Marriage and commitment being disrupted

Typically we speak about disruption when discussing technology companies, but two incumbents that we wouldn't typically associate with disruption may be under assault: commitment and marriage.

The fascinating essay A Million First Dates in the Atlantic explores the thesis that online dating is making meeting people so simple and efficient that people are less likely to commit to marriage or even long-term relationships that hit a bit of rocky waters.

After two years, when Rachel informed Jacob that she was moving out, he logged on to Match.com the same day. His old profile was still up. Messages had even come in from people who couldn’t tell he was no longer active. The site had improved in the two years he’d been away. It was sleeker, faster, more efficient. And the population of online daters in Portland seemed to have tripled. He’d never imagined that so many single people were out there.

“I’m about 95 percent certain,” he says, “that if I’d met Rachel offline, and if I’d never done online dating, I would’ve married her. At that point in my life, I would’ve overlooked everything else and done whatever it took to make things work. Did online dating change my perception of permanence? No doubt. When I sensed the breakup coming, I was okay with it. It didn’t seem like there was going to be much of a mourning period, where you stare at your wall thinking you’re destined to be alone and all that. I was eager to see what else was out there.”

The positive aspects of online dating are clear: the Internet makes it easier for single people to meet other single people with whom they might be compatible, raising the bar for what they consider a good relationship. But what if online dating makes it too easy to meet someone new? What if it raises the bar for a good relationship too high? What if the prospect of finding an ever-more-compatible mate with the click of a mouse means a future of relationship instability, in which we keep chasing the elusive rabbit around the dating track?

The article is intriguing throughout. Another choice excerpt:

In 2011, Mark Brooks, a consultant to online-dating companies, published the results of an industry survey titled “How Has Internet Dating Changed Society?” The survey responses, from 39 executives, produced the following conclusions:

“Internet dating has made people more disposable.”

“Internet dating may be partly responsible for a rise in the divorce rates.”

“Low quality, unhappy and unsatisfying marriages are being destroyed as people drift to Internet dating sites.”

“The market is hugely more efficient … People expect to—and this will be increasingly the case over time—access people anywhere, anytime, based on complex search requests … Such a feeling of access affects our pursuit of love … the whole world (versus, say, the city we live in) will, increasingly, feel like the market for our partner(s). Our pickiness will probably increase.”

“Above all, Internet dating has helped people of all ages realize that there’s no need to settle for a mediocre relationship.”

The ideal economic model of online dating sites wants to work well enough to attract customers but not so well that you find a lifelong mate and stop subscribing to their services, so a model of lifelong casual dating might end up being the perfect world for them, if not society. The article includes an interesting analysis of why couples who meet online are more likely to hook up earlier than in the past.

Disruption, as those who study the topic tend to know, usually comes from the low-end. It's not surprising, then, that marriage and commitment is being disrupted at the low end, where bad marriages and relationships reside. Divorce might be seen as a healthy thing if it were not so costly: I have not seen statistics on this, but based on this article I'd predict we've seen a healthy rise in pre-nuptial agreements this past decade.

American Express and low-end Asian restaurants

Payment platforms are a classic multi-sided market. Visa and Mastercard are the two dominant payment platforms outside of cash. American Express is in third place in  payment card market share.

Most dominant platforms in multi-sided markets either subsidize one side of the market or make it essentially free for that side of the market. You can get a huge selection of Visa and Mastercards for no annual fee. Unlike, Visa and Mastercard, American Express has taken a strategy of splitting their monetization between both merchants and consumers, and many of their cards carry an annual fee. In exchange for that, they tend to offer more attractive benefits and perks which attract a higher end customer, often business people.

For merchants, a consumer that uses an American Express card costs more since American Express takes a bigger commission on the transaction. The tradeoff that makes it worthwhile, from the merchants perspective, is the hope of bringing in that attractive high end customer.

This model breaks down in low-end Chinese restaurants, though. A rich and/or business person won't spend substantially more on Chinese food than any other customer of the restaurant since there's a limit to how much you can eat, and a cheap Chinese restaurant can fill you up for very little money. Most cheap Chinese restaurants don't even have any single high end dish or alcoholic drink that they can use for price discrimination to siphon off extra profit from that high end customer.

So many low-end Chinese restaurants don't accept American Express. Some don't even accept credit cards at all.

I thought of this yesterday because for the first time in a long time, I had to do a walk of shame to the ATM to pull out cash to pay for a meal. When I go running, I usually throw my Mastercard in my running shorts so I can grab groceries on the way back. Since my refrigerator is broken right now, I'm also eating out for every meal. I forgot to grab my Mastercard out of my running shorts yesterday after my morning run, and after dinner at a low-end Asian restaurant my American Express was summarily waved off. I had no Mastercard and not enough cash.

I had to endure the stink-eye from the restaurant manager as I sheepishly left an Amex and driver's license as collateral and schlepped a few blocks to the nearest ATM. I would have offered to wash dishes, but given what I suspect was the meager hourly wage of a dishwasher at that restaurant it might have cost me a few hours of my life.

Louis C.K.'s Proust Questionnaire

Louis C.K.'s answers for Vanity Fair's Proust Questionnaire have to be the best ever for that section. I don't know for sure since I've only ever read maybe two dozen of those, but I will take this one versus the field if you put a gun to my head.

Looking back on all the 2012 TV I watched, the enduring image that sticks in my memory is Louis C.K. in a Chinese village, eating Chinese food with those natives.

Hollywood's cultural responsibility

Still cleaning out browser tabs from way back. This one is from August last year, a Jonathan Chait essay on how liberal views dominate Hollywood. As much as conservatives dominate Fox News, liberal viewpoints tend to dominate most other channels and most Hollywood movies.

Few will find that surprising. What's more important is Chait's survey of the available evidence of the power of movies and TV on society, and the evidence says it's powerful.

Several years ago, a trio of researchers working for the Inter-American Development Bank set out to help solve a sociological mystery. Brazil had, over the course of four decades, experienced one of the largest drops in average family size in the world, from 6.3 children per woman in 1960 to 2.3 children in 2000. What made the drop so curious is that, unlike the Draconian one-child policy in China, the Brazilian government had in place no policy to limit family size. (It was actually illegal at some point to advertise contraceptives in the overwhelmingly Catholic country.) What could explain such a steep drop? The researchers zeroed in on one factor: television.

Television spread through Brazil in the mid-sixties. But it didn’t arrive everywhere at once in the sprawling country. Brazil’s main station, Globo, expanded slowly and unevenly. The researchers found that areas that gained access to Globo saw larger drops in fertility than those that didn’t (controlling, of course, for other factors that could affect fertility). It was not any kind of news or educational programming that caused this fertility drop but exposure to the massively popular soap operas, or novelas, that most Brazilians watch every night. The paper also found that areas with exposure to television were dramatically more likely to give their children names shared by novela characters.

Novelas almost always center around four or five families, each of which is usually small, so as to limit the number of characters the audience must track. Nearly three quarters of the main female characters of childbearing age in the prime-time novelas had no children, and a fifth had one child. Exposure to this glamorized and unusual (especially by Brazilian standards) family arrangement “led to significantly lower fertility”—an effect equal in impact to adding two years of schooling.

More:

A trio of communications professors found that watching Will & Grace made audiences more receptive to gay rights, and especially viewers who had little contact in real life with gays and lesbians. And that one show was merely a component of a concerted effort by Hollywood—dating back to Soap in the late seventies, which featured Billy Crystal’s groundbreaking portrayal of a sympathetic gay character, through Modern Family—to prod audiences to accept homosexuality. Likewise, the political persona of Barack Obama attained such rapid acceptance and popularity in part because he represented the real-world version of an archetype that, after a long early period of servile black stereotypes, has appeared in film and television for years: a sober, intelligent African-American as president, or in some other position of power.

Hollywood industry insiders deny a liberal bent to their work, claiming they're only following market demand, leading to an ironic configuration of the conservative-liberal debate on the topic: 

The denials generally take the form of a simple economic aphorism. The entertainment business is a business, so if its product leans left, it must reflect what the audience wants. One oddity of the Hollywood-liberalism debate is that it makes liberals posit the existence of a perfect, frictionless market, while conservatives find themselves explaining why a free market is failing to function as it ought to.

The power of popular culture is often underestimated, as is the value of art in general. Some of the examples noted above are why I've become less tolerant of lazy stereotypes or tropes in even the lightest of Hollywood movies. Argo was a skillfully crafted movie, but it played so loose with the facts that I can't in my heart embrace it as fully as I would had it been brave enough to stand by the truth. (Spoiler alert here) When the crowd I saw the movie with burst into applause as the plane lifted off the tarmac at the end, just eluding dozens of angry Iranian guards with guns giving chase in jeeps, I couldn't help feeling saddened that once again Hollywood felt the need to conform the truth to a more cartoonish narrative arc for commercial reasons. There's an entire section of the Argo Wikipedia entry titled Historical Accuracy which addresses the discrepancies. I felt the same unease with A Beautiful Mind, which scrubbed many less savory elements from John Nash's life to make him a more palatable hero: anti-semitism, homosexuality, a child he fathered with a nurse who he abandoned, and his divorce, among others.

[The phrase "based on a true story" is one of the great cheats in filmmaking. It excuses you to bend the facts but still capture the amazement of a credulous audience which won't ever bother to investigate what liberties the filmmakers took.]

Even movies which aren't based on historical facts bother me when they grab and reuse defective modules from the Hollywood library. Pitch Perfect was a cinematic stick of sugar, but it resorted to several popular stereotypes of Asians that made me cringe (I refer not to the quiet Asian singer with the bangs, but the no-fun bookworm of a roommate and her stone-faced friends).

The most common retort to all of this is that it's just a movie, and nobody cares or should care. But it's not just a movie, as Chait notes. These works of art carry cultural tropes that burrow into our brains and leave germs that sprout at an almost subconscious level.

And that's how I sense Hollywood's cultural influence operates, not as overtly as, say, those who claim that the use of guns in movies leads to shootings in direct emulation, but at a more subtle level. In a recent post I discussed two versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, strong and weak. If there was a theory of Hollywood's influence on our cultural norms, I'd subscribe to a weak version of it.

George Saunders Has Written the Best Book You’ll Read This Year

This loving profile of George Saunders is just gorgeous.

At the risk of hyperbole at the end of a story that began in a state of fairly high exaltation, I would say that this is precisely the effect that Saunders’s fiction has on you. It “softens the borders,” as he put it in one of our conversations. “Between you and me, between me and me, between the reader and the writer.” It makes you wiser, better, more disciplined in your openness to the experience of other people. The guy talking on the bus about how his girlfriend doesn’t appreciate his music and why couldn’t she just cut him that much slack, seeing how he just did all that time? The couple in the basement of the Port Authority, the wife helping her husband get into his Grover costume before he stepped out onto 42nd Street. The woman, one recent morning, who screamed at panhandlers on the subway that it was the day after Christmas and why couldn’t they just give us all some peace? “Peace on Earth,” she hollered. “Is that so much to ask for? Get off the train.” She went on for a while, and some other passengers started to turn on her. “I’m right!” she yelled. “I’m right.” And then her face took on the saddest expression.

It’s hard to maintain, the softness. It’s an effort. That Dubai story ends with these lines, wisdom imparted from Saunders to himself: “Don’t be afraid to be confused. Try to remain permanently confused. Anything is possible. Stay open, forever, so open it hurts, and then open up some more, until the day you die, world without end, amen.”

It's safe to say the modern fiction writers who've most captivated me ever since I developed a passion for short stories in college are Tobias Wolff, George Saunders, Alice Munro, and Raymond Carver.