Choosing from a list makes partners comparable in a way they were not

The argument

The second argument concerns what happens when people are presented as a set of options. Proponents of this position argue that a service does not simply introduce two people; it presents each of them with many others at the same time, arranged for comparison. That framing is not neutral. A person met at work is encountered as themselves, while a person met in a list is encountered beside alternatives, and the question shifts from whether this person suits me to whether this person is the best of those on offer. Proponents argue that the effect persists once a relationship has begun. Both parties know the list is still there, that it refreshes, and that re-entering it costs little. Where a partner was once hard to replace because the pool was small and the social cost of leaving was high, the perceived cost of starting again has fallen, and proponents argue that a relationship conducted in the knowledge of easy replacement is a different relationship whether or not anyone acts on it. They add that comparison changes what people look for. Qualities that can be shown in a profile, such as appearance, occupation and stated interests, become the basis on which attention is allocated, while qualities that only emerge over time are invisible at the point of choice. On this account online dating has altered relationships by altering their beginning: partners are selected comparatively, against listed attributes, in the knowledge that the list remains open, and none of those conditions applied when couples met because they were already in the same room.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics answer that comparing possible partners is not new, since people have always weighed suitors against one another and families, friends and matchmakers did the comparing openly. They add that the claim about easy replacement is an assertion about what people feel rather than a finding, and that the real obstacles to leaving a relationship, such as shared homes, children, finances and affection, are untouched by the existence of a list. On the point about listed qualities, critics note that appearance and occupation were always what a stranger saw first and that everything else was always discovered later. On that view the argument describes the experience of using a service and projects it onto the relationships formed through one.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Weighing suitors against one another is an old practice carried out by individuals, families and intermediaries, so presentation in a list intensifies comparison rather than introducing it. [Rejecting P2] The real costs of leaving a relationship lie in shared homes, children, finances and affection, none of which is altered by the pool remaining open. [Rejecting P3] Appearance and occupation were always the first things visible about a stranger, and the qualities that emerge over time still decide whether a relationship lasts. [Rejecting C] At most it follows that the experience of selecting a partner has changed, not that relationships have.