Here it is, if youвЂ™d like to read it.
N ow for the interesting bit: the profile pictures. I selected five photos for the boys and five for the women that depicted men and women who I personally thought varied in physical attractiveness.
Then I gave the ten photos to three other people (male and female) who would act as independent judges of the girlsвЂ™ and boysвЂ™ looks by ranking them from best looking toвЂ¦not the best looking. Pleasantly, for the experiment, all three judges agreed on the rankings.
At this point, I had ten profiles with similar sounding usernames, all with the same answers to 25 questions, with the same written profile and personal stats (all heights consistent, the same level of education, etc.), and each account had a different photo of a man or woman.
I then herded our collection of fake people onto Deception Airways and pretend-flew them to five different US cities, where they would be allocated in pairs. The best looking man and woman in one city, second best boy and girl in another, and so on.
I must admit, I was excited. If you dabble reviews ever want to feel like a small-time god (albeit a somewhat meddling, devious one), I recommend creating multiple dating profiles.
Before we get into the results of this first stage of the experiment, here are a couple of interesting online dating facts that hint at the complexity of meeting people online.
To be fair, my tinkering with the system wasnвЂ™t really helping with that last statistic. Anyway, science and all that! Onto the results.