It's been trending this way for years, but seeing it graphed out like this is shocking.
What do you think are the effects of this drastic change?
I want to know which couples were meeting online in 1980.
Scientists probably.
Don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day.
They probably meant in line, like at Kmart or whatever other stores were still open then.
It's almost like something happened in 2020 to cause a big spike. I wonder what that could have been, and if it is still the case.
Ah, life is full of mysteries.
Look at the date of the latest piece of data, and you have your answer
I met my spouse online in the naughts, and it was unusual and required explaining to most people.
Huh. I never knew that people really do meet at bars for more than just a one night stand.
It is more that you meet them for a one night stand. Then you decide to hang out later. Then you wake up one day and you two are married with children.
Yeah, one night stands can turn into lasting relationships. I know a decent number of married couples who met in zero-commitment contexts, whether it's a hookup from a bar or while on vacation in a tourist town or things like that. Or even meeting on a hookup-oriented app that somehow turned into a not-just-for-hookups service after becoming acquired by Match, but during the phase when it was most definitely mainly for no-strings hookups.
Met my girlfriend at a bar, but that's not why either of us were there.
Became friends first, didn't start dating till a few months later.
There really just aren't that many places to meet people irl any more, and I simply won't do online dating.
To think it all started with DoD nerds hooking up in the 80s.
Yeah not sure what they mean by "online" in the early 80s. That was even too early for BBS to really be a big thing. Like there were people out there messing with that stuff. I had a modem for my MSX in 80s, where you put the horn on the modem to interface. But besides from dialing my one friend who also had one and being amazed at the tech, it had no real use. The graph makes it seem like an actual percentage of people were not only online, but meeting their future partners on there? That makes me doubt the validity of this graph.
Why the rise in meeting people at work in the 1980s? Was this when there was an increase in office jobs?
Fuck that is sobering to see. I mean you knew it was trending in that direction but to see it so starkly and so drastically. Damn.
I met my partner through friends at the EXACT point where “Through friends” intersects with “online”. Interesting.
Kudos to that handful of people who met online in the fucking 80s. Talk about meeting over niche interests.
I like the idea of dating apps, but I don't like the implementation or at least how they end up being used where the focus is entirely on visual attraction. I don't particularly think or care about looks; I'm attracted to personality. Most people have blank profiles and just a lot of pictures, so I either have to decide to not like a majority of profiles or like everything just to maybe get a chance to talk to someone.
And it doesn't help having BPD and not really having a solid identity to tell people who I am in a single block of limited characters. So when nobody even communicates when you actually match, it just makes the whole thing seem pointless and stupid.
Surely this graph is wrong? In 1974 couples used to meet while kung fu fighting. A lot of research tends to prove it.
It's hard to get a headcount when people are fast as lightning.
Q: "Why didn't you get in touch with that guy you met at the kung fu fight?"
A: "In fact, he was a little bit frightening..."
wait, everybody was kung fu fighting?
A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.
DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the sole aim of this subreddit.
A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.
A post must be (or contain) a qualifying data visualization.
Directly link to the original source article of the visualization
Original source article doesn't mean the original source image. Link to the full page of the source article as a link-type submission.
If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC]
[OC] posts must state the data source(s) and tool(s) used in the first top-level comment on their submission.
DO NOT claim "[OC]" for diagrams that are not yours.
All diagrams must have at least one computer generated element.
No reposts of popular posts within 1 month.
Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.
Posts involving American Politics, or contentious topics in American media, are permissible only on Thursdays (ET).
Posts involving Personal Data are permissible only on Mondays (ET).
Please read through our FAQ if you are new to posting on DataIsBeautiful. Commenting Rules
Don't be intentionally rude, ever.
Comments should be constructive and related to the visual presented. Special attention is given to root-level comments.
Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed.
Hate Speech and dogwhistling are not tolerated and will result in an immediate ban.
Personal attacks and rabble-rousing will be removed.
Moderators reserve discretion when issuing bans for inappropriate comments. Bans are also subject to you forfeiting all of your comments in this community.
Originally r/DataisBeautiful