 'Where is the nearest cliff?".
A waste of talent on Mr. Brooks' part to write about online dating? It may engender a forum that has a lot to do with roses and moderate wine, and less politics just in time for Valentine's Day. Mr. Brooks' has reached a stage in his career where he is free to write about anything he wishes, and this includes the serious matter of dust-bunnies, without one's pulling out one's hair or whiskers in the process.
Gemli, in the meantime will come in and polish off what Mr. Brooks has to say with finesse and flair, and that in itself may be another incentive to stay around, so that one understands better perhaps what he is trying to relay.
To the honest, I usually try to get a view of Mr. Brooks' topic without reading his views on the above, and leaving it to finer minds to figure out if we're being led like a flock of sheep in a specific direction, where the leader of the herd asks the lonely shepherd: 'Where is the nearest cliff?".
A waste of talent on Mr. Brooks' part to write about online dating? It may engender a forum that has a lot to do with roses and moderate wine, and less politics just in time for Valentine's Day. Mr. Brooks' has reached a stage in his career where he is free to write about anything he wishes, and this includes the serious matter of dust-bunnies, without one's pulling out one's hair or whiskers in the process.
Gemli, in the meantime will come in and polish off what Mr. Brooks has to say with finesse and flair, and that in itself may be another incentive to stay around, so that one understands better perhaps what he is trying to relay.
1
"hidden somewhere in a Trojan horse sort of way"
That's it! That's the game - finding the hidden right-wing message, like finding the Ninas in a Hirschfeld cartoon. Or finding the unexploded bomb so it doesn't go off on some unsuspecting person.
That's it! That's the game - finding the hidden right-wing message, like finding the Ninas in a Hirschfeld cartoon. Or finding the unexploded bomb so it doesn't go off on some unsuspecting person.
2
A nice article, and I'm going to avoid any knee-jerk assumptions about hidden agendas. I would be interested to see these insights tied into an earlier article in the NYT on how 'falling in love' is actually more a choice, and can possibly be brought about by voluntarily engaging in a series of increasingly probing/vulnerable questions, paired with eye contact. The two articles would go together well.
Considering that earlier article, it seems that the moment of enchantment is also a moment of choice — a movement from selfishness (shopping around) to intention (which somehow is not really contradictory to enchantment — the feeling of 'falling' — when we are actually ready and willing to fall — and to commit, even when the feeling of enchantment fades).
What creatures we are, in whom contradictions are resolved in the experience of love — a shift in consciousness which both inexplicably 'happens' and is chosen at the same time! And it all happens when you STOP trying, to boot, and love!
Considering that earlier article, it seems that the moment of enchantment is also a moment of choice — a movement from selfishness (shopping around) to intention (which somehow is not really contradictory to enchantment — the feeling of 'falling' — when we are actually ready and willing to fall — and to commit, even when the feeling of enchantment fades).
What creatures we are, in whom contradictions are resolved in the experience of love — a shift in consciousness which both inexplicably 'happens' and is chosen at the same time! And it all happens when you STOP trying, to boot, and love!
5
I don't think that seeing David Brooks' conservative propaganda woven into every column he writes is a "knee-jerk" reaction, quite the opposite. Sometimes it's not at all clear what particular right-wing talking point or principle Brooks is trying to deliver, and only after reading carefully and standing back a little does it become clear what it was.
In this case, it was the idea that we're too "fact-based" and don't surrender to gut feelings enough, which is not only a conservative principle, it's been *the* guiding principle pushed by Republican propaganda for years now, including Karl Rove's famous sneer at "reality-based" people.
Teasing out his real message from one of his rambling, seemingly pointless pieces takes watchfulness, care, and the knowledge gained from past experience that there is always, always one there. Brooks delivers conservative propaganda, not intelligent discourse. People dislike it because it's dishonest and manipulative, among other things, but reacting to it is the farthest thing from lazy or automatic, it takes work.
In this case, it was the idea that we're too "fact-based" and don't surrender to gut feelings enough, which is not only a conservative principle, it's been *the* guiding principle pushed by Republican propaganda for years now, including Karl Rove's famous sneer at "reality-based" people.
Teasing out his real message from one of his rambling, seemingly pointless pieces takes watchfulness, care, and the knowledge gained from past experience that there is always, always one there. Brooks delivers conservative propaganda, not intelligent discourse. People dislike it because it's dishonest and manipulative, among other things, but reacting to it is the farthest thing from lazy or automatic, it takes work.
5
"Brooks delivers conservative propaganda, not intelligent discourse. People dislike it because it's dishonest and manipulative, among other things, but reacting to it is the farthest thing from lazy or automatic, it takes work."
I say to this: AMEN! You hit the nail on the head with perfection.
I say to this: AMEN! You hit the nail on the head with perfection.
5
What a dating site, which is basically a bunch of software algorithms, does is match one human mind to another. If these algorithms determine that there is a meeting of the minds, a matched couple might go on a date, but there is no guarantee they will fall in love or even date again. Because a dating site can never match the intangibles, namely, heart and soul, falling in love is as randomly possible as with any other traditional matchmaking methods or purely karmic events.
David, there is a very low probability of an “enchantment leap” when you have been setup by a computer because you have used logic to find love and that is the last thing that love is – logical! By all means, people can use dating sites to find dates, but if they are looking for love, it’s still a roll of the dice. And, if they are looking for a happy ending, they are more likely to succeed with an old-fashioned “arranged marriage” setup through their family and community network than through a dating site.
David, there is a very low probability of an “enchantment leap” when you have been setup by a computer because you have used logic to find love and that is the last thing that love is – logical! By all means, people can use dating sites to find dates, but if they are looking for love, it’s still a roll of the dice. And, if they are looking for a happy ending, they are more likely to succeed with an old-fashioned “arranged marriage” setup through their family and community network than through a dating site.
And imagination along with logic, please, when the heart has its reason that logic does not recognize.
Um... An "arranged marriage" IS using logic to match potential spouses. The people who know you best take that knowlege and introduce you to potential partners who share or compliment your personality and interests, and you get to take it from there.
5
Who says that parents are the ones who know their children best?
As psychiatrist Ethel Person wrote, "love is a religion shared by two. There is an object of worship, a means of communion, and a route to transcendence." As Martin Luther King, Jr said, real social progress lies not in one group coming to power over another, but in the creation of a "beloved community". I think our goal, as individuals and as a society, lies not in cultivating "enchantment", which smacks of delusion, but of love, in all its forms, including compassion. This is a religion we would all do well to adopt. As far as online dating goes, I agree with David. I wonder where the apps are taking us... Ravi Chandra, M.D. www.RaviChandraMD.com
8
Enjoyed reading this excellent comment, and perhaps it is up to us to determine where and how we wish to use these apps before we turn into tools with a heart, and all decide to watch the movie 'HER' together.
If two people meet only once on a single day, and begin a long exchange for a few months by letter or computer, there is still a good chance that although they think they know each other, it is not until the woman cooks eggs for breakfast whether one can really determine whether it has all been a long illusion or whether chemistry has brought them together.
If two people meet only once on a single day, and begin a long exchange for a few months by letter or computer, there is still a good chance that although they think they know each other, it is not until the woman cooks eggs for breakfast whether one can really determine whether it has all been a long illusion or whether chemistry has brought them together.
4
For an intellectual Mr. Brooks leaves too many undefined words on the page.
3
Using looks as a foundation for choosing a partner is so futile, one might just as well select a cut-out. Not only do other compatibility issues prove more important, but all that's behind an appearance can torpedo a relationship. When one of my brothers got married, he could not stop talking about how hot his new wife was: "She turns heads every time we go out!" "She's so well put-together!" "She has the perfect body!" "I love the way she dresses!" Soon, fights erupted over how much money she wanted to spend on the clothes and grooming that he was so drawn to. Then there were tensions over how much time she spent exercising to maintain that ideal figure. He became jealous when other men lavished attention on the head-turner. The same physical attraction which drew him to her became their undoing.
3
What about a lonely and beautiful woman who is constantly wondering if the man she has her heart set upon, is only interested in her for her looks and precious little else? There are many out there feeling this way.
3
A country that's currently in an uproar over missing air in some footballs has more important fish to fry than the problems at OKCupid.
11
People always initially judge others by looks whether gazing at photos, magazines, TV, movies or in person. But especially on internet dating and hooking up sites looks matter... a lot.
But live and in person, of course, that's another whole thing entirely. And getting to know someone through dating and chatting on the phone etc is a slow process.
This reminds me of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush getting into the political game trying to impress the voters with their looks, charm, and talking points. Then there are their lesser competitors which we will also have to judge at first on looks and charm and initial talking points.
Perhaps we should ask our politicians to register on line so we can judge their attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 5 before we have to listen to their talking points and tedious TV ads.
But live and in person, of course, that's another whole thing entirely. And getting to know someone through dating and chatting on the phone etc is a slow process.
This reminds me of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush getting into the political game trying to impress the voters with their looks, charm, and talking points. Then there are their lesser competitors which we will also have to judge at first on looks and charm and initial talking points.
Perhaps we should ask our politicians to register on line so we can judge their attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 5 before we have to listen to their talking points and tedious TV ads.
8
Since David Brooks is about the last person most of us would consult on dating, this CAN'T actually be about dating.
22
Oh, that's mean...
3
But hilarious.
4
Julia, it's snark. You can continue to enjoy snark or continue to claim the moral high ground - but not both.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks should have focused on a dating site where the devotion leap is not that long, one where something important like like-mindedness and similar interests are paramount.
Here's a good one, perhaps the best: www.sciconnect.com
Here's a good one, perhaps the best: www.sciconnect.com
1
Republicans characterize themselves as hard driving, endlessly practical, fiscally disciplined believers in immutable principles while Democrats are silly, soft-minded, weak magical thinkers....Except here is the real Republican sub-text--they want to be swept off their feet by leadership. They want to be politically enchanted. They live by their emotions as much as they project onto their opposing party. Republicans as represented by Mr. Brooks imagine an ideal state of love and enchantment, not a technical internet of mechanistic dating which exists partly because people have to work such long hours to remain employed and earn a livable wage.
It's remarkable that Mr. Books is so enamored of this topic, and his speculation that some cultures are more fertile for enchantment, instead of all the things his majority party in the congress has been up to in the past week.
It's remarkable that Mr. Books is so enamored of this topic, and his speculation that some cultures are more fertile for enchantment, instead of all the things his majority party in the congress has been up to in the past week.
98
@Mom
What a tortured analysis of Republicans.
As a Mom, my guess is that you want(ed) your offspring to be, first, as motivated and self-sufficient as they could possibly be. That would mean moving out and becoming independent, rather than living in the childhood bedroom and eschewing adult responsibilities. When it was time to go to college, you wanted them to shoot for the best to match their abilities; and you did not want someone to choose a college for them or to tell them what job they could train for or hold. When you receive your paycheck twice a month, my guess is that you like to decide the purchases on which you will spend your after-tax earnings and to have as many of those earnings in your control after taxes, FICA, Medicare, and various other deductions. You might find many friends in the Republican Party to support your goals when you set aside your demagoguery.
Republicans, to people like you, are rich and arrogant and heartless. It's a cute caricature. Democrats, to people like me, are controlling, self-righteous, and selective in the social goods they favor and disfavor.
Some day, after this very polarizing President leaves Washington, we will once again see that we all have common goals.
What a tortured analysis of Republicans.
As a Mom, my guess is that you want(ed) your offspring to be, first, as motivated and self-sufficient as they could possibly be. That would mean moving out and becoming independent, rather than living in the childhood bedroom and eschewing adult responsibilities. When it was time to go to college, you wanted them to shoot for the best to match their abilities; and you did not want someone to choose a college for them or to tell them what job they could train for or hold. When you receive your paycheck twice a month, my guess is that you like to decide the purchases on which you will spend your after-tax earnings and to have as many of those earnings in your control after taxes, FICA, Medicare, and various other deductions. You might find many friends in the Republican Party to support your goals when you set aside your demagoguery.
Republicans, to people like you, are rich and arrogant and heartless. It's a cute caricature. Democrats, to people like me, are controlling, self-righteous, and selective in the social goods they favor and disfavor.
Some day, after this very polarizing President leaves Washington, we will once again see that we all have common goals.
2
Mr. Brooks, being human and in possession of a mind and heart, occasionally needs a break from the political antics and games that political writers have to produce articles about, and while it is doubtful that he is enamored by the topic of romance in any shape or form at the moment, he has invited us to take a holiday and get to the heart of the matter, without killing each other in the process.
1
Stuart…I don't think this president any more or less polarizing than "W". I think there is basically only one party…that of who actually runs the country and it isn't you or me or anyone we vote or voted for. We are run by money behind the scenes. It doesn't care a hoot about party as long as their bidding is done. It is loosely organized, but organized none the less. Banks, energy interests, and arms dealers are the most powerful. Commodities other than oil, follow. The rest of us are mere strivers, following fashions and ideologies we all catch like viruses. After learning that Louis XIV went to war for his amusement, I finally understood ANYTHING is possible. Louis wasn't that long ago. Human nature has not changed since then. The wars we fight are economic and selfish in nature. It is bloodlust run riot. But even those that would not choose it are forced into participating. Greed and power ever thus.
4
I'm increasingly befuddled by the banality of Mr. Brooks' recent columns. He has often trafficked in the commonplace and attempted to pass his thoughts off as something more. But recently, he is simply stating conclusions about life that everyone knows--and passing them off--or trying to-- as profound insights into the human condition. I mean, really! What does he say here that comes as a surprise or reveals a deep level of understanding?
6
"What does he say here that comes as a surprise or reveals a deep level of understanding?"
As Mr. Brooks seems he might suggest, you're going to have to lower your expectations, and stop comparing him to other columnists, or simply to intelligent people, in order to take the enchantment leap you'll need to make in order to appreciate him.
As Mr. Brooks seems he might suggest, you're going to have to lower your expectations, and stop comparing him to other columnists, or simply to intelligent people, in order to take the enchantment leap you'll need to make in order to appreciate him.
4
Enough mental cake perhaps to engender one of the most emailed essays of the coming day?
1
It stands to reason that a generation brought up on Facebook, Twitter, You Tube, Instagram, Redditt, texting, etc., etc., etc. isn't going to have a lot of literate things to say to each other.
4
So wot and wry does dis half to be litter to commune in the spirit of luv? Which reminds me to find out what Twitter is, behind schedule as always here. Apparently twittering has caused the heads of generals to roll, and this is a grave matter.
1
U kds! Gt off m lwn, lol
1
Looks are not something you control, and therefore it is deeply unfair when you are judged by them. But other than culturally induced racial bias, judging by looks was probably the best way for pre-civilization humans to find the greatest likelihood of reproductive success. We are likely fighting against urges ingrained in the way our brains work when we learn to use better criteria for our partners such as kindness, caring, and intelligence.
2
There is a clear disdain in this article for those of us, and we are many, who have a high degree of enchantment in our lives, but have not yet met a partner. News flash David, this is not easy! And the older one gets, the harder it is to meet people who are single. So, a little empathy please for the world, and a little levity and even encouragement for those of us who have known love, and want it again. Dating online, contrary to public opinion, actually requires a high degree of vulnerability because one forgoes the benefit of instant physical reciprocity. We should celebrate people who want to love and be loved, not turn their difficult journey of wanting to be partnered into a pessimistic political treatise on the degradation of our culture.
252
@Sara
I once heard, in a church setting so hardly a Cambridge venue, that it is easy to find partners "of the heart" when you are least looking for them. That would mean, for instance, in church groups where your shared interest is not "finding each other". Or it could be in a mission-oriented trip to the inner city to work on a Habitat for Humanities project or to Africa to assist in an AIDS clinic. Or it could be working in any number of capacities where other heart-first people have gone not to find a partner but to serve others (and, without looking, found a partner).
You are proably already rolling your eyes, but I understand your predicament and know the pain that is experienced from loneliness and disenchantment with love. I have many friends in this position, and few of them will pursue this approach (because it is indirect, time-consuming, bordering on faith communities, etc.). So, all I can say is consider it.
New York TImes readers are pretty educated and self-sufficient folks with strong ideas about how to live properly (and how others should). I would leave Cambridge, find a church or mission-related organization that is outward-looking in its appraisal of the human condition, and go immerse in its culture.
You may be surprised at what you find, about them and yourself.
I once heard, in a church setting so hardly a Cambridge venue, that it is easy to find partners "of the heart" when you are least looking for them. That would mean, for instance, in church groups where your shared interest is not "finding each other". Or it could be in a mission-oriented trip to the inner city to work on a Habitat for Humanities project or to Africa to assist in an AIDS clinic. Or it could be working in any number of capacities where other heart-first people have gone not to find a partner but to serve others (and, without looking, found a partner).
You are proably already rolling your eyes, but I understand your predicament and know the pain that is experienced from loneliness and disenchantment with love. I have many friends in this position, and few of them will pursue this approach (because it is indirect, time-consuming, bordering on faith communities, etc.). So, all I can say is consider it.
New York TImes readers are pretty educated and self-sufficient folks with strong ideas about how to live properly (and how others should). I would leave Cambridge, find a church or mission-related organization that is outward-looking in its appraisal of the human condition, and go immerse in its culture.
You may be surprised at what you find, about them and yourself.
4
"New York TImes readers are pretty educated and self-sufficient folks with strong ideas about how to live properly (and how others should)." I know you probably mean well….you seem to think you know how others should live also? I almost feel mean pointing it out as we all have this weakness born of feeling very strongly about how things should be. You are saying give love to get love. It's a very good strategy.
1
Thank you for the most thoughtful response I have read to this Brooks column, Sara. Eighteen years ago I found myself a single mother, due to very unfortunate circumstances. I was in my mid-forties, and had a young child. I worked an unusual schedule in my job. I did and do not attend a church. After meeting and dating through the usual venues of friends and work, happenstance never having worked for me, I met a wonderful, loving man through a dating service. He being a scientist, and I a professional musician, I doubt if we would ever have met if not through the mutual effort of seeking a partner in this unconventional way. I do not see myself as the kind of person portrayed by David Brooks in this editorial, although he seems to have the answers about me, doesn't he?
3
Obviously, this man has never been to a singles bar. "Enchantment" is not the word I'd use to describe the encounters at those venues -- although I acknowledge that I haven't been to one in a very long time. Nor do I recall much enchanting going on at the other site at which my generation met potential romantic partners -- the rock concert. People were neither enchanted nor enchanting at the Fillmore; they were merely stoned. (Not I, of course; I was there merely as an observer.)
I really hate to disenchant David, but the techno generation was not the first to engage in "a self-oriented mindset," otherwise known as the pursuit of the loveless hookup. Nor were those engaging such self-oriented pursuits not also reading novels and otherwise engaged in "the humanities." Indeed, many were graduate students in the humanities. (Never mind how I know.)
Nonetheless, most of us stumbled into loving, passionate relationships (this, I do know from experience), many of which have lasted for decades ("Hi, honey!). We were young; we were superficial; we were selfish; we survived. There is nothing new about online dating except that it's "online."
I really hate to disenchant David, but the techno generation was not the first to engage in "a self-oriented mindset," otherwise known as the pursuit of the loveless hookup. Nor were those engaging such self-oriented pursuits not also reading novels and otherwise engaged in "the humanities." Indeed, many were graduate students in the humanities. (Never mind how I know.)
Nonetheless, most of us stumbled into loving, passionate relationships (this, I do know from experience), many of which have lasted for decades ("Hi, honey!). We were young; we were superficial; we were selfish; we survived. There is nothing new about online dating except that it's "online."
195
Actually, Rita, there were lots of us at the Fillmore East who weren't stoned, but were there because we loved the music. (Maybe you even saw some of us on your observation visits!)
2
And some were both enjoying the music and stoned - I observed that, too (particularly at 3 a.m. at a Grateful Dead concert).
1
And some were both stoned and enjoying the music. (I observed that too, particularly at 3 a.m. at a Grateful Dead Concert -- I'm Rita, btw --different screen name.) The only hint of enchantment, however, occurred in the whispered incantations to Dylan, who was always rumored to be "showing up," but who never arrived.
Maybe some of those who met at the Fillmore went on to have the kinds of "devoted" relationships that David describes. My perception, however, was that most of us were there for other reasons, mainly the pursuit of a good time, be it enhanced or otherwise. Definitely not enchantment, and we ended up okay anyway. Techno is nothing new where relationships are concerned; a bit more efficient, however.
Maybe some of those who met at the Fillmore went on to have the kinds of "devoted" relationships that David describes. My perception, however, was that most of us were there for other reasons, mainly the pursuit of a good time, be it enhanced or otherwise. Definitely not enchantment, and we ended up okay anyway. Techno is nothing new where relationships are concerned; a bit more efficient, however.
Brilliant! I have just the same conclusion about how we shop for love, or shop for a person the same way we shop for a camera or gym membership. There is so much concern with what this person can do for one's self - can this person turn me on enough, can this person make me feel romantic. We end up taking out our own personal responsibility from the equation, and our own ability to create something together with another human being. Instead, we decide that a relationship either 'works' or doesn't 'work', all the while we sit idly by and consume. We have become consumers who believe we will only find love when we find the right 'product'. Erich Fromm maintained that love is a verb and an action - not really a feeling. And while he wrote 'The Art of Loving' decades ago, it could not be more pertinent now in this era of lives justified on self-indulgent feelings.
76
Cmon now, it is a step up from the 'marriage as a business transaction' (aka arranged marriages) that still dominate the world of marriage around the world.
There is no doubt that we have have personal preferences that kick-in when personal choice is an option. Is it better than 'arranged'? It's worth a go!........and conservatives around the world should love it (except for the part where women have it)! What could be better than "free market marriage"?
Oh, never mind, 'one sided, male dominated "half-free market marriage" probably does make more sense to a majority of the world's population.
However, like many long living, mythical, human invented ideas, the thorough busting of the 'women as chattel' tradition is a potentially momentous step forward for humankind.
There is no doubt that we have have personal preferences that kick-in when personal choice is an option. Is it better than 'arranged'? It's worth a go!........and conservatives around the world should love it (except for the part where women have it)! What could be better than "free market marriage"?
Oh, never mind, 'one sided, male dominated "half-free market marriage" probably does make more sense to a majority of the world's population.
However, like many long living, mythical, human invented ideas, the thorough busting of the 'women as chattel' tradition is a potentially momentous step forward for humankind.
Good article David.
How can anyone be surprised that observables overwhelm human interaction. From our earliest days, we are inundated with the worth of our accouterments, human and otherwise as they become part of us. A Timex tells time just as well as a Rolex, but that's not the point. The Rolex tells the world about our achievements, as does love partner.
The film "Moneyball" has a telling scene where the recruiting coach demeans one potential pick saying, "his wife is only a 6, at best." The consultant (film's star) had to work hard to get the manager to realize that ability to get base hits was more important than this identity.
This is our culture, our definition of success. Other societies have a different systems, such as number of wives or concubines. It take a rare person to transcend this and to be open to the pleasure of genuine human companionship, disregarding the "market value" of one's life partner.
AlRodbell.com
How can anyone be surprised that observables overwhelm human interaction. From our earliest days, we are inundated with the worth of our accouterments, human and otherwise as they become part of us. A Timex tells time just as well as a Rolex, but that's not the point. The Rolex tells the world about our achievements, as does love partner.
The film "Moneyball" has a telling scene where the recruiting coach demeans one potential pick saying, "his wife is only a 6, at best." The consultant (film's star) had to work hard to get the manager to realize that ability to get base hits was more important than this identity.
This is our culture, our definition of success. Other societies have a different systems, such as number of wives or concubines. It take a rare person to transcend this and to be open to the pleasure of genuine human companionship, disregarding the "market value" of one's life partner.
AlRodbell.com
Online dating is not for the faint hearted. You are confronted with a selection of matches, hopefully with both pictures and narrative. You look for clues -- have they been active lately, for example? If not, they are filler -- people who will never respond. You go through an etiquette of approach; if they don't get back to you, delete them: they're not interested. If you are persistent and lucky, you may start a conversation with a suitable partner. But since we are all indulgent of our own faults and paranoid about others', you may never find anyone.
Doug,
If you like, I'll start a conversation with you and try keep you entertained even though I am not a suitable partner, and we can take it from there. One of the great marriages last century happened when a young widow heard that my parents were throwing one of their open parties in New York and asked to be invited. Flamboyant, a bit rough, and with a mind of her own, she saw a very rich man still unmarried with his beautiful girlfriend of two years.
The girlfriend disappeared after six months, and when my mother asked her friend on the announcement of her second marriage: 'How did you manage this?", her friend was to respond: 'I got rid of his therapist and we talked'. It turned out to be a great match.
If you like, I'll start a conversation with you and try keep you entertained even though I am not a suitable partner, and we can take it from there. One of the great marriages last century happened when a young widow heard that my parents were throwing one of their open parties in New York and asked to be invited. Flamboyant, a bit rough, and with a mind of her own, she saw a very rich man still unmarried with his beautiful girlfriend of two years.
The girlfriend disappeared after six months, and when my mother asked her friend on the announcement of her second marriage: 'How did you manage this?", her friend was to respond: 'I got rid of his therapist and we talked'. It turned out to be a great match.
2
I expect that, as with most things in life, you get out pretty much what you put in.
I put up an ad once. It was three pages long. There was most of a page of don't-bother-to-reply-if comments. There was a page of this-is-what-women-have-not-liked-about me stuff. And, there was a page-and-a-half of what I like in life and what I'd done, none of it referencing women. The approach worked for me.
I expect others are successful with other approaches, each person having to define success in his or her own terms.
I think Brooks may have skirted around what he really feels and believes, indirectly setting up the last three paragraphs with stats referencing the seemingly vapid.
As to the high tech companies with a million mathematicians trying to develope algorithms predicting love: they probably would be more successful and save a lot of money, if they used the simple stats of Hallmark cards and the local florist instead of an online data mining operation.
Oh, and gemli, I usually enjoy your comments, even the ones I disagree with. However, though I enjoy (in a perverse sort of way) watching lots of Commenters finding conservative tie-ins to Brooks columns where none such exist, I think one can cheat oneself of appreciating some of the forests Brooks sees, if one is too busy looking out for the fallen, rotten trees along the path through the forest. Right on about Perry and his glasses.
I put up an ad once. It was three pages long. There was most of a page of don't-bother-to-reply-if comments. There was a page of this-is-what-women-have-not-liked-about me stuff. And, there was a page-and-a-half of what I like in life and what I'd done, none of it referencing women. The approach worked for me.
I expect others are successful with other approaches, each person having to define success in his or her own terms.
I think Brooks may have skirted around what he really feels and believes, indirectly setting up the last three paragraphs with stats referencing the seemingly vapid.
As to the high tech companies with a million mathematicians trying to develope algorithms predicting love: they probably would be more successful and save a lot of money, if they used the simple stats of Hallmark cards and the local florist instead of an online data mining operation.
Oh, and gemli, I usually enjoy your comments, even the ones I disagree with. However, though I enjoy (in a perverse sort of way) watching lots of Commenters finding conservative tie-ins to Brooks columns where none such exist, I think one can cheat oneself of appreciating some of the forests Brooks sees, if one is too busy looking out for the fallen, rotten trees along the path through the forest. Right on about Perry and his glasses.
3
I went to a dating service once, many years ago. Went out a couple times with women who astonished me our incompatibility. Everything important is intangible and immeasurable. An online description may enable you to "weed out" some that you know would not work, but finding the right person? !!!
I had an interesting talk with a woman who worked at the dating service. She told me that age made a huge difference. Large numbers of men in the their 20s signed up, but few women. Large numbers of women in the 50s signed up, but few men. The age at which roughly equal numbers of men and women went to the service was 40. Add to that the fact that men generally seek partners of their own age or less, and women seek partners of their own age or more, young women and men in their fifties looking for partners just a few years younger are the two groups with the best array of possible partners in the system.
I had an interesting talk with a woman who worked at the dating service. She told me that age made a huge difference. Large numbers of men in the their 20s signed up, but few women. Large numbers of women in the 50s signed up, but few men. The age at which roughly equal numbers of men and women went to the service was 40. Add to that the fact that men generally seek partners of their own age or less, and women seek partners of their own age or more, young women and men in their fifties looking for partners just a few years younger are the two groups with the best array of possible partners in the system.
1
I don't know how David Brooks puts up with some of these egotistical, hateful comments. They happen in every column.
6
Dear David, You are beginning to sound like the Early Marx, of the 1844 Manuscripts. Keep up the good work. You are on to something.
2
I became a late-midlife widow suddenly 2 years ago. I am now on these sites. I consider myself iconoclast say so. I not only look at photos but the narrative. How original genuine is he? Can he spell correctly? Is he curious about life? Does he come across as intelligent. With or without formal education. And is he keeping a balance between intellect romance. The man does not have to be classically handsome but he has to have enough sense to put his best photo forward. No selfies. A shirt. And a smile. I'd much rather meet someone during the course of daily life or via friends but the. options are few. I'm in a lovely Midwesr college town but I think the next great love of my life is in a large east coast city. I'm setting my sights on that geography. Matchmaker, matchmaker...where are you?
2
What's missing from this analysis is the success of online dating insofar as it leads to meaningful relationships. How does this compare to alternative means like hanging out in bars or joining singles groups?
Beyond this, I'm not sure how meaningful data are when they come from such artificial and abstracted environments. I know I look at people all the time and all kinds of private thoughts come to mind. These have little to do with anything I'd bring to an actual relationship; just transient and desultory fantasies and fragments at most.
I've been spared the experience of online dating--or any of its counterparts in the past--but I suspect it is just a more protracted version of meeting people in any other setting.
Beyond this, I'm not sure how meaningful data are when they come from such artificial and abstracted environments. I know I look at people all the time and all kinds of private thoughts come to mind. These have little to do with anything I'd bring to an actual relationship; just transient and desultory fantasies and fragments at most.
I've been spared the experience of online dating--or any of its counterparts in the past--but I suspect it is just a more protracted version of meeting people in any other setting.
2
Thank you for writing this great piece! As a single straight lady in her 30's that is looking to get married, I've found that many men don't know how to be vulnerable and can't bring down the boundary between self and self. There seem to be a high concentration of them here. Or maybe it's a generational thing - men in my generation (20-40) can't seem to get it right. Men and women here are so picky here, maybe because they're such high achievers and have never had to compromise on anything. It's actually a sad phenomenon to observe and to be a part of.
5
The people that actually built the Internet and its aqpps, won't be found in your demographic statistics. They learned early on that they were not going to be popular, even if they where, by rare chance, good looking.
They learned K-12 to look for people that valued intelligence, competence, and a wide range of serious interests. They went to college with a smaller subset of those people.
The woman of my dreams (now my wife) was the "Goddess" that helped me through semesters of my least favorite area of math, quantum mechanics. I was really good at the probabilistic bits and she was great at high order vector space.
I can't image what we would post on OkCupid. Something like, Likes: open Ocean racing (being cold and wet), and long discussions on Hilbert Space.
They learned K-12 to look for people that valued intelligence, competence, and a wide range of serious interests. They went to college with a smaller subset of those people.
The woman of my dreams (now my wife) was the "Goddess" that helped me through semesters of my least favorite area of math, quantum mechanics. I was really good at the probabilistic bits and she was great at high order vector space.
I can't image what we would post on OkCupid. Something like, Likes: open Ocean racing (being cold and wet), and long discussions on Hilbert Space.
2
Vacuous is as vacuous does. Shallow, callow and totally fallow with respect to the human side of interaction: loving, caring, respecting, fidelity, kindness, honesty...the Hollywoodization of relationships infused with massive amounts of online porn have trivialized society. Oh, and Reality TV, the oxymoron of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
3
Who on earth needs a column by the self proclaimed philosopher in chief about internet dating?
I fell for a headline that has absolutely nothing to with content of this op-ed.
I fell for a headline that has absolutely nothing to with content of this op-ed.
8
Enchantment is inherently anticapitalist. It makes competition and rivalry seem petty and stupid. It can be sold, and sometimes the buyer gets something that is real. But being sold degrades enchantment.
4
'When people start texting or tweeting to each other, they don’t turn into a bunch of Einsteins. Rudder looked into the most common words and phrases used on Twitter. For men they include: good bro, ps4, my beard, in nba, hoopin and off-season. For women they include: my nails done, mani pedi, retail therapy, and my belly button.'
It is said that fewer younger people today read books than people did, in general, just a few decades ago. Twitter seems the ultimate reductive, reducing words to abbreviations and shortcuts, like ‘u r cut’ (cute).
The examples David gives are sadly, and likely, to be somewhat representative of our youth culture, not everyone of course, but many of today’s youth. The above little cute-isms show just how vacuous this culture has become.
It is said that fewer younger people today read books than people did, in general, just a few decades ago. Twitter seems the ultimate reductive, reducing words to abbreviations and shortcuts, like ‘u r cut’ (cute).
The examples David gives are sadly, and likely, to be somewhat representative of our youth culture, not everyone of course, but many of today’s youth. The above little cute-isms show just how vacuous this culture has become.
19
r u sure cut means cute?
It has been used as sculpted.as in muscled.
Also circumcised.
It has been used as sculpted.as in muscled.
Also circumcised.
4
David, you wrote:
"in a technical culture in which humanism, religion and the humanities, which are the great instructors of enchantment, are not automatically central to life."
Two out of three isn't bad, David. Religion does not lead to enchantment, at least not the good type - but spirituality can. Religion represents, at best, the husk of the spiritual experience, the husk that is best discarded before consumption lest it make you sick. Never confuse the one with the other.
As for OK Cupid, David, you read the book - and I've been on the site for nearly a decade.
IMHO, what's going on with sites like OK Cupid is that a lot of the participants are putting their little toes in the water while refusing to take the risk of getting wet. Perhaps they've nearly drowned previously, and as a result have lost their nerve. I know that I've felt that way at times.
Dating sites like OK Cupid attempt to match you on the basis of intellectual chemistry - which is not something to sneer at, but not the same thing as physical chemistry. You can't gauge long-term physical chemistry and compatibility from an algorithm. a picture, or even a profile. IMHO, you need an extended period of friendly contact for that to become readily apparent - and perhaps participants on the site simply refuse to give the process the time that it needs.
Still, online dating is a saner way to connect with someone than getting loaded in a bar, and waking up next to a conservative...
"in a technical culture in which humanism, religion and the humanities, which are the great instructors of enchantment, are not automatically central to life."
Two out of three isn't bad, David. Religion does not lead to enchantment, at least not the good type - but spirituality can. Religion represents, at best, the husk of the spiritual experience, the husk that is best discarded before consumption lest it make you sick. Never confuse the one with the other.
As for OK Cupid, David, you read the book - and I've been on the site for nearly a decade.
IMHO, what's going on with sites like OK Cupid is that a lot of the participants are putting their little toes in the water while refusing to take the risk of getting wet. Perhaps they've nearly drowned previously, and as a result have lost their nerve. I know that I've felt that way at times.
Dating sites like OK Cupid attempt to match you on the basis of intellectual chemistry - which is not something to sneer at, but not the same thing as physical chemistry. You can't gauge long-term physical chemistry and compatibility from an algorithm. a picture, or even a profile. IMHO, you need an extended period of friendly contact for that to become readily apparent - and perhaps participants on the site simply refuse to give the process the time that it needs.
Still, online dating is a saner way to connect with someone than getting loaded in a bar, and waking up next to a conservative...
157
Or a liberal... just sayin...
3
When you spend time with someone, you notice whether you feel attracted to them and you also find whatever part(s) of the person you relate positively to -- which may not be the part(s) they advertize.
1
Pure sophistry. Religion and spirituality mean the same thing. Perhaps what you are so cumbersomely trying to differentiate between is religion and religious institutions?
Lots of cash is like "dating site looks",
A lure for the untutored shnooks,
Devotion to the Rich,
Like a David Brooks pitch,
Shows a blind eye to cooking the books.
A lure for the untutored shnooks,
Devotion to the Rich,
Like a David Brooks pitch,
Shows a blind eye to cooking the books.
69
To the NYT... When will you be doing an article on Larry Eisenberg? It's time we all learned more about the man with the limerick for every occasion!
78
@Gwbear,
I thought the name Larry Eisenberg sounded familiar, and it turns out he's a writer that I read years ago when I was deeply into science fiction. He's the real deal. The Times did do an article on Larry a while back, and Wikipedia has more of the story.
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/the-6th-floors-poet-in-resi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Eisenberg
I thought the name Larry Eisenberg sounded familiar, and it turns out he's a writer that I read years ago when I was deeply into science fiction. He's the real deal. The Times did do an article on Larry a while back, and Wikipedia has more of the story.
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/the-6th-floors-poet-in-resi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Eisenberg
6
The NYT should invite Eisenberg to write the entire opinion pages in limmericks, maybe on April 1.
What would we do without Larry?
What would we do without Larry?
12
At least one year, we had a State of the Union Address characterized as "date night," now we have a polarized audience for the speech and dating advice as an afterthought. Maybe this is progress, rendering unto Cupid what is Cupid's and unto Caesar's what is Caesar's.
14
Part of the fun when reading a David Brooks column is to try to find the conservative political tie-in. It's possible that in this case there isn't one, but if that's true we're just taking dating advice from a conservative Republican.
Or maybe this is Brooks' subtle way of preparing us for the cavalcade of 2016 Republican presidential candidates. It's like a beauty-pageant, except without the tiaras and swimsuits (hopefully), and we do have to consider someone we're going to have a relationship with for at least four years. Looks seem to matter on dating sites, but for most of these candidates we're going to have to rely on personality and charisma. And we'll need to take the enchantment leap with one of them, assuming we can be enchanted by homophobic misogynistic gun-loving execution-happy multi-millionaires who run on a platform of austerity for the poor and free rides for the rich. What's not to love? There's the fun-loving Santorum, Romney redux, another Bush, and possibly Rick Perry, looking super smart in his Leonard Hofstadter glasses.
Then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and this is really a treatise on dating by a conservative pundit. But if that's what I'm looking for, I'll read Charles Krauthammer.
Or maybe this is Brooks' subtle way of preparing us for the cavalcade of 2016 Republican presidential candidates. It's like a beauty-pageant, except without the tiaras and swimsuits (hopefully), and we do have to consider someone we're going to have a relationship with for at least four years. Looks seem to matter on dating sites, but for most of these candidates we're going to have to rely on personality and charisma. And we'll need to take the enchantment leap with one of them, assuming we can be enchanted by homophobic misogynistic gun-loving execution-happy multi-millionaires who run on a platform of austerity for the poor and free rides for the rich. What's not to love? There's the fun-loving Santorum, Romney redux, another Bush, and possibly Rick Perry, looking super smart in his Leonard Hofstadter glasses.
Then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and this is really a treatise on dating by a conservative pundit. But if that's what I'm looking for, I'll read Charles Krauthammer.
386
Or his contract simply required him to write a column...
I'm still gobsmacked that he writes for this "Times" and not the one in Washington D.C.
I'm still gobsmacked that he writes for this "Times" and not the one in Washington D.C.
10
Very funny. You think Charles is hotter?
52
My theory is that Brooks has taken to writing pop psychology columns because his party is in such a moral shambles that he finds it difficult to say anything positive about the GOP today. And who can blame him? But David, there is another option: you could muster your moral courage and switch from the party of Me to the party of We. How about it?
110
Yet for the typical man, the beauty of his female partner can often keep him sated and happy, compensating for various personality flaws and incompatibilities.
(To be fair, the man's satisfaction is only 50% of a healthy relationship, of course.)
A sad reflection on the human condition? I guess so, but it's also true.