自人类开始谈恋爱以来，局外人就总想多管闲事。不论这些局外人是父母、牧师、朋友还是官僚，其动机大都一致：他们认为自己比当事人更清楚谁该和谁谈恋爱。

　　Today, though, there is a new matchmaker in the village: the internet. It differs from the old ones in two ways. First, its motive is purely profit. Second, single wannabe lovers are queuing up to use it, rather than resenting its nagging. For internet dating sites promise two things that neither traditional matchmakers nor chance encounters at bars, bus-stops and bar mitzvahs offer. One is a vastly greater choice of potential partners. The other is a scientifically proven way of matching suitable people together, enhancing the chance of “happily ever after”。

　　不过如今，地球村里出现了一种新式红娘：互联网，它与旧式红娘有两个不同点。首先，它只有一个目的：盈利。其次，渴望寻求另一半的单身人士排着队上网交友，而不会抱怨它像传统红娘那样唠唠叨叨。因为，婚恋网站提供了不论传统红娘还是在酒吧、车站、成人礼中的邂逅都不能提供的两个保证：第一，可选择的对象数量大大增加；第二，用经过科学验证的方法将合适的男女配对，使他们“从此幸福快乐”的几率更大。

　　The greater choice is unarguable. But does it lead to better outcomes? And do the “scientifically tested algorithms” actually work, and deliver the goods in ways that traditional courtship (or, at least, flirtation) cannot manage? These are the questions asked by a team of psychologists led by Eli Finkel of Northwestern University, in Illinois, in a paper released—probably not coincidentally—a few days before St Valentine’s day. This paper, published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, reviews studies carried out by many groups of psychologists since the earliest internet dating site, Match.com, opened for business in 1995. In it, Dr Finkel and his colleagues cast a sceptical eye over the whole multi-billion-dollar online dating industry, and they are deeply unconvinced。

　　婚恋网站能提供更多选择这点无可争议，但它能否带来更好的结果呢？还有，“经过科学验证的算法”果真有效吗？这些算法能够以传统的求爱方式(或至少，调情)无法胜任的方式帮用户找到合适的对象吗？这些问题是伊利诺州西北大学(微博)以伊莱•芬克尔为首的一组心理学家在一篇论文中提出的，论文在情人节的几天前发表，这可能并非巧合。这篇刊登在《公众利益的心理科学》杂志上的论文重新考察了自1995年第一个婚恋网站Match.com成立以来多组心理学家所进行的研究。在文章中，芬克尔博士及其同事对这个市场达数十亿美元的网络交友产业能为人寻找合适的伴侣深表怀疑。

　　Blueprint for a perfect partner?

　　完美对象的模板？

　　The researchers’ first observation is not so much what the studies they examined have shown, but what they have been unable to show, namely how any of the much-vaunted partner-matching algorithms actually work.Commercially, that is fair enough. Many firms preserve their intellectual property as trade secrets, rather than making it public by patenting it, and there is no reason why internet dating sites should not be among them. But this makes claims of efficacy impossible to test objectively. There is thus no independent scientific evidence that any internet dating site’s algorithm for matching people together actually does enhance the chance of their hitting it off when they meet. What papers have been published on the matter have been written by company insiders who do not reveal how the crucial computer programs do their stuff。

　　在考察过程中，研究者们还未及看到这些研究说明了什么，就首先发现这些研究无法解答一个问题：这些备受吹捧的配对算法到底是如何行之有效的。从商业角度看来，这似乎无可厚非。许多公司将它们的知识产权当作商业机密来保护，不会申请专利将其公之于众，而婚恋网站采取类似策略也合情合理。但这就让人无法对那些配对算法的效果进行客观的测试。所以，根本没有独立的科学证据能够证明婚恋网站的配对算法确实增加了男女双方见面时擦出火花的机会。仅有的一些这方面的论文都是网络交友公司发表的，他们并没有透露那些核心的电脑程序究竟是如何运作的。

　　It is, though, possible to test the value of a claim often made for these algorithms: that they match people with compatible personality traits. No doubt they do, given the number of questions on such matters on the average application form. What is assumed, but not tested, however, is that this is a good thing—that those with compatible personalities make more successful couples than those without. To examine this proposition, Dr Finkel draws on a study published in 2010 by Portia Dyrenforth of Hobart and William Smith Colleges, in Geneva, New York。

　　一般都认为这些算法是根据人的个性特点来进行配对的，要验证这一点倒是可能的。看看普通的交友申请表上有那么多这类问题，就知道情况确实如此。有人提出了一个假设：双方性格相似是件好事，也就是说那些性格相似的人比性格有差异者更适合在一起；但并未得到验证。为了验证这个假设，芬尔克博士引用了纽约日内瓦霍巴特与威廉•史密斯学院的波西亚•Dyrenforth在2010年发表的研究。

　　Dr Dyrenforth asked more than 20,000 people about their relationships, and also assessed their personalities. Members of couples with similar personalities were indeed happier than those whose partners were dissimilar. But the difference was not exactly huge. It was 0.5%. As Dr Finkel puts it, “I wouldn’t have a problem with companies claiming that their matching algorithm could increase the chances of developing a lasting relationship by a tiny amount; I get concerned, though, when companies claim they can find your soul mate for you。”

　　Dyrenforth博士就伴侣关系向超过20000人提问，同时也评估了他们的性格。确实，性格相似的伴侣比性格有差异的伴侣相处得更加融洽。但两者在数量上差别并不大，只有0.5%。正如芬克尔博士所说，“那些公司说它们的配对算法能够稍微增加两人发展一段持久的感情的机会，对此我没有异议；然而若那些公司说它们能为你找到你的灵魂伴侣，那我表示怀疑。”

　　Surely, however, the chances of finding that magic other are increased by the second thing internet dating brings: oodles of choice? But here, too, things are not as simple as they might seem。

　　但婚恋网站的第二项保证——大量的选择——就应该能够提高你找到神奇的另一半的几率吧？但这点同样并非表面看上去那么简单。

　　Some dating-site algorithms do not take the high-handed “we know best” approach but, rather, let the punter decide what he or she is looking for and then offer as many matches to those criteria as are on the website’s books。

　　有些婚恋网站的算法用的并非“我们最清楚”式的专横做法，相反，却让用户决定他(她)要找什么样的人然后从网站名单里找出尽可能多符合标准的匹配对象提供给用户。

　　The crucial assumption here, of course, is that what people think they want is what they actually need. That, it is true, is an assumption behind all consumer decisions. But changing your mind about a book or a washing machine chosen over the internet is not as emotionally fraught as changing your mind about a potential sexual partner. And here, too, the data suggest people are not good at knowing what they want. One of Dr Finkel’s own studies, for example, showed that when they are engaged in internet dating’s cousin, speed dating, people’s stated preferences at the beginning of the process do not well match the characters of the individuals they actually like。

　　此处关键的假设当然是人们认为自己想要的就是他们所需要的。固然，所有消费者决策都是建立在这个假设之上的。但是，上网选择未来性伴侣时改变心意与网购书籍或洗衣机时改变心意可不一样，前者会令你更加纠结。而且，相关数据也说明人们并不太了解他们想要什么。例如，芬克尔博士自己进行的其中一个研究表明，人们在进行与网络交友类似的活动——快速约会时，一开始所说的喜好与其实际喜欢的对象类型的性格并不怎么一致。

　　Indeed, even the very volume of alternatives may be a problem. Studies on consumer choice, from boxes of chocolates to restaurant wine lists, have shown that less is more. Half a dozen bonbons, or a dozen bottles, are easier to pick between than 30 or 40. And an internet dating site may come up with not just a few dozen, but thousands of allegedly suitable matches。

　　其实，有大量的选择甚至可能是个问题。关于消费者选择(从巧克力到餐馆酒单)的研究表明，选择并非越多越好。在六种巧克力或十二种酒中作出选择要比在三四十种中选择来得容易。婚恋网站提供给你的可能不止几十个人，而是几千个所谓适合你的人。

　　The supermarket of love

　　爱情超市

　　Not surprisingly, the difficulty of choosing from abundance seems to apply to choice of people, too. Dr Finkel could find no study which addressed the question directly, in the context of internet dating. But speed-dating once again provided an answer. Here, he found studies which showed that when faced with abundant choice, people pay less attention to characteristics that require thinking and conversation to evaluate (occupational status and level of education, for example) and more to matters physical. Choice, in other words, dulls the critical faculties。

　　同样，挑对象也像在琳琅满目的商品中作出选择一样困难，这不足为奇。在网络交友领域芬克尔博士找不到直接解答这个问题的研究，但快速约会再次提供了答案。他在其中发现了一些研究表明，当人们面临大量选择时，就不太会注意那些需要思考和交流才能进行评价的特质(如职位、受教育程度)，而会比较注重外表。换言之，太多选择会钝化人的批判思维。

　　The upshot of Dr Finkel’s review is thus that love is as hard to find on the internet as elsewhere. That is not a reason not to use it. But you may be just as likely to luck out in the local café, or by acting on the impulse to stop and talk to that stranger on the street whose glance you caught, as you are by clicking away with a mouse and hoping that, one day, Cupid’s arrow will strike。

　　所以，芬克尔博士重新考察种种研究后得出了以下结论：通过网络寻找真爱并不比其他方式容易。这个并非不上网交友的理由。只不过，不论是泡在本地咖啡馆或在街头一时冲动驻足搭讪与你四目交投的陌生人，还是手握鼠标在婚恋网站上四处乱点、憧憬着终有一日会被丘比特之箭射中，爱情之神眷顾你的几率大概是一样的。