Ignoring the Numbers
- Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 09:57 am
- Contributed by: Jet
- Views: 1,147
It’s not uncommon to see articles proclaiming that online dating is full of liars. “An amazingly high percentage of women lie about their weight!” one might say, or “You might as well subtract an inch from that man’s stated height, because statistically he’s lying!”
Well, technically, this might be true. However, if fudging one’s weight or height is the worst character flaw in your prospective match, then are things really looking all that bleak? Not all of the “lies” are even intentional; not everyone hops on the scale every day, so the supposed average weight “lie” (less than ten pounds) might well be normal fluctuation. And I personally don’t know when I last stood up against a wall and had my height measured; I do know, however, that I’m likely to get a little shorter as I get older, as my spine naturally compresses (thanks, family history of osteoporosis).
Instead of cynically wondering whether our date has been one hundred percent truthful with the numbers, we might want to ask ourselves what the numbers actually mean. Even if we know a height and a weight, we don’t actually know how that translates on the person in question. Since we don’t normally walk around advertising our stats on the street, we don’t even really know what typical people weigh. The most information we have is on celebrities - and since the camera adds weight, these celebs tend to look much smaller in person.
A full-length picture might be more telling, and it certainly says something about your date’s honesty and confidence. However, again, the camera is not always truthful, and the right angle can add or subtract pounds. And that’s not even taking into consideration the sad fact that not everyone is photogenic.
So instead of quibbling over an inch, a few pounds, or one photograph, perhaps we should do what online dating sites intend us to: find someone intellectually compelling, who we find reasonably nice-looking, and let the issue of chemistry and attraction go until we meet in person. After all, we aren’t looking to fall in love with a profile, or a picture, or general statistics; we want someone solid, three-dimensional, and human.
Well, technically, this might be true. However, if fudging one’s weight or height is the worst character flaw in your prospective match, then are things really looking all that bleak? Not all of the “lies” are even intentional; not everyone hops on the scale every day, so the supposed average weight “lie” (less than ten pounds) might well be normal fluctuation. And I personally don’t know when I last stood up against a wall and had my height measured; I do know, however, that I’m likely to get a little shorter as I get older, as my spine naturally compresses (thanks, family history of osteoporosis).
Instead of cynically wondering whether our date has been one hundred percent truthful with the numbers, we might want to ask ourselves what the numbers actually mean. Even if we know a height and a weight, we don’t actually know how that translates on the person in question. Since we don’t normally walk around advertising our stats on the street, we don’t even really know what typical people weigh. The most information we have is on celebrities - and since the camera adds weight, these celebs tend to look much smaller in person.
A full-length picture might be more telling, and it certainly says something about your date’s honesty and confidence. However, again, the camera is not always truthful, and the right angle can add or subtract pounds. And that’s not even taking into consideration the sad fact that not everyone is photogenic.
So instead of quibbling over an inch, a few pounds, or one photograph, perhaps we should do what online dating sites intend us to: find someone intellectually compelling, who we find reasonably nice-looking, and let the issue of chemistry and attraction go until we meet in person. After all, we aren’t looking to fall in love with a profile, or a picture, or general statistics; we want someone solid, three-dimensional, and human.
Subscribe
