on Monopoly, and OKcupid

I have been reading one of John McPhee's essay collections with a friend, and we came across his piece on Marvin Gardens, the Atlantic City neighborhood featured in the Monopoly board game. The essay portrays a distinction between wheeling and dealing in the fake world of Monopoly, and the real-life depressed economic condition of A.C., New Jersey. McPhee characterizes the familiar streets of the city, like Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues, the Boardwalk and Park Place - as completely derelict, empty of the wealthy optimism they represent in the game.We both found it interesting that a game could represent, in such a different way, the condition of an actual thing - in this case, a city. I realized I could extrapolate the thinking a bit more and apply it to online dating - is the dating website OKcupid very different, in terms of attempting to recreate reality, from Monopoly?A. wrote:This leads me to thoughts around theory and practice. Or, rather, that you can have the most accurate tools in the world - in this case, a game that is an exact replica of land, land ownership and tax management - but if you don't apply them intelligently, you're destined for failure. You can play the game of Monopoly thousands of times, with success being a combination of luck and chance, but at the end of the day you can fold up the game and put it away. That isn't, as some learn the hard way, true with life. Is that what happened to Atlantic City? However, I think there's something to be said for using gaming and game design to teach practical, real world skills in an accessible way. That being said, I'm not sure if it requires some sense of fantasy to separate it from the 'real' world.And, as with any game, the players are assuming a God-like identify. The bird's-eye view of the city, as it's laid out on the board, removes the decisions they make - to mortgage, trade, sell, or buy - from having any impact on living, breathing people. I think this could transition into a discussion on the pros and cons of leaders having emotional investments in the populations they have to make decisions about. Is it better to be on the ground and involved, or does that prevent you from making objective choices?When I made the connection, I realized I could re-purpose the statement to make the same points about online dating. I wrote:This leads me to thoughts around theory and practice. Or rather, that you can have the most accurate tools in the world -  in this case, a website (OKcupid) that is built to be an exact replica of the rules of attraction and the ritual of mate selection - but if you don't apply it intelligently, you're destined for failure. You can send thousands of messages, go on hundreds of dates, with success being a combination of luck and chance, but at the end of the day, you can just stop sending messages, and power off the laptop - you have no shared context with the people you have been interacting with, no mutual acquaintances who will question or challenge your choices. That isn't, as some learn the hard way, true with real romantic feelings. Is that what happens to people who fail to build meaningful connections through dating websites? However, I think there's something to be said for using the internet to meet people and offer practical, real world experiences in an accessible way. That being said, I'm not sure if it requires some sense of fantasy to separate it from the 'real' world.And, as with any game, the players are assuming a God-like identify. The bird's eye view of the dating pool, as it's laid out on the website, removes the decisions - to flirt, screw, and break up with people who don't exist in their real lives in any meaningful sense  - from having any impact on living, breathing people. I think this could transition into a discussion on the pros and cons of daters having emotional investments in the people they only know in the online world. Is it better to be invested in real life, instead of keeping a digital distance, or does that prevent you from making objective choices?