DISCUSSION: “Everything You Thought You Knew About Love Is Wrong”

Comment on the types of evidence that Ansari uses to prove his argument. What works for you? What doesn’t? Why?

 

10 thoughts on “DISCUSSION: “Everything You Thought You Knew About Love Is Wrong”

  1. Throughout the article, Ansari uses anecdotal evidence, quotes from dating service professionals, personal stories, and also some data provided by experiments pertinent to his argument. Most of his evidence was compelling for me and it worked to convince me of the overall argument. His opening anecdote about his parents’ arranged marriage did not persuade me in the way it was intended, but it did make me interesting in what the rest of the article would be talking about. I felt like the evidence Ansari used in his next section “ Where Bozos are Studs” was extremely effective. Through displaying the results of the mini experiment with Derek, Ansari shows how the past models of online dating, like OkCupid and Match.com provide users with the ability to become who they are not and to be much more selective throughout the dating process.
    In his next section “Soul Mate vs. Laundry Detergent,” I found parts of his evidence to be insufficient, while others towards the end of the section were more compelling. His use of the laundry detergent analogy did not convince me, as humans have always been maximizers and I don’t believe that the internet has made this concept that much easier. On the other hand, his personal piece of evidence, the story explaining how he met his girlfriend as not any different from a Tinder match, resonated with me.

  2. In his article, Ansari used a few specific types of evidence: personal experience and experiments, analogies, statements made by dating professionals and different studies performed and books written that all relate to the topic. Though I found the majority of his article to be more resonating than compelling due to the fact that his topic was broad and one that I know a decent amount about. What made his article great was his ability to explain things that we pretty much already knew by means of personal anecdotes and statements from professionals, then reinforce his points with studies and statistics. Specifically, his use of the comparison between his father finding a spouse and him finding a place to eat was not only a great hook, but was a story that gave me a perspective that I had never truly thought about. One thing that did not really work for me was his use of “The Happiness Hypothesis” by Jonathan Haidt due to the fact that it did the one thing that really bothers me: it gave a relatively rigid structure to a social relationship. Though others may find it compelling, I simply just do not believe in any sort of relationship (father-son, boyfriend-girlfriend, etc) being given a set of criteria or general outline due to the fact that there are billions of these relationships and every single one is different. Overall, Ansari did put together a very well written and argued article that I did enjoy reading.

  3. it. In order to do this, he uses a couple different forms of evidence. He uses personal experience, peers’ anecdotes, experiments and scientific evidence. I think one of Ansari’s best attributes is his reputation as a comedian and someone that is a good storyteller. He uses this to his advantage in his first section about how his father and his arranged marriage. I felt like his anecdotes about his father, his dinner plans and his experience at the wedding were all useful and they resonated with me. His section called “Where Bozos are Studs” uses factual evidence, reason and experiments. I found this part slightly confusing but the evidence he provided and the graphs he included were easy to read and useful. One of the most interesting things I found about the entire article was that same-sex partners have an incredibly higher percentage of online meeting success than different-sex partners. I expect that this is due to the stigma that can sometimes exist in society, coupled with the ease of which online dating services make it to browse potential partners. The section called “Soul Mate vs Laundry Detergent” was interesting because it compared the method in which we date to the method in which his father found his wife and makes you realize that they aren’t actually that different. That usage of anecdotes and experiments was interesting. Finally, and this is the part I found very successful, was his section “Passion and Patience.” Ansari uses very specific data and combines it with an anecdote from his past in a way that I think is really successful. The biological component of relationships is not one that many people (including myself) know about and this is a section that I expect people think “ooh I didn’t know that” when they read it. I think that this part is also the most successful in proving his point. His point is that everything we think we know about love and dating is wrong; in this section, he talks about how biologically our brain fizzles out of the “falling in love” phase and in most cases people would start to doubt their partner. Instead, he suggests, we should be patient and continue through to the next phase of a significant relationship. Overall, I found this article interesting, funny, and easy enough to read that I wasn’t having to go back and re-read every page.

  4. Overall, I found Ansari’s use of evidence to be pretty effective and compelling. I was definitely drawn in by his argument, and also appreciated how he chose to section off his different points under separate headers, which was an interesting choice. He used a range of evidence to discuss the changes in romantic relationships he’s seen: from anecdotal evidence about him and his parents, to insights from people in the online dating industry, to statistics about rising divorce rates. Personally, the argument that I found most persuasive was his point about us all becoming maximizers. We want the very best option in just about all facets of our lives, and the primary reason for this shift is because the internet and modern technology has given us the capacity to expect such things. Sadly, it makes a lot of sense how this is bleeding into our romantic lives as well, but we can’t expect to find that level of simplicity or perfection in real people. Relationships are much more complicated than that.

    The point that I wasn’t as convinced by was the part at the end in which Ansari discussed how we need to be patient with love and stick with it after the passion wears off. The two ‘danger points’ he explained that often occur in relationships were fascinating, however they are largely based on biological processes which should not be drastically altered compared to when our parents were dating. He talked about how our brains are flooded with dopamine in the first year or year and a half of a relationship and this can lead to jumping in too fast or losing faith once it’s over. These pitfalls hypothetically should have been just as dangerous for older generations as they are now, the only potential difference is a changed mindset.

  5. This article by Aziz Ansari uses a number of different types of evidence to make his point in this article. These evidences include anecdotal evidence, evidence from data, and expert evidence. All of these kinds of evidence hold a different amount of weight when it comes to getting your point across. Personally, I am more convinced by the anecdotal evidence. While the other two certainly are convincing in their own ways, neither resonate with me as much as the anecdotal evidence. In most cases, with some exceptions, I am usually more swayed by anecdotal evidence because it is personal and tells the whole story. In the case of evidence by data, I am not always convinced because the data might not always tell the whole story. While data may be useful for some research articles and other forms of writing, it doesn’t really work for me. Ansari’s anecdotes about his parents told me a lot more about relationships than all the data from his different sources. When it comes to expert evidence, I am a lot more convinced by experts than I am by data. These experts such as Klinenberg and Shwartz are people who have spent their lives studying this topic so they know a lot more. In conclusion, all of these types of evidence are reliable, but anecdotal evidence works a lot more for me, especially in this article.

  6. In Anziz Ansari’s article, he uses a lot of humor and personal experience support his thesis. He compares his own inability to choose a restaurant-let alone a wife- to his parents’ arranged marriage. I think this example works nicely to contrast the argument that, today, we refuse to settle because we have so many more options at our fingertips. Ansari begins discussing himself and his parents, shifts to the dating culture at large, and then relates it back to his parents. His argument is personal but relevant.
    In the “When Bozos are Studs,” section, I thought that his beginning piece of factual evidence wasn’t helpful. He described how 38% of, “single and looking,” Americans use dating platforms– boomers and college kids alike. I understand that he wanted to make a point that it is not only 20-somethings that are making use of dating apps; however, he follows the first statistics with, “almost a quarter of online daters find a spouse or long-term partner [this] way,” which doesn’t support Ansari’s point that now people search endlessly for their dream partner.
    I think Ansari’s most compelling piece of scientific evidence is his own research that he conducted for his book. He speaks of organized studies where he had direct contact with the test subjects. Both he and a psychologist listened to people’s dating history, and he recounts both his impressions and scientific evidence to support his point.

  7. I found Aziz Ansari’s “Everything You Thought You Knew About Love Is Wrong” a powerful and convincing essay. The main reason it was so effective was because I could tell that he was very passionate about the subject and did a lot of research. For example, the personal account of his parent’s arranged marriage automatically makes the reader feel trusted and closer to Ansari. The anecdote also works perfectly within the context of the article because it provides an introduction that also explains how traditional dating methods are coming full circle through new services such as Tinder. He also shows his determination to the article by flat out telling us that he “set out on a mission,… read dozens of studies about love,… [and] quizzed the crowds at… stand-up comedy shows.” He fills his article with statistics and studies, but also tells the reader how passionate he is which makes the article strong for me. It makes me feel like “if Ansari cares and put time into his article; I should care and take the time on his article.” Aside from evidence, I believe that the structuring and organization of the essay was well planned out. The sectioning of his argument made the essay flow well and helped me process the points that he was trying to convey.

  8. Reading the Aziz Ansari article was very interesting. His argument was so strong and I found myself hooked into his point that being content with decisions can be found in “good enough.” What really convinced me was his anecdotal evidence. While I typically find it to be a weak way to prove a point, his writing style is so enjoyable and relatable that I can’t help but believe his points. Aziz Ansari also used scientific evidence that felt like personal anecdotes. The reason they felt like this instead of scientific evidence is because he frames it in that way. It adds that layer of credibility that otherwise would not be there.
    I think his examples of his own parents and Derek were the most persuasive to me. Using his parents as an example was strong because it shows how limited options worked. The example with Derek is strong because he points out the absurdities in rejecting someone who differs in sport teams.
    The idea of how limited options are better than more reminded of an article that I read about how soup companies increased sales by reducing the kinds of soup they sold. By decreasing the options, consumers found it easier to decide between the lesser amount of products.

  9. It seems Ansari is arguing that investing in a relationship is what makes it work – the many options of the technological world can be distracting and lead to maximizing tendencies, but can also help to find the person to invest in. In general, the types of evidence he uses are anecdotes, graphs/data, and science/psychology statistics. His anecdotes about his parents, own girlfriend, and other couples were effective for me, as they all boiled down to similar points such as the importance of investment, but proved the point in different ways, making his points seem more universal. I found his choices of data to be compelling in most cases. In a sub argument that people don’t always know what they want, his use of data from dating websites about people’s requirements for dates vs what they actually choose supports his point very well. However, I think some of his graphs and statistics were a bit unnecessary, or they were interesting but didn’t prove a clear point. The two graphs on how heterosexual vs same sex couples met their partners weren’t explained, and I didn’t know what they were supposed to prove beyond what I interpreted from them. Meetings online spiked for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, but are still the third method of meeting a partner for heterosexual couples, so I didn’t know how he wanted to use this graph to support his argument about the internet. Meetings online are a far first for same sex couples, though, which could prove that internet can narrow down dating pool and help find available people, although he does not analyze the graph and explain whatever point he wants to make.

  10. Ansari through his use of humor and anecdotes made his argument rather effective. He was making a point that through the myriad of techonological ways of dating include text and online dating site, it is distracting the true meanings of love. Saying that the short and sweet way his parents married is in some way outreageously better. his parents’ model of love is fall in love after marriage, but in comaprision his own examples of dating is seemingly too burdensome and complicated. This experience is all complicated by the existence of the internet, which gave hime in a way too many choices, and made his choice not the best one almost. The statistics he uses also makes his argument more solid. He highlighted that today more than 20% of couples are product of online dating, which in his article is not a very promising trend. The problem with online dating in a way is the fact that it is very focused on pinpointing exactly what someone wants while that person him or her self isn’t even sure what they want or is quick to change what they truly want. that need is ever evolving. Ansari advocates for love out of passion rather than data.

Leave a Reply