…and this is a 
It turns out that there are a few simple rules to follow when submitting your computer dating form.
Around 42 per cent of messages which included the word "atheist" achieved replies, significantly higher than the average response rate of 32 per cent.
References to "Christian", "Jewish" and "Muslim" boosted a message's success rate only marginally, while mentioning "god" in a first approach actually discouraged people from replying.
So just maybe, being godless will increase your fitness in this next generation. Although, given the growing reputation of Christianity, it might just be a matter of distancing yourself from labels that are associated with obsessive kookiness.
Technology
Comments
Posted by: rlrr | September 16, 2009 9:45 AM
This, on the other hand, may not work:
http://failblog.org/2008/12/10/online-dating-fail/
Posted by: debaser | September 16, 2009 9:47 AM
Probably because atheists are smarter and know how to write better.
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 16, 2009 9:50 AM
Why would you be mentioning atheism in a first message? Doesn't surprise me bout the "God" thing. Nothing says crazy like wanting to discuss "God" immediately (and constantly).
Posted by: Jerome Haltom | September 16, 2009 9:54 AM
Oh. I bet it has to do with atheists being over represented on "online dating forms," and little to do with people being attracted to atheists.
Posted by: Russell | September 16, 2009 9:55 AM
Hey, PZ! This NBC poll asks if "In God we Trust" should be removed from US currency. Time to direct your squid army...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/
Posted by: Moggie | September 16, 2009 9:55 AM
Wouldn't this count messages like "I am an atheist" and "I hope you are not an atheist" the same way?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 9:55 AM
The last time I signed up for a dating service, the only response I got was from a woman.
I'm not paying actual money for that.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 9:56 AM
...distancing yourself from labia that are associated with obsessive kookiness?...
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 16, 2009 9:58 AM
Russell will be dragged out and shot shortly, as an example to you all.
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 16, 2009 10:02 AM
-The last time I signed up for a dating service, the only response I got was from a woman.
I'm not paying actual money for that.-
Thats the kinky right there ;p
Posted by: NiroZ | September 16, 2009 10:07 AM
Maybe those fundies are right about being worried that we'll steal their daughters. Heh.
Jerome, it's a percentage, which eliminates that bias. Basic statistics people.
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 16, 2009 10:13 AM
Clearly some people haven't had their coffee yet.
Shooting seems harsh...but if it's for the common good...
Posted by: David | September 16, 2009 10:14 AM
After he has been shot does he get feed to the vultures?
Posted by: Jack Mitcham | September 16, 2009 10:15 AM
#3:
As a member of that dating site, I may have some insight. A person's profile will list (if the user wishes) their religious "affiliation." So, a person can mark themselves as "atheist" there. Oftentimes, people will mention the fact that they're atheist, or that they're looking for a fellow atheist, in the body of their profile.
Therefore, a sensible first message may call attention to the fact that the message sender is also an atheist. That's one way to show you actually read somebody's profile, and aren't responding to just the picture.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 16, 2009 10:15 AM
I live in central Stockholm, a predominantly atheist society and whenever I go to meetings organized by the Swedish humanist society I never fail to see huge numbers of young attractive women.
The bad news is that I see them when I pass them on the way to the meetings, once inside its the usual 90% plus geeky male sausage-fest.
(Not that I'm on the market but I was personally surprised that skepticism/atheism is such an exclusive male domain - even the 10% women at these meetings tend to be mostly elderly retirees).
Posted by: tsg | September 16, 2009 10:16 AM
Because it's very often a deal breaker. Getting it out in the open up front saves a lot of time.
Posted by: Ranson | September 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Didn't someone on here mention a while back that at least one dating site was actually filtering out the nonreligious. After several unsuccessful attempts, he submitted identical forms except for the religion question, and the atheist one got dumped back, as I recall.
Ah, here's the comment.
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 16, 2009 10:20 AM
-Because it's very often a deal breaker. Getting it out in the open up front saves a lot of time.-
Being in England where religion is more personal, I suppose I don't feel the need to define myself up front on my religion. Or in this case my lack of it.
I keep forgetting how different America can be.
Posted by: Cimourdain | September 16, 2009 10:21 AM
A growing lad can use all the help he can get.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 16, 2009 10:22 AM
Am I the only one to smell a breach of confidentiality ?
Posted by: Aetre | September 16, 2009 10:23 AM
Worked for me! We both were up front about atheism, though. And now we're engaged. So yay for putting it out there!
--
Probably a big piece of it is atheism being strongly represented on the net, as has been said. And yes, Christianity is becoming associated with some really bad connotations. I still think it's indicative of an engouraging trend, though.
Posted by: Erin Johnson
|
September 16, 2009 10:33 AM
Makes sense. Everyone else can meet each other at church/temple/synagogue/whatever.
Posted by: Butterbean | September 16, 2009 10:36 AM
The OkCupid blog post from which the Telegraph article is drawn is quite detailed and interesting:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/09/14/online-dating-advice-exactly-what-to-say-in-a-first-message/
I found it funny that the word 'zombie' is almost as helpful as 'atheist' - Graaagh!
@ #20:
All the messages were anonymised, de-IP'ed, and split into chunks of only a few words by a python program, to maintain confidentiality. Apparently.
Posted by: Moggie | September 16, 2009 10:43 AM
#23:
Python? Oh shit, don't tell me it was Randall Munroe?
Posted by: TheBlackCat | September 16, 2009 10:56 AM
No, it was Eric Idle of course.
Posted by: Brian | September 16, 2009 10:57 AM
This may simply be an indication of how few declared atheists there are. When 75% of a population are declared Christian of some flavor, mentioning that one is a Christian in an inquiry does not distinguish one from the competition. However, if 5% of the population is declared atheist, mentioning the word atheist would be unusual and welcome.
Also, the label "Christian" is taken lightly by many declared Christians -- it often simply means "I went to church a couple times as a kid" or "I'm not a Jew so I guess I'm a Christian" and has little to do with the person's identity. Many non-religious people who would casually check the box "Christian" would nonetheless be put off by someone actively religious -- i.e., someone who thought it important enough to identify as Christian in an initial 50-word email.
However, "atheist" is more rarely taken lightly (esp. in the U.S.) -- if someone self-applies that scary label in public, their non-belief is likely important to their identity. So an inquiry from a fellow traveler is more meaningful and indicates a greater likelihood of rapport.
Posted by: JefFlyingV, Honey Don't | September 16, 2009 11:16 AM
I can understand why the response rate is boosted, considering how often we atheists are few and far between in many parts of this country.
I also wonder if the atheists got a boost from a Christian's future hopes of evangelizing to prospective mates? Maybe the times have changed, but this occurred on a number of occassions when I was going to university 30 years ago.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 16, 2009 11:26 AM
Maybe everyone just thinks atheists put out.
Posted by: OmegaWittif | September 16, 2009 11:28 AM
Ah... but mentioning god, while including the words ""saddlebacking" and/or "teabagging" and I bet those responses will roll right in...
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 16, 2009 11:29 AM
And compared to self-described Christians, Muslims, and Jews, they may be right.
(Sorry for the bifurcated post.)
Posted by: Eduardo Padoan | September 16, 2009 11:32 AM
#23
Hey, on "#5 – Bring up specific interests", "metal" is the second must effective, after "band"! I can't believe I would just need to be sincere!
Posted by: stogoe | September 16, 2009 11:38 AM
Yes, it really is a whole other country.Posted by: Monimonika | September 16, 2009 11:38 AM
@Brian of #26,
I understand the "I'm not a Jew so I guess I'm a Christian" mentality. It's what I had during throughout most of my grade school years. In school tests where I had a choice of identifying my religion, I put down "Protestant" just because it had the word "protest" in it (yeah, I was clueless)(I even pronounced it as "protest"-ant).
During this time, I identified as maybe Christian because I thought my father was Christian (he was, in the loose I-went-to-church-as-a-kid sense). This, despite not knowing much about Jesus or Christianity in general. I know myself a bit better now as a non-religious person.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | September 16, 2009 11:42 AM
The Atheist may be attractive as a person with greater resources, after all an Atheist does not give away 10% of their income so a clergy person can live the high life.
Posted by: xebecs | September 16, 2009 11:43 AM
How well does "athiest" work?
Posted by: Kent Geek | September 16, 2009 11:56 AM
The article smells like traffic bait to me. Is "okCupid" really the leading US dating site? I've never heard of it. If there were someway to confirm the results across multiple dating sites (unlikely), it would be more impressive.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 16, 2009 12:04 PM
How well does "athiest" work?
Like you're bragging. And that "athier-than-thou" bit never works.
Posted by: JennyAnyDots | September 16, 2009 12:13 PM
@ Kent (#36):
Only reason I've heard of them is that I keep seeing banner ads at the top of this site. The wording of the ads actually made me assume they were trying to target religious customers though.
(OK, I'm in the UK, so wouldn't have heard of them otherwise anway)
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 12:15 PM
I joined OkCupid years ago to do a personality quiz, and it asked me not to use the site for dating. Apparently, this is my personality type:
In my defence, I'd recently been jilted after a very (near decade-) long relationship and was feeling a little spiteful when I completed the test.
Either that, or I'm just a godless bad catch. Either way, look: fire!
Posted by: JJR | September 16, 2009 12:24 PM
Slightly OT, but did anyone see Penn Jillette remarking on Atheists being No.#3 in the religion category on Facebook (behind Christian #1, and Islam #2). He also noted that people who put things like "Jedi" or "Heavy metal" or "Pastafarian" are probably just atheists joking around, but that anyone who consciously puts down the word "atheist" is probably not joking at all.
One friend of mine on Facebook has some very succinct descriptors; It says:
Political views: Yes.
Religious views: No.
Succinct, yet completely opaque. I had to admire that.
As noted in the other thread referenced above, stay away from eHarmony, it is aimed at (heterosexual) God believers. That said I have heard they're trying to change--probably because they're losing market share to competitors; but I still wouldn't trust them.
Posted by: Peter G | September 16, 2009 12:29 PM
Using the word "atheist" in your profile connotes intelligence and rationality without the snobbishness associated with, say, a reference to MENSA membership.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 16, 2009 12:57 PM
Good news, but I'm not quite desperate enough to date a computer yet.
Posted by: Brock | September 16, 2009 12:59 PM
Been there, done that. As in, I've been a self-declared atheist on OKC for ages. It's a fun site, and I met my girlfriend on there (we're coming up on 3 years).
Before anyone makes snarky remarks, I have no shortage of "real" offline friends :p But I am a bit shy about meeting girls. YMMV, etc.
Posted by: tsg | September 16, 2009 1:03 PM
I always had to question the intelligence of someone who feels the need to pay someone else to tell them they're smart.
Posted by: Brock | September 16, 2009 1:10 PM
Oh, and as other have said, I'm fairly sure this is just a case of atheists turning to dating sites because... it's otherwise hard to find atheists.
If I search OKC for the term "atheist", the results are significantly smarter and more interesting than the people the site automatically matches with me! Consider that a tip.
(And yes, I have most of the match-questions relating to religion and spirituality set to "very important" or "mandatory" -- the site never pairs me with evangelicals or anything.)
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
September 16, 2009 1:12 PM
I do not allow my computer to date. Period.Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 1:30 PM
I dunno: we work together, read together, play games together, and so--given the ubiquity of pr0n on the internet--I like to think of us as 'friends with benefits'.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
September 16, 2009 1:43 PM
As many an authoritarian father has found to his dismay, your computer may already be going on dates with other computers, without asking your permission.
It may even have fallen under the sway of a cult leader and be mindlessly participating in orgies involving thousands of others.
You may think you have locked up all the access points, but all it takes is one slip and a Serially Transmitted Disease will have found a new host in something you love.
Posted by: F | September 16, 2009 1:44 PM
From the signup page at okcupid:
... and the link goes to eHarmony. Wonderful.Posted by: Peter G | September 16, 2009 1:47 PM
No kidding TSG. It ranks right up there with tithing to some church to convince yourself you're holy.
Posted by: Mrjonno | September 16, 2009 1:53 PM
I remember in the UK I was getting fed up with the 'not religious but spiritual' which the majority of people seemed to choose (christian rarely got mentioned).
So I put atheist and not spiritual in any way and for some reason it got me a date with a Hindu Nun.
I didnt actually know such a thing existed but it was an interesting coffee afternoon
Posted by: tim Rowledge | September 16, 2009 2:08 PM
Sadly, my computer promiscuously dates pretty much any document it comes across (eww, computer bukakke!) whether I want it to or not.OT, slightly - does anyone else think of the Lennon song 'I Am The Walrus' as 'the bukakke song'?
Posted by: Whatevermachine | September 16, 2009 2:10 PM
My friend has a very good way to get rid of perverts who are hitting on her. She will just say 'Can I tell you about the gospel?' She once wrote a long reply to someone who'd sent her a dirty email and signed it 'your sister in Christ'. It works pretty well, though some pretend to be interested.
Posted by: Joffan | September 16, 2009 2:58 PM
It could also be that mentioning a specific religion, and Christianity in particular as the dominant religion in the area, is code for "not available for sex", and so "atheist" is being read as the opposite.
Certainly, among foreign students who have stayed with us, a significant number (of the girls in paricular) are not really religious but affect religious paraphernalia apparently to discourage sexual approaches. As such I'd really like to see how that 42% varies between the sexes, and similarly for the religious calls.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 3:07 PM
Really? People think that? Clearly, they never went to Catholic school.
Posted by: Epikt | September 16, 2009 3:33 PM
Rey Fox:
You should try it. They never want to talk about the relationship, and you don't have to buy them breakfast.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | September 16, 2009 3:42 PM
Atheist = forbidden fruit.
Them Catholic girls eat us up.
I'm available for worship services.
Posted by: Gwenny | September 16, 2009 3:46 PM
You all seriously never heard of Okcupid? I've had an account since early 2004 I think. But it was already in full swing by the time I found it. I immediately liked it because it allowed for more types of mating options.
Posted by: arachnophilia | September 16, 2009 5:04 PM
jesus = cock block?
Posted by: fly44d | September 16, 2009 5:05 PM
An up front "atheist" mention in my introduction worked for me too. My gal's first sentence ever to me was, "So, you are an atheist?" I let loose the other kooks I was conversing with and we have been together for over 8 years. How romantic? :-)
Posted by: Crux Australis | September 16, 2009 5:13 PM
Once you've had geek, that's what you'll seek.
Posted by: Marie the Bookwyrm | September 16, 2009 5:36 PM
Of course 'atheist' would get more responses. Atheists have no morals, as everybody knows, so we're ready to jump into wild, crazy sex at a first meeting!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 6:32 PM
Uh, yeah, pretty much.
Posted by: MelM | September 16, 2009 7:20 PM
I'm not interested in any pious women, so, making all this clear up front sounds like a way to avoid disappointment and hurt--both mine and her's--down the road.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 16, 2009 7:44 PM
Yeah, not to mention the fact that it gives female atheists the excuse to have even more abortions, since - deep down - they really hate babies, unlike good Christians who love everything and everyone.
Posted by: Nes | September 16, 2009 9:55 PM
Sigmund@15:
Greta just had a good set of posts on that and how to fix it, along with some interesting discussion.
Posted by: RickrOll | September 17, 2009 1:27 AM
Well, looks like i'll need to make myself an account :p
I'm just horrible at talking to girls. This may be an interesting trial.
Posted by: JThompson | September 17, 2009 3:27 AM
My first thought when I read this was that people are admitting to being atheists and religious people are worrying the shit out of us to convert.
Even if the nuts find someone unattractive and not datable for other reasons, they'd still bug the hell out of them for Jesus.
Posted by: Walton | September 17, 2009 2:18 PM
I've considered trying internet dating, but the stories I've heard are not encouraging.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 17, 2009 2:26 PM
I've considered trying internet dating, but the stories I've heard are not encouraging.compared to what? "dating" as practiced in the U.S. (and increasingly in Europe too, or so I hear) is a massive pain in the ass in meatspace, too. If you're desperate for companionship, then throwing yourself on the market in the real world isn't any more painful/disappointing/awkward than on the internet [/anti-dating rant]
ahem. my point being that internet dating sites aren't any worse than meatspace attempts at specifically finding potential "significant other"s.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 2:32 PM
Why do you see that as a moral question?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 17, 2009 2:34 PM
Brownian @ #39, that is fucking priceless
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 17, 2009 2:41 PM
gah. #70 was a blockquote fail. first sentence/paragraph are actually Walton
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 2:41 PM
It's absolutely hilarious.
"Brownian, OM, RBLD, OkCupid Reject"
Posted by: highverbalfan | September 19, 2009 3:09 PM
OKC is definitely the best dating site that I've seen (although I use it more for general friend-finding than dating). It was started by the same irreverent group of kids who came up with The Spark, and tends to attract a more educated group of people who don't take themselves—or the site—too seriously. The fact that it's free helps, since having to pay for a dating site inevitably connotes a degree of desperation. OKC embraces the inherent awkwardness of the premise and has fun with it.
(FYI, there are apparently more than two dozen profiles that explicitly mention "Pharyngula." Probably won't find THAT on match.com.)