Article in today's paper about ''attractive names''

[Polkadotfanatic]

From the Daily Fail Mail today...be interested to see what you all think...is there truth that some names are more attractive than others? Would you discount a mate based on name only?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081166/Potential-partners-likely-click-unattractive-names-dating-websites.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081166/Potential-partners-likely-click-unattractive-names-dating-websites.html

I don't think it is about trouble makers. More likely to do with perceptions (whether conscious or not) of affluence as the preferred names are rather "posher" than the other ones.

Not sure how you can define "attractive", it's in the eye of the beholder surely?

I know it's wrong but I think I would find it hard to be attracted to someone called Nigel, Kevin or Dennis - at least initially.

This does not surprise me in the sightest.

People always rush to disassociate themselves from being the type to judge based on name, but I fully maintain we all do it. I don't mean that we all make judgments and resolutely stick to them. I just mean that we all make judgements which 99% of the time we happily let go once we get to know the person.

It must actually be really hard for a Kevin or a Chantal on a dating site. I'm happy to put my neck on the block and say that if I'd ever internet dated, a Kevin or a Trevor would have had to work a hell of a lot harder than an Alex or a Matthew for my attention.

Sorry - I'm not being clear - my point is that you don't really get to know people on dating sites.

If someone doesn't like the sound/profile of you, then they don't pursue you - so a 'bad' name probably really counts against you on a daing site in a way it doesn't in the real world.

There are a lot of threads on MN about how names are an important part of first impressions, and there is a lengthy body of psychological research (and a fair amount of popular published science) which shows, time and time again' that people are swayed by first impressions. And those who claim not to be are typically self-deluding, and sometimes more extreme in the prejudices which they even hide from themselves.

So no, this article doesn't surprise me in the least. It's a well documented and enduring human phenomenon.

I think it does good to surface it from time to time. By discussion, the level of awareness is raised, and perhaps just perhaps people will examine their own behaviour a little more, and try perhaps to over-ride their inbuilt response.

Stop reading the Daily Mail.