· Because without money, there is no Freakonomics Radio; and without Freakonomics Radio, there is no love. Don’t be anti-love. And now, as promised, Episode What You Don’t Know About Online Dating. Season 6, Episode 23 On this week’s episode of Freakonomics Radio: an economist’s guide to dating online. PJ Vogt bravely lets us · We recently put out four Freakonomics Radio episodes that developed an arc of a theme: “Reasons to Not Be Ugly,” “What You Don’t Know About Online Dating,” “Why Marry? Season 6, Episode 41 This week on Freakonomics Radio: Stephen J. Dubner talks about what gossip is and isn’t; about the characteristics of the people who produce and consume gossip; · Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Zack Lapinski. Our staff also includes Neal Carruth, Gabriel Roth, ... read more
DUBNER: Goodness gracious — that is just unacceptable. Since neither you nor I come from anything remotely resembling an aristocracy, can you talk about the impact of that? Is this a family tragedy? GOÑI: So we have some scarce evidence from diaries and things like that.
And we know that in general, marrying down was quite frowned upon. So this would be seen as quite bad news for the family. The evidence suggests that their social standing was reduced by this shock that made their daughters more likely to marry outside the aristocracy and less likely to marry a rich, wealthy landowner.
Is this Cinderella-level diversity or something quite less drastic than that? GOÑI: It is hard to say. The presumption is that they were not the bottom of the society. GOÑI: Yes. Of course measuring love and how happy a marriage is is very difficult.
But we have to try to find ways to do it. One thing that I have used to proxy how happy a marriage was was the number of children that were born to the marriage after the production of an heir, which would be the duty of the marriage. GOÑI: It is, of course, a big assumption, but to some extent, that is what larger fertility could reflect. And actually, if you look at the fertility of the aristocrats that were married within their own group, especially in earlier periods, it was much lower than what a love-based, happy marriage would suggest.
GOÑI: So one important policy that was implemented in the s was an expansion of state education. And this was done at a very local level. The aristocracy was powerful, and they managed to push down the taxes for education. This is a really old-school elite, especially in the 19th century. Their wealth is derived mostly from land. And there are some indications that they did not like so much the expansion of education because they were afraid that the labor force, if they become educated, could emigrate to the cities to work in higher-paid jobs.
Now, in places where the aristocratic family suffered from the shock of the interruption to the Season, this happened less. DUBNER: So in a way, this three-year interruption was really bad for those at the top in that their leverage was diminished — on aggregate, yes?
And probably it was a good thing for the rest of us. The aggregate effects and the long-run effects of the three-year interruption are relatively small. But what we can say for sure is that the existence of the London season marriage market for such a long time did help the British peerage to consolidate as an elite and that probably helped to consolidate this very high inequality.
DUBNER: So when Queen Victoria was done mourning her mother and her husband and she was back in business, this marriage market resumed just like it used to be. Is that the case? In terms of the presentations at the court, and royal parties, it was business as usual. The only difference was just that Queen Victoria was now wearing a black mourning dress.
Before Bridgerton , before Shonda Rhimes, there was another hugely popular writer who was very interested in marriage markets.
Thanks in advance. James Shapiro is an author and a scholar with a well-defined specialty. SHAPIRO: I teach Shakespeare at Columbia and have been doing that for the last 35 years. The Public Theater, in New York, is famous for producing Shakespeare plays outdoors in the summer, in Central Park. Shapiro helps adapt these plays for modern audiences. So their job was to marry their daughters to somebody who was a gentleman or higher up the scale. Juliet, you may recall, is from the Capulet family; Romeo is a Montague.
They are in love, but their families hate each other. SHAPIRO: Juliet and Romeo are both children of rich merchants. And in a way, for audiences of that play, it was attractive to have the consolidation of two wealthy, middling-class households. He had one surviving child, and his great ambition was to move the family up a notch in the social scale. And in order to do that, he had to marry her to County Paris. And aristocratic men burned through money quickly. Romeo and Juliet are teenagers.
SHAPIRO: Men and women did not marry in Elizabethan times until they were, on the average, 25 years old. Sometimes one in six, even in some areas one in four, never married by their forties. The answer has to do with, once again, marriage markets. When Romeo and Juliet had its premiere less than 10 percent of the British population lived in cities. And the fellow residents of that village pretty much were your marriage market.
Other than that, they would be traveling with a small hunting and gathering group of about 25 people and not really meet very many new people. Things are a bit different now. FISHER: All the data that I have show that about 40 percent of singles met their last first date on the Internet. Only about 25 percent met through a friend, and less than 10 percent met at a church or synagogue, or at work, et cetera.
If you go back even just a decade, the most common way to meet a romantic partner was through friends. The digital marketplace is now the clear leader — although not everyone is using it.
FISHER: I looked at those people who met on the Internet, and people who met off the Internet. And those people who met on the Internet are more likely to be higher educated, more likely to be fully employed, and more likely to be looking for a committed, long-term partnership. DUBNER: So when economists think about income inequality, they think that some is okay because it inspires hard work and people want to have more than others and get ahead and so on.
But too much income inequality is a really bad thing because it creates all sorts of divisions and really perversions in society. When you think about marriage markets, do you think that they contribute to income inequality or other kinds of status inequality? FISHER: I think people truly misunderstand these dating services.
Foremost, they are not dating services. Everybody in this business knows they are not dating services. And the moment that you find somebody and meet up with them — either through video chatting or in-person — you laugh the way you always did, you smile the way you always did. You assess the person the way you always did. DUBNER: Considering what you just said, I would think that the incentive for the firm is to provide a very broad possibility of introduction.
In other words, bring all different kinds of people together. But when I look at the actual business landscape of these firms — so, Match. I mean, Black People Meet, J-Date is a different one. I think that this whole industry is becoming much more segmented for obvious reasons. Life was segmented long before that. I mean, the people who lived in a little village in the middle of Sudan met other people who lived in the village in the middle of Sudan. And I do think that different kinds of sites take on certain kinds of personalities.
One of the most popular dating sites, is OurTime, which is a site for people over Some dating apps have an even tighter focus. And some apps try to replicate the exclusivity of the London Season. The celebrity app Raya , for instance, requires a referral to join. An app called The League screens users by checking their LinkedIn profile for their educational background.
That, again, is Marc Goñi, author of the paper about the 19 th -century London marriage market. GOÑI: What my paper shows is that regardless of the preferences that these aristocrats had, the way they met each other, the way they courted, all these institutional arrangements were very important in determining their marriages.
And they determined their marriages in a way that perpetuated inequality. And today, we do have several matching technologies that in some way resemble this old marriage market of the aristocracy.
And usually you meet people who are similar to you. Or is the arrow traveling at least a little bit more in the other direction? This would be places like university.
Your main decision to go there is probably not to find a spouse. But there are other settings where you definitely make this choice of who surrounds you.
If you think about settings like bars. DUBNER: So a great deal of dating and eventually marriage these days in the U. and elsewhere happens on dating apps. There are many. And many of the apps have characteristics that appeal to a certain population. Some of them are very narrow characteristics. Some are broader. Are they helping us find needles in haystacks, or are they more helping us find piles of needles that are already neatly sorted?
So exactly. The most obvious one is that they facilitate you meeting a lot of people. They facilitate encounters. So in a sense this may also be restricting the set of people you meet to people that is more similar to you. DUBNER: So, Marc, I know a lot of Ph. economists who are married to other economists, and psychologists married to other psychologists, medical doctors.
Is that sort of assortative matching bad for society, good for society, none of our business? On the one hand, it of course can be bad in the sense that it can perpetuate some of these distributional differences. So for example if you consider a marriage where both parents are highly educated, the child will come up very highly educated.
So perhaps very brilliant children come out of this. DUBNER: So this is the equivalent of the aristocratic economic marriage market. You did not mate with a commoner, nor did she. We met in a very restricted setting. It was not intentional, but—. GOÑI: It actually makes some of this romanticism a little bit more difficult. Thanks to Marc Goñi, Helen Fisher, and Jim Shapiro for teaching us today about marriage markets — and, as always, thanks to you for listening.
Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Zack Lapinski. Our staff also includes Neal Carruth , Gabriel Roth, Greg Rippin , Rebecca Lee Douglas , Morgan Levey , Julie Kanfer, Ryan Kelley, Jasmin Klinger , Eleanor Osborne, Emma Tyrrell, Lyric Bowditch , Jacob Clemente , and Alina Kulman. You can follow Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get your podcasts.
Freakonomics Radio Network Newsletter Stay up-to-date on all our shows. We promise no spam. Episode Transcript Marc Goñi is from Spain, but a few years ago he moved to Norway. Marc GOÑI: I live here with my girlfriend. Stephen DUBNER: Is your girlfriend Spanish? GOÑI: No. GOÑI: No, no, no, no. Helen FISHER: I think people truly misunderstand these dating services. That is Helen Fisher.
But also: FISHER: I am the chief science advisor to the dating site Match. GOÑI: This is quite the fundamental question. Goñi, remember, is Spanish. There is some evidence to help with the disentangling. But, Goñi points out, these studies are looking at dating. And what has she learned? And: how is technology — especially dating apps — shaping the modern marriage market? FISHER: I mean, for millions of years you only met a few people in your life.
FISHER: For millions of years you only met a few people in your life. Home Explore Podcasts Search Download the app. Verify your account and pick the featured episodes for your show. Listen to Freakonomics Radio RadioPublic A free podcast app for iPhone and Android User-created playlists and collections Download episodes while on WiFi to listen without using mobile data Stream podcast episodes without waiting for a download Queue episodes to create a personal continuous playlist.
Connect with listeners Podcasters use the RadioPublic listener relationship platform to build lasting connections with fans Yes, let's begin connecting. Find new listeners. Understand your audience. Engage your fanbase.
Learn more. Home Explore Podcasts Search Download the app. Verify your account and pick the featured episodes for your show. Listen to Freakonomics Radio RadioPublic A free podcast app for iPhone and Android User-created playlists and collections Download episodes while on WiFi to listen without using mobile data Stream podcast episodes without waiting for a download Queue episodes to create a personal continuous playlist.
· We recently put out four Freakonomics Radio episodes that developed an arc of a theme: “Reasons to Not Be Ugly,” “What You Don’t Know About Online Dating,” “Why Marry? · Because without money, there is no Freakonomics Radio; and without Freakonomics Radio, there is no love. Don’t be anti-love. And now, as promised, Episode Season 6, Episode 41 This week on Freakonomics Radio: Stephen J. Dubner talks about what gossip is and isn’t; about the characteristics of the people who produce and consume gossip; · What You Don’t Know About Online Dating. View description Share. Published Feb 6, , AM. Description; Freakonomics Radio. clip(s) Freakonomics Radio What You Don’t Know About Online Dating. Season 6, Episode 23 On this week’s episode of Freakonomics Radio: an economist’s guide to dating online. PJ Vogt bravely lets us We think of them as intellectual enclaves and the surest route to a better life. But U.S. colleges also operate like firms, trying to differentiate their products to win market share and prestige Missing: online dating ... read more
So I cut… I think, one reference to drinking. He teaches at the University of Bergen. A typical study will find that a person with one more year of education holding everything else equal makes 8 to 10 percent more than someone with one fewer year of education. Are they helping us find needles in haystacks, or are they more helping us find piles of needles that are already neatly sorted? GOÑI: No, the typical practice was to rent a house.This episode is included in the Freakonomics smartbinge podcast playlist at wnyc. And if they send the wrong message, it freakonomics radio online dating be better to tone them down a little bit. It was not intentional, but— DUBNER: Sure. She really enjoys it. But whoever you are, when it comes to online dating, it helps to start with some facts:. Some dating apps have an even tighter focus. So how did it work out for P.