Math dictates almost every process in our lives: It can determine if an infectious disease will become an epidemic, how quickly a biochemical system will reach its equilibrium and the circumstances under which a certain species will become extinct. However, though I am firm in my conviction that math is the single most important system of thought discovered on our planet, I don鈥檛 think it has any place in human romantic interactions.
Recently, the Blognonian paired with the Harvard Computer Society to bring to Brown an edition of Datamatch 鈥� a matchmaking service in which over 60 percent of Harvard鈥檚 campus participates, . The premise of Datamatch is to use mathematical algorithms to assign students their 鈥減erfect match.鈥� Though math can account for an infinite number of phenomena, how can it perfectly predict interpersonal chemistry? More importantly, should we aim to improve artificial intelligence to the point that it can assign us our 鈥減erfect match?鈥�
鈥淏lack Mirror,鈥� a British television series proudly touted by Netflix, often depicts dystopias in which technology rules all interpersonal interactions. In the series鈥� most recent season, the episode 鈥淗ang the DJ鈥� highlights what romantic and sexual exploration would look like if every participant had a device that could predict the outcomes of their potential relationships. The data compiled from one鈥檚 series of relationships 鈥� that could last hours or years 鈥� ultimately promised to lead the users to their 100 percent match: in other words, their soulmate.
As millennials, we have been indulged by instant gratification: Instagram 鈥渓ikes鈥� immediately invalidate our insecurities, and Facebook reactions remind us that we have online communities that support our ideas and pursuits. The most dangerous factors to consider, when contemplating systems such as Datamatch, are the instant gratification and the false sense of certainty they provide us. Why endure the 鈥済hosting,鈥� the ignored texts, the meaningless hookups, the heartbreak and emotional torment that the pursuit of love often entails when we can answer tangential questions such as 鈥淲hy do you take classes S/NC?鈥� and be delivered our 鈥減erfect match?鈥� The simplicity of the question above (provided by Datamatch) is not universal across all dating applications, but the underlying fallacy remains blatantly clear: No data can truly predict the chemistry between two (or more) individuals.
A fundamental element in solving most mathematical proofs is the 鈥渋f and only if鈥� statement. In using this step to prove a conclusion, we must prove that event A causes event B and vice versa. In this case, can we prove that if we participate in mathematically-founded systems such as Datamatch, we will find our 鈥減erfect match?鈥� If we find our 鈥減erfect match,鈥� will it be a result of participation in Datamatch鈥檚 services?
When I was growing up, my mom always told me 鈥渙pposites attract.鈥� Maybe this was to justify that she, the woman who becomes friends with every cashier at Stop and Shop, married my father, who wears soundproof headphones around the house to avoid conversation. Some couples, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, prefer to be with those who share identical characteristics, whereas some want to be with those who supply the very characteristics they lack. How can we rely on algorithms and internet applications to dictate what is 鈥減erfect鈥� for us when we ourselves often don鈥檛 know what we鈥檙e looking for in a relationship until it鈥檚 right in front of us?
The theorems of Pythagoras and the methods of Euler and Newton have maintained their immutability as universal truths since their logical conceptions. However, in a time when our world is constantly being shattered and glued back together by technological and social processes, it is impossible for human interactions to not be impacted by temporal circumstances.
Furthermore, even if we were to live in a vacuum untouched by scientific, technological and social advancements, math still would be unable to assign us our 鈥減erfect match.鈥� In Oscar E. Fernandez鈥檚 鈥淭he Calculus of Happiness: How a Mathematical Approach to Life Adds Up to Health, Wealth and Love,鈥� the mathematician and Wellesley College professor attempts to estimate N, the maximum number of potential partners one could possibly have based on a number of variables: P represents the population from which you would like to find your partner, S is the fraction of the population of the desired sex, A the fraction within the desired age range, E the fraction within the stratum of desired educational attainment, D the fraction that is available, H1 the fraction you would want to date and finally, H2 representing the fraction who would date you.
N=(P)(S)(A)(E)(D)(H1)(H2)
The product of all of the variables above is supposed to give a rough estimate of the potential number of partners who could be a 鈥減erfect match.鈥� I would like to elaborate on Fernandez鈥檚 equation to accommodate sexual preferences and orientations within the two last variables. Even if this equation were to work perfectly, however, it does not account for an individual鈥檚 sexual and romantic preferences (of which there are an infinite number) and how they are weighted. It鈥檚 impossible to quantify how much it means when your partner gets along with your parents, how they care for you when you are sick or whether they help you with your problem sets. Quite simply, it is impossible to mathematically model love. Math may be infallible in the classroom and the lab, but its influence on our personal lives is far more inconclusive.
Nikki Kaufmann 鈥�18 is an applied mathematics concentrator and can be reached at聽nicole_kaufmann@brown.edu. Please send responses to this opinion to letters@browndailyherald.com and op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
