Relationship experts reveal the No. 1 reason people have terrible first dates

New York Post - May 7th, 2025

In today’s digital dating landscape, the element of curiosity, crucial for creating a spark on first dates, is diminishing, as noted by relationship experts. Alexandra Solomon, a psychologist and author, highlights that pre-date background checks, while useful for safety, often extend into excessive online stalking, which can lead to preconceived notions and disappointment. Matchmaker Anna Morgenstern emphasizes the importance of maintaining some mystery to keep the conversation alive and genuine during the date.

Experts further outline common first date mistakes including oversharing personal details, focusing too much on immediate chemistry, and discussing past relationships negatively. Dr. Terri Orbuch advises that retaining some intrigue and demonstrating genuine interest in the other person can foster attraction over time. By avoiding these pitfalls, daters can create more engaging and hopeful interactions, setting the stage for meaningful connections.

Relationships Dating Advice Digital Dating First Dates Curiosity Alexandra Solomon Anna Morgenstern Terri Orbuch

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides valuable insights into common first date mistakes and the impact of digital habits on dating, supported by credible expert opinions. While it excels in clarity and readability, its reliance on expert perspectives without empirical evidence limits its accuracy and impact. The article addresses a timely and relevant topic, engaging readers interested in personal development and social interactions. However, it would benefit from a more balanced presentation of diverse viewpoints and greater transparency regarding the basis for the experts' claims. Overall, the article is informative and engaging, but its effectiveness could be enhanced by incorporating a wider range of sources and empirical data.

Accuracy

The article provides insights from relationship experts about common pitfalls in modern dating, such as the tendency to over-research potential dates and the unrealistic expectation of immediate chemistry. These claims are supported by quotes from experts like Alexandra Solomon and Dr. Terri Orbuch. However, the article lacks empirical evidence or quantitative data to substantiate these claims, which affects its overall accuracy. The reliance on expert opinion is valuable but could be strengthened by referencing studies or surveys that support these observations.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspectives of relationship experts, which provides a focused view but lacks a broader range of viewpoints. There is a potential bias towards expert opinions without considering counterarguments or alternative perspectives from individuals who may have different experiences with dating. Including diverse voices, such as those of people who have successfully navigated the dating landscape differently, would provide a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is well-written and easy to understand, with a logical flow of ideas. The language is clear, and the structure is straightforward, making it accessible to a general audience. The use of expert quotes enhances the clarity of the points being made. However, the article could benefit from more detailed explanations of certain concepts, such as why curiosity is essential in dating.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, such as Alexandra Solomon, a psychologist and author, and Dr. Terri Orbuch, a relationship expert. These sources are authoritative in the field of relationship psychology, lending credibility to the claims made. However, the article would benefit from a wider variety of sources, such as academic studies or data-driven reports, to enhance the depth of the analysis.

Transparency

The article provides clear attributions to the experts quoted, but it lacks transparency in terms of the methodology behind the claims. There is no explanation of how the experts arrived at their conclusions, nor is there any discussion of potential conflicts of interest that could affect their perspectives. Greater transparency about the basis for the experts' claims would improve the article's credibility.