Love Is Blind
(television series). Netflix. Chris Coelen, creator
and executive producer. First airdate February 13,
2020.
Love Is Blind is the latest hit in reality television. The show is wildly entertaining, but this new twist on reality-show dating markets itself as a science experiment. This could kill people.
Love Is Blind takes good-looking single people and places them in “pods.” The pods are equipped with food, snacks, and, of course, alcohol. The poddy people then communicate through shared walls. This allows them to “date” others without seeing their dates’ physical appearance. Participants are only allowed to literally see their partners if they become engaged during the show. Couples then have some time to get to know each other face-to-face before a climatic wedding ceremony in which partners can decide to tie the knot or cut bait.
By marketing this gimmick as an experiment, Love Is Blind makes science look like a bunch of poorly cooked spaghetti that any fool could throw at a wall. This subtly—or perhaps not so subtly—makes it easier for people to dismiss science that they just don’t like. If this seems overstated, consider this: The president of the United States—again, the president of the United States—retweeted a former game show host’s opinion about COVID-19. Move over, Dr. Fauci! The host of Love Connection has something to say.
An Out-of-Control Scientific Dumpster Fire
Love Is Blind basically hypothesizes that long-term romantic relationships would be more successful if individuals cannot see their respective partners’ physical appearance during early relationship development. But a real scientific experiment wouldn’t look anything like the dating scenario that producers designed to get ratings rather than results. (See “Skepticism and Pseudoexperiments,” SI, September/October 2020.)
Real social scientists, at least good ones, would randomly assign participants into one of two groups. One group would be the experimental condition; participants in this condition would date without being able to see their potential partners’ physical appearance. The other group would be the control condition; participants in this condition would be able to see their partners’ physical appearance, but everything else would be similar to the experimental condition.
Love Is Blind has no control condition; all participants experience the strange, wholly artificial dating conditions constructed by the show. Accordingly, even if the Love Is Blind relationships appeared to be unusually successful, nobody would know whether the effect was due to the concealment of physical appearance gimmick or to one or more other factors.
For instance, participants were surely bombarded by camera operators, assistants, stylists, and so forth, all of whom could explicitly or tacitly encourage (or discourage) true romance. Those “deep emotional reveals” that fast-forward relationship intimacy? They were almost certainly encouraged by producers. Genuine social scientists try to minimize their influence on participant behavior, hence the use of unobtrusive two-way mirrors.
And most partners don’t begin dating at swanky, all-inclusive locations. That could easily make any relationship feel a lot more fun than trying to pay for an expensive meal and still have enough money left over for rent.
Perhaps the oddest addition, from a scientific standpoint, is the required wedding ceremony where couples marry or put the relationship on ice. This introduces a seriously uncomfortable element that has nothing to do with the show’s main concept. Slowing down relationship development is tough enough; there’s no need to make people do it publicly on the altar.
Couples Have the Same Relationship Problems Anyway
Another problem is that even if the Love Is Blind method of creating love is truly effective, the effect will be difficult to detect. Love Is Blind couples encountered several relationship challenges that had nothing to do with visible hotness or notness—challenges that, by the way, are supported by legitimate science.
Take, for example, Carlton revealing his bisexuality to Diamond. Carlton and Diamond started discussing this issue, but they both became defensive. This moved their relationship problem-solving from constructive to destructive. Damian didn’t like the amount of time Giannina was on her phone. Damian brought this up, but he was unable to give Giannina a sense of unconditional positive regard—that he valued and respected her regardless of her phone-friendly behavior. This made her feel judged and uncomfortable and likely inhibited her ability to get conjugal leave from her cell.
Extraneous influences such as these do not negate the merit of a scientific investigation, but they generally necessitate the inclusion of many participants, far more than the paltry number offered by the show. Greater sample size allows researchers more fidelity in examining whether the independent variable (Love Is Blind dating versus normal dating) influenced the dependent variable (relationship success).
This Scientific Fantasy Is Not So Sweet
Ironically, even if social scientists wanted to test the Love Is Blind supposition, they couldn’t create anything like the show due to ethical considerations. Social scientists submit their research proposals to review boards; these boards ensure that participants are treated ethically and fairly.
That scrutiny prevents real scientists from placing participants in unjustifiably uncomfortable situations. In contrast, reality show producers profit by manipulating participants’ emotions, recording the outcomes, and sharing it with the public as entertainment fodder.
Despite these concerns, we are not calling on people to cancel the show. Viewers can enjoy Love Is Blind for dramatizing possibly authentic relationships between aspiring D-list celebrities or people who somehow believe that reality television is the most effective path to true love. It’s just important to recognize that real science involves a careful and ethical process conducted by experts who scrutinize each other’s work. It isn’t conducted by producers who have millions to gain if they can get enough hookups and breakups to keep ratings up.
And don’t think this is just overly sensitive whining from a couple of nerds who read texts rather than sexts. People believe all sorts of myths about human psychology. They also doubt established scientific principles such as human-caused climate change, the benefits of vaccination, and the shape of Earth. Now we can add to that mix the doubt about COVID-19’s legitimacy and the benefits of wearing masks. Fewer masks means more contagion, illness, and death. At least that’s what scientists tell us.
We can’t stop the media from producing shows and marketing poor science as real science. We can, however, learn the distinction between real science and reality television shows that claim to be scientific. This would create the best of both worlds: viewers can respect science for being a careful process that establishes reliable scientific laws and enjoy reality television shows as entertainment with obvious scientific flaws.