I don’t usually go anywhere near the Mail online but this article intrigued me - although possibly didn’t surprise me all that much. If you’re not inclined to read it, and who could blame you, it focuses on psychometric testing and its uses in matching people on dating sites.
It intrigued me as it got me thinking over some of the experiences I’ve had - dates that I‘ve thought should have gone well, people that I shouldn‘t have fancied but have. The article correctly points out that there is no substitution for attraction, but just where does attraction come from anyway? And since when was it based on logical processes?? I fell for an ex the moment I laid eyes on him and it turned out the be the worse mistake of my life. He was in no way a looker, don’t get me wrong. Just felt immensely drawn to him. Another guy I dated for a while was the epitome of sweetness but I couldn’t, try as I might, see him as anything other than a friend. I can also recall someone that I emailed back and forth once on a dating site and couldn’t believe how clever and erudite this guy was. I LOVED talking to him - online. Within 5 minutes of being on the phone with him I was bored rigid and truly started to question if it was the same guy!
I wonder if psychometric testing could make sense of any of that for me? And if it can, I doubt it could persuade me to make different decisions. Maybe we’re just not good at doing what’s best for ourselves.
Anyways, the article certainly drew no conclusions (and neither did the comments underneath it) - some seemed to know right away when talking to a prospective partner online, some were left feeling disappointed. So what? Seems to me that psychometric testing creates just the same odds as luck - some you win, some you lose!
Angela x
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment