[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Use REPORTS. Posting 'Mods pls' achieves nothing.
Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

GIF_file_at_sector…

Anonymous 43782

If science had come up with a way to perfectly calculate your absolute soulmate-tier perfect mate and the government necessitated the matching process would you want to live in such a system?

Anonymous 43783


Anonymous 43784

>>43782
What if it turns out there are people who are destined to be alone?

Anonymous 43785

>>43784
That's an ethical one. Maybe they could be alone together?

Anonymous 43786

Hmm, I don't think it would be possible for everyone to match perfectly. Tastes trend towards certain types, that's just how it is, and so such desirable people would be snatched up quickly. Basically what >>43784 said, some people will just be alone since they don't match with other left-behinders perfectly.
Realistically, it would have to be a system with a hierarchy of desirable traits/matches. It would be more a "best match" of what you're looking for and rarely a perfect one.

But my answer to even that is yes, I would like to find my "best match" for sure! My tastes are odd so I feel like he won't be snatched up right away. It would help a lot since searching has been so hard on me.

Anonymous 43787

>>43786
Your first paragraph makes all assumptions based on the current system of complete random chaos we live in now, I imagine things like trends and tastes and "desirable people" wouldn't be a thing anymore since everyone is assigned their perfect match from the get-go

Anonymous 43788

That reminds me of the time eharmony was touting its "matchmaking algorithm" where it said that it would match you guaranteed.

After an hour of filling out their stupid tests, the thing thinks about it for like 10 minutes and tells me "sorry we couldn't find a match."

Mind you, this was from, oh, say ten years ago?

Anonymous 43789

>>43788
Imagine that test but actually flushed out and intricate and on a global scale… I can dream

Anonymous 43790

>>43787
>from the get-go
Like…at birth? How would this information be known, psychically or something? Or…does it matter since this is all daydreaming lol?
Personally I am of the belief there is some nature at work when it comes to some popular desirable traits (height in men, certain WHR in women, healthy hair and skin) so those may not change much. It's definitely not a rule, I have weird tastes myself like I said, but a general tendency across cultures which makes me believe such.

But if that wasn't the case, even better! Double yes from me.

Anonymous 43792

>>43790
"get-go" being whatever age this magical science has determined the pairing happens at, you know what I mean.

Anonymous 43793

There have been studies on people who are in arranged marriages in India. There your parents find you a wife when you are a child and when you get old enough you marry often without spending any time together in between.

They ask them questions like how many times a month they have sex, how much they love the other person if they have ever thought about or cheated and compare how long they stay married. It turns out that statistically they are just as happy if not happier than people in the west who chose their own mates

Anonymous 43797

>>43786
I don't think OP was asking anyone to realistically analyze how a perfect matchmaking system would or could work.

I think she just wanted to pose the moral question of it people would be willing to give up their personal freedom and choice if it meant guaranteed success.

Anonymous 43798

>>43793
Westerners deride the brutality of family-arranged marriages, and then turn around and let algorithms on Tinder and OKCupid arrange their relationships instead. Is it really better?

Anonymous 43815

>>43787
Your best match might be someone else's best match also. So who gets to keep him?

Say you and person A get matching coefficient of 0.980. It's the best one you can get.

But person A's best matching coefficient is 0.985 with person B.

But person B's best matching coefficient is 0.990 with person C.

And assume second-best options for each of you have much lower MCs.

So who gets paired with whom? Or should we aim for the highest sum of all matching coefficients of all matched pair? That would result in many unhappy, poorly matched pairs I believe.

Of course we can aim for a high mean MC and a flat MC distribution, but that is only achievable if A LOT of people get matched at once. We can address that by matching people only once they reach a certain age once a year.

Anonymous 43816

>>43798
Arranged marriages were unironically better than what we have now. As long as parents aim for creating a good family, not to maximize their own economic utility when choosing a partner for their child.

Anonymous 43863

>>43798
There's a big difference between being forced/pressured into a marriage with some person who your family chose, and letting an algorithm try to match you with someone who's similar to you, who you can just not date if you don't want to

Anonymous 43864

>>43863
>Who you can just not date
But if it's your perfect match you're going to want to date

Anonymous 43875

Isn’t this the premise to the anime/manga Koi to Uso?

But to answer your question, I would be totally down for this if there was such a perfect system. I want to meet my soulmate.

Anonymous 43876

>>43875
yea it's why I made the thread haha

Anonymous 43878

>>43798
Yes, I can swipe left on tinder. Can I instant divorce an arranged marriage I'm not happy with?

Anonymous 43879

>>43864
I am not going to know that until at least 3 years living together. Annoying unconscious habits you never noticed while living alone or with your parents can be a dealbreaker for me.

Anonymous 43881

>>43816
I'm happy we have moved past that and people who don't want children are free to marry people who don't want children.

Anonymous 43886

>>43864
Well yeah obviously, but would you really trust a website to give you a perfect match 100% of the time

Anonymous 43891

>>43879
But you would know because you would have grown up in a society that has perfect matches

Anonymous 43899

In the unlikely scenario that this was actually perfect, I think it would be a good thing for society. However, it would have so many problems. What about people who are just meant to be single and have that freedom? Or people who's soulmate-tier match was in other country?
I personally don't believe in soulmates, just in general compatibility vs incompatibility and whether circumstances dictate two people meet

Anonymous 43905

Someone's watched black mirror

Anonymous 43938

Isn't the act of finding your soulmate just as important?

Anonymous 43940

>>43938
Trusting in an algorithm is a method of "finding" something too.



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]