The good, the bad, and the sexy-ugly about “Hacking the Hyperlinked Heart” article

The good, the bad, and the sexy-ugly about “Hacking the Hyperlinked Heart” article

Amy Webb has a new book coming out. As advanced promotion, an excerpt from her book was made into an article and published in the Wall Street Journal, “Hacking the Hyperlinked Heart.”

As my clients are used to me saying by now, there is A LOT to unpack here.

The Summary: 

A 30-year-old woman creates 10 fake male profiles on JDate and Match in order to “meet” 96 women in one month, and analyzes their profiles and behavior. This leads her to “reverse engineer” her strategy, developing a somewhat-scientific data-based set of rules for how to write and use a successful online dating profile.

The book she wrote about how she did this may become a best-seller.

My Commentary:

How can you not love sexy words like “scrubbed the data”?

I was pleased to see that some of the techniques I suggest to my clients were borne out by Amy Webb’s “research,” as bulleted in the article. I put that word in quotes because there is a whole other discussion we could be having about the ethics or lack thereof of her methodology, and the personal biases that potentially skew her questions and the interpretation of her results.

Unpacking the meta, I have a sense of a tidal wave of publicity coming, echoes of the first swell of that Tiger Mom book from last year. I think we are looking at the modern-day version of a book that I once found both ridiculous and (when used sparingly) helpful: The Rules. (This link leads to a combined version of volumes I and II. I personally only read volume I, back in 1995.) Interesting to note: The authors came out with a third book, a version of The Rules for online dating, back in 2002, which they have revised for 2013 release, and they have another new book out this year, co-written with their daughters, that translates their advice for a younger generation.

Hello, zeitgeist!

The Takeaways:

Part I: Where her results line up with my practices

  • Brevity is sexy. 

Amy Webb’s research found a marked increase in success for profiles running 500 words or less. She goes on to say some pretty snarky things about people who write longer profiles. I don’t agree with her assertions about intelligence or desperation. But I do feel that a profile can strike a balance between giving enough detail to make a connection, and holding back for when you decide to meet.

Bonus advice: If you do write a long profile, use short paragraphs to lighten the visual experience of the text.

  • Especially for women: Make the first move. Like a rat. 

This is my favorite. I talk about this with clients all the time. If you like a profile, DON’T wink, poke, favorite, etc. DO send a brief email. Mention a detail that caught your eye, relate to it with something from your own life, and ask a question. Amy Webb’s research confirms this technique, without rodents.

About the rat part: In college, I took an advanced-level Psychology course with Professor Breedlove (his real name), called “Animal Behavior.” We learned that when a female rat is interested in a male rat, she walks up to him, smacks him on the nose with a paw, runs away, and then stops, and turns, and checks to see if he followed. If not, she goes over and bops him one again.

I don’t recommend that my clients email twice, but I do recommend the first email salvo as a solid smack on the nose, and then checking to see if the desired rat followed.

  • It is hard to be funny, particularly sarcastic, in print. 

How we feel we sound when we write it, and how someone may take it, can be two different tones, and so must be handled with care.

If what you write can be taken badly, it will.

  • Do everything you can to remove blocks from connection. 

If things that you are doing with your profile, your text, photos, emails, are not yielding the results you want, investigate why. Amy wasn’t meeting the right guys. Something she said about Aikido was bringing her sparring partners instead of life partners. So she took steps to discover a better set of tactics FOR HER. And it worked, for her.

 

 Part II: Where we differ

  • I disagree with her about hiding your profession, especially, as she says, if you are successful or what you do is complicated. 

If either factor scares someone away, perhaps it’s best if they are scared away. Her advice, at least this shortened for newsprint version of it, does not give men very much credit (read the comments to see that at least a few men agreed with me on this.) This strategy may work well for a 30-year-old woman looking to break through the stereotypical reading habits of the average similarly-aged bachelor, but one size does not fit all.

My clients tend to be successful, powerful, exciting people looking for intelligent, thoughtful, exciting partners. I want my clients to find partners who will really get who they are, who will meet them where they are; that they will be inspired by each other. Thus, I don’t recommend hiding who you are. I do recommend being bold and being yourself.  There is a continuum of expression, and how you express who you are can range from attractive to off-putting. That is where the art comes in — something I help my clients with on an individual basis.

  • Do you have to wait 24 hours before responding to an email? Amy says yes. I say, maybe.

This reminds me again of The Rules. Advice about when to respond to email contact, how long your phone calls should be, etc.; the intention is to give a model for how a confident, busy person would respond to interest. Sometimes, when you are not feeling confident or busy, it can be informative to try on these behaviors and see what happens. A quick response can read as over-eager and may work against you (flash back to the movie Swingers).

I don’t think the timing of your response makes a person like you.

If the key to bagging a specific partner is by acting unavailable, the two of you may have some work ahead of you down the road in couple’s counseling.

When our behaviors aren’t yielding the desired results, we have an opportunity look at why we may be being compelled to act in self-defeating ways, and what the alternatives might be.

There is a related conversation here about how a potential-partner’s perceived unavailability can trigger over-availability in the other person. This is a complex topic which I cover in detail in my group programs and with my private coaching clients.

  • I like curly hair. Do you?

My friends know that I enjoy more than my fair share of reality TV dating shows. It is interesting to me that Ms. Webb’s research bears out Millionaire Matchmaker Patti Stenger’s ongoing rebukes of curly-heads. Get-it-straightened is both Patti’s battle cry, and Amy’s data-supported advice. Patti also uniformly dismisses redheads. Which I find patently unfair.

What we’re really talking about is generalizations vs. specifics, and what appeals to the center of the bell curve.

Are you a center of the bell curve person? Is your ideal partner? 

Personally, I’m an on the edges girl. And so are the people in my tribe.

Which brings me back to The Rules, a book that advised women to wear their hair long and down, choose low-cut colorful tops, always wear lipstick. In a general way, this can be effective. Men generally respond to long hair, bright colors, cleavage, as a sign of sexiness. Generally speaking.

The photos of women with straight hair are more often clicked than curly in Amy’s quasi-scientific study. If you have curly hair, and you want to try “gaming the system” as Amy Webb did, go ahead and get it straightened, have some photos taken, see if that ups your responses.

Yes, if lipstick makes you feel good, wear it. Ditto the colorful, low-cut tops, the long hair. Feel free to try on different ideas of sexy, but pick the one that is true to you, not the one that Ms. Webb says will get you the most clicks.

Because getting hit on by more people online isn’t necessarily a good thing. In fact it can be exhausting.

Making a connection with someone who is potentially a good match FOR YOU, is the result we desire.

* * *

Scene from the movie Swingers (1996):

Mike: So how long do I wait to call?
Trent: A day.
Mike: Tomorrow.
Sue: Tomorrow, then a day.
Trent: Yeah.
Mike: So two days?
Trent: Yeah, I guess you could call it that, two days.
Sue: Definitely, two days is like industry standard.
Trent: You know I used to wait two days to call anybody, but now it’s like everyone in town waits two days. So I think three days is kind of money. What do you think?
Sue: Yeah, but two’s enough not to look anxious.
Trent: Yeah, two’s enough not to look anxious. But I think three days is kind of money. You know because you…
Mike: Yeah, but you know what, maybe I’ll wait three weeks. How’s that? And tell her I was cleaning out my wallet and I just happened to run into her number.
Charles: Then ask her where you met her.
Mike: Yeah, I’ll ask her where I met her. I don’t remember. What does she look like? And then I’ll asked if we f*cked. Is that… would that be… T, would that be the money?
Trent: You know what. Ha ha ha Mike, laugh all you want but if you call too soon you might scare off a nice baby who’s ready to party.
Mike: Well how long are you guys gonna wait to call your babies?
Trent, Sue: Six days. 

 

Tagged with: , ,