e-Matchmaking: Can a Computer Find Love For You?Written by Devlyn Steele
I logged on to a dating site other day and was greeted by a large, flashing message. It promised that if I took time to answer a series of questions that they would find a "perfect match" for me. Imagine that? All work and worry of being single - gone! We truly have evolved! Not only can computer programs manage entire traffic system of a city and make chess grandmasters cry, but now they can lead my perfect match right to my doorstep. I always wanted a Stepford wife, I hope it comes assembled. The recent trend in Internet Dating has been use of a "computer personality test" of some sort. Websites claim that these tests, usually developed by a "top psychologist", have ability to understand you and your needs through a series of questions. Confused? Lost in love? Problems communicating? Don't worry, Online Dating Hal 5000 can figure you out! In fact, when you're done, this computer program will know your needs and desires better than you do. Remember Broadway play “Fiddler on The Roof”? You might not, it was first Broadway play I went to when I was seven. A song that always stuck in my head for some reason was “matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match…” The song starts as a plea to matchmaker to bring true love straight to altar; someone beautiful, rich, intelligent, and perfect. But by end of song, singer realizes that Matchmaker might not be up to task. She decides that “playing with matches, a girl can get burned”. So, do these tests really work? Personality tests have a long history. Really, really smart guys with names like Freud, Maslov, Fromm, and Jung developed respected psychological theories, and these theories are used as basis for all types of tests. “The Big Five” theory suggests that there are five dimensions of personality: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Some popular personality tests use this as a foundation. Others go “Big Three” route, which does away with “openness” and “agreeableness” dimensions - mostly because it’s easier to remember. I joke a little about these theories, but truth is that they’ve survived test of time and there is a ton of scientific research behind them. The real question is if these tests can be effective in applying a theory to complexity of a human being. Add to this additional layer of meshing your answers with another, equally complex person. That’s a tall order.
| | Kierkegaard, Don Giovanni, and the MessiahWritten by Martin Winer
Kierkegaard, Don Giovanni, and Messiah“If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or do not marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or do not marry, you will regret both.” -- Soren Kierkegaard. Soren Kierkegaard was a tremendous fan of Don Giovanni (aka Don Juan). Kierkegaard pined in regret over his broken engagement with Regine Olsen. He feared that once she saw rottenness and evil within him, that she would no longer be able to love him. Many of his earlier works were works dealing with faith and coming to grips with his decision not to marry her. Such a person would be interested in character of Don Giovanni who slept with thousands of women in fear that no one woman would ever love him. Both Kierkegaard and Don Giovanni had a fundamental lack of faith: Not a lack of faith in God, but a lack of faith in humanity. We’ll soon see that two are related however. What is fundamental value of faith to begin with? Faith allows human mind to make decisions in absence of perfect information and absolute certainty. Faith in its purest form is essential to daily living. How could we board a plane, drive to work or go about our daily business without a certain faith that odds are in our favour that everything is going to be alright? I’m certain that were Don Giovanni alive today, he’d happily board a plane to fly to his love of week. He would have faith in plane ride, which could theoretically cost him his life, but he wouldn’t have faith in woman to truly love her, even when there is no mortal danger. This irony speaks wondrously of innate human ability to recognize that soul is most precious thing of all. Don Giovanni was a duelist who commonly took risks with his life but never risked to expose his soul. What then is so pernicious about opening yourself romantically to another human being? Why can’t we just open ourselves romantically to one eligible person after other until something works? While it sounds easy on paper, to be loved by someone is a validation of character. While it’s not only validation of character, it’s certainly a potent one. Thus to be unrequited in love is looked upon as an invalidation of character to those unsure of their worth, and for those sure of their worth, it’s a reminder that they are alone in recognizing their value. This is a very painful proposition and it is no wonder that, like a baby crying upon birth, so very many of us wish to return to womb. The womb is solitary human mind. Things make sense in there and even when things are a mess, it’s out own mess. Everything is nicely encapsulated there, and it is comfortable, warm and friendly inside. The lengths human beings will go to in order to return and stay in worm are enormous. Fancy cars and fancy clothes are a way to wrap and obscure soul. Snobbery and ego are tools so many use to fend off any foreign invaders. Religious zealotry, self-absorption, and seeking status quo are all opiates against any of out outside world that manages to slip in. The womb however is not where we were meant to be. It quickly leads to a planet of walking encapsulated beings that are so distant, one can easily feel lonely in a crowded room. It leads to a situation of starving amidst a sea of plenty. If climbing back into womb is not correct and loving blindly is a sure fire recipe for heartache then, what should we do? This is second most common philosophical question. The Russian philosopher Chernichevsky wrote a huge work called “Shto Dzelits?” (‘What to do?’) which begins with “What to do?” and cycles back on itself “thus, what to do?” It cycles without fruition because it attempts to answer a question that can only be answered in actions. Recall that self-absorption in excessive thinking is an opiate: a device of womb and therefore can’t be part of solution. What actions then must be taken? 1) We must itemize everything that represents womb to us. We must note down everything that we use to escape from world and others and every device we use to distance ourselves. That’s not to say that womb is always a bad thing: We should be protected against those that would misuse our love, but we must always be cognizant of shields and devices we use. 2) When time is right, we must be willing to emerge from our womb and embrace another human being. The time is right when you think your love will help that person and that their love is reasonably unlikely to hurt you. 3) We must help others who are locked in a womb to recognize what they are doing and help them emerge. 4) Our primary mission must be to constantly prepare ourselves to give and receive love. 5) We must realize that every time we emerge from womb we take a huge risk, but it’s essential that risk in order to answer most fundamental philosophical question: “What is this all about”?
|
