Anika’s Blog

My final project is on online dating and in particular, eharmony.  I chose to research this because I know people who tried it and had success. They are happily married with two children.  Since eharmony is the most elite dating site, I decided to see if it was all it was cracked up to be.

The company was started in 2000 by  Dr. Neil Clark Warren in Pasadena, Ca and it now has a 250 person staff.  It was once affiliated with right wing evangelicals, specifically James Dobson. The description of eharmony’s services is that it matching heterosexual couples through psychological testing with the intention of marriage. They also provide marriage counseling, dating tips, advice for singles, etc.  Those excluded from being able to participate in the site are:  homosexuals, people with three or more failed marriages, those with severe depression, those under the age of 21, and those already married.  Eharmony has been sued for not allowing gays and lesbians on the site.

The company’s growth doubled in its early stages but now growth has slowed to 10% because of free social networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook.  However, it still remains among the most popular dating sites though it has recently been facing increasingly harsh criticism from competitors. Prices at eHarmony range from a flat monthly fee of $60 to a 12-month upfront fee of $251 ($21 a month). There 250 million page hits a month from 15 million registered users.

In relation to our class and the readings we’ve done over the semester, my discussion related to: the Internet —globalization—interconnectivity-Global Village: the future of eHarmony and related sites such as match.com etc is uncertain—are they fads or culturally reshaping phenomena?  It is too soon to tell the effect of this reshaping and rethinking the concept of dating (psychological, sociological impacts, etc).  Will face to face human interaction be faded out more and more with the continued development of online companies and networks? 

Related to Marshal McLuhan, the Gutenberg Galaxy — that media are “extensions” of our human senses, bodies and minds.  Putting ourselves “out there” on the internet as analyzed people (analyzed by dating sites in order to match people with profile and specific identities/biographies which can not be completely verified before meeting someone in person.  The medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only by the content delivered over the medium, but by the characteristics of the medium itself.  So the medium as (dating websites, emails, chats) turns our attention to the effect of online dating on society and society being reshaped. If we are moving toward a global village, electronic mass media will collapse space and time barriers in human communication, enabling people to interact and live on a global scale.  The quality of the interaction is still uncertain in the virtual world of the WWW.  For fun/interest, go to kiamatch.com.  It is a great example of American cultural commentary on online dating, making fun, also using core ideas to gain customers/market products.

Hope you enjoyed the video clip of my eharmony friends.

Enjoy your summer. Good luck to graduates!!!

In addition to this kiamatch.com is an example of society spoofing the cultural phenomena of online dating. I can not post the video due to privacy of the 2 children. Powerpoint is attached.Powerpoint

I invite all of you to go to this site and watch this. its only 20 minutes, extremely informative and fascinating. its about the environment and before you decide to ignore this, it is not fanatical or absurd like a lot of tree hugger/environmentalist stuff can be.

I am interested to see how the method of presentation in “the story of stuff” has on people other than my self. I found it VERY simple, but VERY effective. it is a sharp contrast to the bombardment of media/text/images/sound we usually receive nowadays from computers/Web, television, etc.  However, I am sure the people who made the video have done much research on the best way to win people over through compelling advertising (even though this site is advertising a cause not a thing) and maybe they are pulling the wool over my eyes through their unique and simple way of presentation but i was won over just the same.  in such a complicated, busy world, this presentation was the breathe of fresh air that the host calls for.

so i was randomly thinking over the weekend while hangin out with some friends at starbucks.  we started analyzing everyone as what winnie the pooh character ppl were and i got Rabbit! apparently I am type A and bossy my friends say THEN we started critiquing it from a gender studies perspective, commenting on the fact that the only female in the classic cartoon/books is roo and that in the new show on Disney now, they booted chrisopher robin and replaced him with a girl instead.

ANYWAYS, i was wondering if new media studies, soon to be media studies minus the “new” will be analyzed and studied like all other genres of art have been: queer studies, feminist studies, post-colonial, race, etc etc etc.  does new media today favor any one group, bar any group, etc?

1. Reference Services to Educational Objects-which facilitate access to things or processes used for formal learning. Some of these things can be reserved for this purpose, stored in libraries, rental agencies, laboratories, and showrooms like museums and theaters; others can be in daily use in factories, airports, or on farms, but made available to students as apprentices or on off hours. 2. Skill Exchanges — which permit persons to list their skills, the conditions under which they are willing to serve as models for others who want to learn these skills, and the addresses at which they can be reached. 3. Peer-Matching — a communications network which permits persons to describe the learning activity in which they wish to engage, in the hope of finding a partner for the inquiry. 4. Reference Services to Educators-at-Large — who can be listed in a directory giving the addresses and self-descriptions of professionals, paraprofessionals, and free-lancers, along with conditions of access to their services. Such educators, as we will see, could be chosen by polling or consulting their former clients. (see above) I think this a great concept but actually implementing it would be truly impossible now or in the near, maybe even distant, future. It seems extremely socialist and no where near the average American point of view. Who is going to monitor all of this? Illich seems anti-rank instruction and anti-rank. I don’t see how this system can be used on a large scale—a small village or town maybe, but not a state, let alone, a country. Also polling I do not think is the right way to judge an educator. No one can guarantee that people will be honest or not report in order to serve their own agenda. Peer matching also seems far fetched. How do you keep abusers of the system out of it? Illich seems like an extreme idealist and I couldn’t really get excited about what he was saying because I don’t think it will really ever happen. I commend him for his efforts in planning and thinking this all out, I just can’t see it being feasible.

i thought the interview was VERY cool. ive seen stuff like that at the hirschorn modern art museum in DC (which i love)  Bill V said a few things that caught my attention especially: Artists detox, transform and transmute. using artificial technology, they are able to represent invisibile things. as scientists have remapped humans as coded systems with dna, computers also function in code.  seems like the whole world is going digital one way or the other. at first i thought that there was nothing great about film art. whats so hard about holding up a video camera as opposed to creating something with your hands or spending hours and effort and skill on a painting? but a lot goes into setting up the shot, makeup, outfits, facial expressions, movements, etc. I thought it the examples on the youtube interview were very cool and im interesting to see more of this new genre of art

I found the class discussion intriguing and perplexing.  I usually do not even comment in class but rather wait to blog because I feel so bombarded by profound comments and puzzling issues.  I’m the type that needs a while to digest it all.  im not sure there is a clean cut answer for the dichotomy between work and play. its relative.  some nerdy people like me enjoy cleaning and organizing. other people find it tortuous work. it is work but i enjoy it, so is it play? i dont even think I can call it that, but its not really work for ME either. does it matter?  if you have a “playful,” fun, enjoyable work environment like those Google offices, it might help people to view their job in a more positive light. but they still HAVE to work. its funny the way the word “play” is used in our speech.  you can go see a PLAY, play a board game, play a movie, play a cd, play an instrument, play a sport, play around (like joking), play “house,” play video games etc…. Some of these things are definitely outside of reality and some are realities within the real world that are only taken for real by some and are only thus defined as such by those particular people.  All of these “play” examples are originally based in having fun/a hobby.  Anything playful is less or non stressful which thus gives it its significance. Work is essentially stressful, boring, hard, etc. But you can still be playful at work or work while having fun. I don’t see why we need to splice WORK and PLAY.

For my final project I am researching the world of online dating, in particular, Eharmony.  It is interesting because it is for heterosexual couples only unlike match.com. It is also interesting the different guarantees that these sites offer (such as if you dont find the person of your dreams in 6 months, you get another 6 months free!) It seems like commodifying people in a way because they are the product that these sites are offering. For every success story I am sure there are 20 people who were completely unsuccessful. But further research is needed in order to assess this.  One downside to doing research on these emerging elements of new media is that there has not been definitive research. A plus is that we are among the first who venture to do so.  For my project I am having a successful couple from eharmony ( I would have done any site, but I only know of one person who even tried the online route for a serious relationship) They met on eharmony and were married 3 years ago and they now have 2 children.  Instead of interviewing them as originally planned, I had them say whatever they wanted, being vague in my directions, to see what they had to say about it without my presumptions clouding what they say. I am excited to see what the culmination of all of my research on eharmony specifically (how it started, why it is successful/expanding, etc) will say.

I thought the second half of the video today was interesting because it showed an even more ludicrous, insane character portrait of Marshal McLuhan. The comments from his wife and son, along with the clip of his daughter’s wedding day and the fact that another daughter produced the film made it even more notable.  None of them were outrightly bitter or opposed to him, but they did, I think, paint a picture of a stubborn, slightly neurotic man. The best was when he was lying on the couch, talking out of one side of his mouth like he was A) dreamily drugged or B) on a psychiatrists couch and talking about how he only reads the right side of books. His claim that he used his own intellect and knowledge to “fill in the blanks” was ridiculous to the point of hilarity.  A classic example of a know-it-all who is a fool. I’m not saying he didn’t say anything true or profound, but he discredits his own self just in the way he lived/was. All the critics basically said the same thing: he was a nice guy but confusing and often unfounded. Makes me wonder how much I can really take of his as usable knowledge, but then again it is good to question everything.

As far as the video, I wish the we could have a filter on what this crazy/genius guy is saying to know what is ludicrous and what is truth. just like one of the critics on the video said–you cant tell if its a load of crazy garbage or something revolutionary and life-changing.  I think it would be helpful to have ALL of his theories explicated by modern scientists/scholars to really know.  The Tv thing I was kind of on the fence about. It takes a real addict to go into withdrawl like the study in Germany he talked about. Is tv really that much of a trip? I’m not sure. Sure we all watch a lot of it but we also have computers and video games as well as the old fashioned “other” category to fall back on. Unless what he is talking about can be translated into All media instead of just tv. Then  I could see withdrawl happening with a lack of tv/computers/video games/music.–but not to the same degree of say alcohol or drugs.