Can you learn your way to love through life hacks?

There’s never been a shortage of dating advice from family, friends, and self-help authors. But in the digital age, people also turn to nerdy hacker types for advice.

At first glance, they may seem like an odd source of romantic advice, but think again: computer programmers created the quizzes, swipes, and algorithm systems that millions rely on for dating. Who better to explain how to make the most of these digital tools?

This new approach to dating harnesses the power of data. “Quantitative futurist” Amy Webb, for example, created a handful of fake accounts that represented the types of men she wanted to marry and learned what the profiles of her highly rated competitors looked like. After applying these insights to her own profile, she became the most popular woman on JDate, an online dating site for Jews. Mathematician Christopher McKinlay also hacked his profile on OkCupid and searched through thousands of profiles to identify the groups of women he most wanted to attract.

With hundreds of candidates to choose from, both then had to filter the field: Webb created an elaborate spreadsheet and McKinlay narrowed down to 88 appointments. In the end, everyone found a spouse.

All of this is part of a new approach to life, as something to be hacked and optimized by a quantified self.

RELATED: OkCupid says people are prioritizing politics over sex

People track what they eat, how many hours they work, what items they own, and countless other details in hopes of experiencing better health, higher productivity, and greater happiness. However, in my upcoming book, Hacking Life: Systematized Living and its Discontents, I show how searching for the optimal path can lead you astray. In dating, attempting to optimize can be foolishly naive and misunderstand the nature of the task.

Count on love

Consider the case of former software engineer Valerie Aurora, who returned to the daunting task of online dating in 2015. This time, she hoped that by hacking dating activities, she would make the experience palatable and even entertaining. Inspired by Webb, Aurora developed a table to rank candidates with positive and negative traits, including flaws so bad they were “deal breakers.”

However, as Aurora gained experience, she realized that she had been too inflexible when it came to dealbreakers. She wrote, “I’m now in a happy relationship with someone who had six things that I called ‘dealbreakers’ when we met.” And if he hadn’t been interested in working through these issues with me, he would we won’t meet today. But he was, and together we were able to resolve all six issues to our mutual satisfaction.”

It is a mistake to believe that there is an ideal match out there somewhere just waiting to be evaluated and ranked. Instead, people invest in their relationship and grow within it. One can find a good match, but psychological research suggests that a good relationship is formed.

Searching far and wide

A data-centric approach can also lead to endless searching. Technology entrepreneur Sebastian Stadil had 150 dates in four months – more than one per day! In the end, he wrote: “I still believe that technology can hack love, although this belief is probably irrational.” He confessed that “more matches increased my chances of finding someone interesting, but it also became an addiction. “ The opportunity to meet so many people made me want to get to know each and every one of them to make sure I didn’t miss out on something.”

RELATED: Chinese companies are offering ‘dating vacations’ to some of their single female employees

It’s a paradox of choice in the digital age: A better match might be just another date – and another data point – away. Computer science-savvy hackers recognize this as the puzzle of “optimal stopping,” which involves figuring out how long someone should wait for a better option.

There is no perfect solution, but a reasonable formula: find out your parameters, e.g. B. how quickly you want to get into a relationship and how many dates you want to go on in search of the right person. Let’s say you gave yourself a year and 100 appointments – two per week. The math says you should date 37 percent of them non-committally and then—after the 37th person and about four and a half months—move on to the first person who is better than everyone else you’ve met.

Of course, this still assumes that the problem of building a relationship is a question of quantity, measure, and optimization. Aurora’s experience suggests that finding a match is as much about interpersonal negotiation as it is about data and analysis.

Joseph Reagle is an associate professor of communication studies at Northeastern University.