this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
586 points (95.6% liked)

Data is Beautiful

4770 readers
624 users here now

A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the sole aim of this subreddit.

A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

  A post must be (or contain) a qualifying data visualization.

  Directly link to the original source article of the visualization
    Original source article doesn't mean the original source image. Link to the full page of the source article as a link-type submission.
    If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC]

  [OC] posts must state the data source(s) and tool(s) used in the first top-level comment on their submission.

  DO NOT claim "[OC]" for diagrams that are not yours.

  All diagrams must have at least one computer generated element.

  No reposts of popular posts within 1 month.

  Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.

  Posts involving American Politics, or contentious topics in American media, are permissible only on Thursdays (ET).

  Posts involving Personal Data are permissible only on Mondays (ET).

Please read through our FAQ if you are new to posting on DataIsBeautiful. Commenting Rules

Don't be intentionally rude, ever.

Comments should be constructive and related to the visual presented. Special attention is given to root-level comments.

Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed.

Hate Speech and dogwhistling are not tolerated and will result in an immediate ban.

Personal attacks and rabble-rousing will be removed.

Moderators reserve discretion when issuing bans for inappropriate comments. Bans are also subject to you forfeiting all of your comments in this community.

Originally r/DataisBeautiful

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's been trending this way for years, but seeing it graphed out like this is shocking.

What do you think are the effects of this drastic change?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] XaiwahBlue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Before I was a ten, my mother was desperate to leave her home state and met a man online/a romantic post, moving states away. Had to be 1997, 1998.

Where i grew up no one had my values or my interests. My spouse of 10+ years i met on a free MMO back in 2010s we both happened to play and got to know each other there, then after a year chatting daily on cam, phone calls, and dms we met up.

So "meeting online" is really vague and can mean a lot of things. It's also gone from being new, some dating apps may help people connect, to being enshittified. Never used it for dating but OK cupid WAS ok at looking for like minded friends for like a second.

But people sharing hobbies and falling for each other probably will always happen even as the apps suck.

I wouldn't have found someone geographically near me with my same morals and hopes and wants out of life. I have never found "my parents and your parents birthed us here and so maybe we should get married" to be enough common ground.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 87 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

I think this graph is fake. The way the data is presented is confusing, but the study they are citing doesn't seem to confirm anywhere close to the 60% figure, it seems to be saying 11.5% instead: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38873/datasets/0001/variables/W1_Q24_MET_ONLINE?archive=icpsr

This lower figure also seems to line up with other studies: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/

One-in-ten partnered adults – meaning those who are married, living with a partner or in a committed romantic relationship – met their current significant other through a dating site or app.

The graph is branded with the logo of "Marriage Pact", which seems to be a dating app/service targeting college students. Maybe they made it as a form of (deceptive, unethical) advertising? I don't know, reverse image search just shows similarly unsourced social media posts, I can't confirm anything about its origins.

[–] exasperation@lemm.ee 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

but the study they are citing doesn't seem to confirm anywhere close to the 60% figure, it seems to be saying 11.5% instead

I think you've linked the variable of all couples regardless of when they got together. If 11.5% of all couples met online, whether they met in 2023 or 1975, then that doesn't actually disprove the line graph (which could be what percentage of couples who met in that particular year met through each method).

The researchers who maintain the data set you've linked published an analysis of the 2017 data showing that it was approaching 40% towards the most recent relationships being formed, in 2017. I could believe that post-covid, the trends have approached 60%.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

It could be that. I'm noticing now that the study I linked has a note about a sampling error they made:

Self-identified LGB adults were oversampled in HCMST 2017, and therefore remain oversampled in subsequent waves (2020, 2022). the weights (W1_WEIGHT_COMBO, W2_COMBO_WEIGHT, and W3_COMBO_WEIGHT) correct for this oversample.

So another possibility is that the data used for the graph is wrong because of a big correlation between sexual orientation and preference for online dating and it was made before this was corrected.

I don't think the figures are intuitively implausible, mostly I'm just bothered by the apparent lack of any way to confirm the authenticity of the graph and its relationship to the source material, or get an authoritative answer to the question of how prevalent online dating is.

One reason to doubt them though, the other article I linked says that as of 2022

About half of those under 30 (53%) report having ever used a dating site or app

Which is the demographic that uses them the most. So it doesn't make sense that more people would have met their current partner through a dating app than have ever used one.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

(**edit: I had accidentally grabbed a graph about same-sex relationships without realizing it and have removed.)

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Unclear what study that is referencing, but it's notable that Michael Rosenfeld is also the first listed principle investigator in the study referenced in the OP, likely part of the same project, since they list updates for every few years (How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) 2017, 2020, 2022, United States). Also unclear who compiled the graph or where it was originally published. I want to reiterate that this study itself seems to very much not line up with the graph, unless I'm misreading it very badly.

The BBC article is about a book, Modern Romance, and the book makes a claim that 35% of Americans met their spouses online ("respondents who married between 2005 and 2012"). This checks out with the cited source study, which makes an identical claim, though there's reason to be suspicious of it since it was funded by eHarmony. The scope there is a little different than "all couples", but it's still a very different number than what is in either this article's graph, or in the OP graph, which are very different from each other as well (saying the number reached 70% by 2009 vs saying it reached 60% by 2020. I would think that if these graphs are genuinely based on research by Michael Rosenfeld that they would at least check out with each other.

Here's what I think is probably going on here: people working for the marketing departments of dating apps fabricate bogus graphs, falsely attribute their source to real studies, and push them on social media to go viral. Then people writing articles like the one you linked about the subject copy paste those images without checking them, because it's just a fluff piece for a recently published book and they don't have much time to spend on it.

Where did you originally find the OP image?

Edit: Just noticed that the second graph is specifically about same-sex couples.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] simple@lemm.ee 151 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Having 4 shades of grey as colors in a colored graph certainly is a choice...

[–] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 48 points 1 day ago

The most distinct 8 colours are of course: Red, Blue, Blue, Black, Grey, Grey, Grey, Grey.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For me, the big question isn't what are the effects, but rather, what is the cause?

I see this as an effect of something else that other effects of could be mistaken as symptoms of this here.

Basically, the destruction of third spaces and public life in general has caused an increasing number of people to find relationships (both romantic and platonic) online because they no longer have the opportunity in their daily life. That, and the increased ease of long distance relationships and meeting people from far away means that people are probably more likely to have the opportunity to fall in love with somebody outside of their tiny corner of the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I wish there was some granularity to "online." I met my wife on a BBS in 94. It wasn't a dating site, it was a discussion board, and neither of us was looking to hook up with anyone. There are lots of things like that, but I'm guessing dating apps/sites are the biggest component.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The number of people that met on BBS would probably not even register as a line on that graph, lol. You are a rare gem, good sir or madam.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] st3ph3n@midwest.social 34 points 1 day ago (9 children)

I want to know which couples were meeting online in 1980.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Bulletin board systems (BBS) go back to 1980. Men have tried everything to get laid since the dawn of humanity. It checks out.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Meeting online before Internet:

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Scientists probably.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's almost like something happened in 2020 to cause a big spike. I wonder what that could have been, and if it is still the case.

Ah, life is full of mysteries.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

Except the graph ends with 2020, so I'm not sure it even includes whatever mystery events might have biased things towards online that year.

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Surely this graph is wrong? In 1974 couples used to meet while kung fu fighting. A lot of research tends to prove it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I met my partner because my ex broke into their house with a friend to get their bong back. My partner and their ex, walked in on my friend and my ex, and obviously freaked out. I have no idea why they decided to be friends, but as a result, I've been in a relationship for 7 years now lmao. If anyone is wondering how that happened, we were poly, but now we're monogamous. Also, both of our ex'es are transitioning now, and I couldn't be happier for them. That's just a random coincidence. One male, one female. Also, it's really weird being in a straight relationship after being in a queer relationship for years. Sorry for the tangent.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

That is kinda sad

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why does online shoot up as soon as it surpasses friends?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] muzzle@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

Those numbers don't seem toadd up to 100%...

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 112 points 1 day ago (18 children)

I think the online thing is about to start dropping. The sites are so full of looky-loos who just want to chat and never actually meet in person they're hardly worth the time. I expect as the bot infestation continues to grow, they'll be even less useful.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 65 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There is also the enshittification that intentionally make the sites worse and harder to use... I will never in a million years understand why useful features are removed completely other than "the longer you are stuck on the site the more likely you are to pay for premium."

POF used to have a section for you to add tags and a function to search by tags. Completely gone. Not even a premium feature. OKC used to have an additional text entry to elaborate on the questions you answer, now completely gone. "do you believe animals have spirits like people" yes or no.... No, but that makes me sound like an asshole. I don't believe either do, but I can't explain that now... OKC used to let you browse profiles instead of just swipe swipe swipe. Match group bought every successful dating site and absolutely destroyed them to make them all seemingly identical "Tinder 2.0" clones.

I'm not 100% sure on this one, but there aren't even direct messages on OKC at first, just an "intro" and I've seen on women's profiles they say "I read all my intros." There's a tab for intros, so I'm assuming their intros show up there. I'm a guy, I NEVER have had an intro in that tab, but if I happen to stumble on a profile where she sent me an intro it shows up on her profile. Not trying to be sexist, I think they are playing the bullshit game of "men are more desperate and willing to pay so we'll do what we can to make them stuck here longer."

POF is even more of a joke now, they are moving more towards streaming and paid rewards... Fucking streamer profiles "not here to date, just here for the streaming." It's so absurd what happened to online dating.

A lot of people are ok with tinder or hinge, but I need more information about a person I'm not one of those "unga bunga she pretty, lemme smash" types. I need a profile to read...

[–] PunchingWood@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Most of the "people" on there aren't people. They're either bots or occasionally those looky-loos that are just hired actors to keep people engaged to the site and try and get as much money out of them as possible. Especially the paid dating sites are mostly just that. They're just sucking money out of people that are genuinely emotionally invested and sometimes even desperate. It's real sad, and disgusting from those sites.

I think online dating will still remain. But it's less of actual interest for long term stuff, and more want to have a fun one night stand kind of deal. I feel like most other things on that chart turned into that as well though.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 98 points 1 day ago (6 children)

I’m sure off loading the human mating ritual to profit driven companies will have no negative effects on society whatsoever, this definitely isn’t the horrors here to unseen except in the most dystopian of science fiction novels.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is there anything we can't privatize for profit?

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Can't privatize individuals' bodily functions, but you can enshitify the experience of all senses, "Want to turn off the lights at night? That's 5 dollars per hour. Want to enable the flush of your toilet? That'll be 7.50, thank you. In order to remove the noise from your apartment, please pay the subscription. If you want to get rid of ALL the noises, pay the diamond premium sub!"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm from the south, what about family reunions?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It doesn't split, but I'd guess 99.9% of those online meets are dating apps (rather than other ways of meeting online).

That's kind of sad, not because there's any one way people should meet, but because meeting people is now mostly mediated through for profit companies.

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You didn't meet your spouse on World of Warcraft?

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago

I feel called out lmao

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 25 points 1 day ago

A lot of people here are too young to get it, but work being a captive dating scene for skeezy shameless assholes is a million times worse than online dating.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The last really serious relationship started by meeting at a bar.

It was great because there was no expectations when we first started talking so the conversation was just natural, just two people talking. We exchanged numbers and soon started dating. I really think that it worked was because it was just an accidental meeting and we were both relaxed and had no ulterior motive.

I also think because dating in the wild there are fewer filters and few options, so you go with what you got. They may not be perfect but it's better than sitting around swiping for the perfect person that may not exist.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 day ago

Yup. I'm an awkward fellow but still have far better results approaching people in bars than on apps. People on apps are constantly pursuing the perfect match (including their perfect match) so everyone is collectively disappointed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The collapse of society, visualized.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›