I think the issue with dating apps is that it creates the too many choice problem. Relationships, especially starting out, are hard because you have to get over speed bumps. Things that in the rear view mirror look petty and you forget, but in the moment are much more serious.
There's also a huge difference in how the genders experience the apps, despite a lot of us pretending it is the same. I heard someone say "men are dying of thirst in a desert. Women are dying of thirst in the ocean. Men look at the women and say 'at least they have water.'" Most women get far more matches (the ocean water) but often they are low quality (salinity), whereas most men have a lack of matches all together. If you're just looking to get laid, then there is definitely a power imbalance (an amplified version of what exists offline) and women "have it easier". But that's not what most people want. They do want deep meaningful connections, and in that respect there's no difference between trying to drink sand and trying to drink sea water. But because we're dying of different things it creates fundamentally different strategies. (one e.g. men being nonselective with swipes but selective with matches vs women being highly selective with swipes[0]) We have fundamentally different experiences on the apps. I don't know a single man who's admitted to sending a dick pic, but every woman I know has received one. It's too easy to paint with a broad brush with the paint of our experiences, especially the bad ones.
But I think a major issue of why these apps don't work is that we're so wrapped up in our experiences that we don't recognize those of others (classic human problem: "Everyone thinks like me and shares the same experiences."). It causes us to paint with too wide of a brush when seeking something that is by definition intimate and personal. I think the problem with apps is that it is hard to see the other person as a person. While I don't know if I'd ever do one of these profiles, but the goal seems straight forward: to be seen as a human and an individual. You're not just another box of cereal on the grocery store shelf, but an individual human being. I don't think this is backwards and I think it makes sense why people see this as an alternative. They've felt dehumanized by those apps (men and women in different ways) and want to be seen as a living person.
edit: [0], another example is men wanting to meet in person quickly to make the match real vs women often wanting to me more cautious. There are different selective pressures for these things and different societal norms. But it is silly to not attempt to understand the experiences of someone we want to intimately bond with.
Male here: there are ways around it. Currently having 1 to 2 dates per week (still all friend zone, but I'm just back into it, so it's a skill issue, slowly getting better).
The biggest thing that has helped me is to cater towards my "niche", which means I need to focus on presenting myself as artistic, meditative and adventurous. Those are strong sides of my personality. I need to dial down the logic/rational side, and dial up my playful side. That seems to work relatively well. Adjust on a case by case basis of course, also dial things back to normal when you get to know them for longer.
It's polarizing, but the matches I get are more up my alley immediately :)
And yea, I had to experiment relentlessly. Then again, that’s life.
Regarding your "niche", I have noticed that dating apps will not let you say that you are a programmer. I have scrolled through the "my interests" list of Tinder, Bumble, and OkCupid, and the only one that more or less fits is "startups", but that's it. I honestly feel midly offended.
Do you want to say that your interests are reading, traveling, living and laughing? Sure, go ahead. Do you want to write "tech"? Sorry, this app is for cool kids only.
I know you can write anyhting you want in there, that's not my point. And no, I don't want to write how proficient in Python I am.
My point is: if you are a tech-minded person who likes tech for fun the apps will discourage you from showing it. Bumble's interest list [1] has ca. 200 interests including ~20 TV show genres, 30 sports, 10 types of traveling, and 15 personality traits. And yet there's exactly one mildly-tech-related interest, namely, "video games".
Being at my most generous I would read that as "geeks tend to make horrible dating profiles so Bumble steers them towards what's more likely to get them dates", but (as I said originally) I feel mildly insulted by the idea that "bringing my whole self" is something to discourage.
It looks like they simply don't have entries for stereotypically male-dominated activities. No home improvement, no woodworking, no cars or motorcycles, etc. And thus, of course, no entries for anything tech-related.
That's why you have prompts and bios to list this info. These interests lists are not mandatory and are very basic (people who know how to write a good profile can skip these interests and use their own words - more effective.
You mention OkCupid by name, and for the longest time they let you pick in the 'Languages' field C++. I used to use that as shorthand for programmer. Saw a handful of people use it here and there.
Also it's not like they deleted your profile if you mentioned being a programmer in any of the open text boxes. I've spotted several people that mentioned that in their profiles, and I was looking at women exclusively, so I didn't see it as often, but I did see it.
This was quite a few years ago though. Might be different now.
Man that's fucking tedious. Thing I like about in-person meetings, which is the only way I've ever ended up in a relationship with someone, is that I don't have to be a fucking salesman and can just be me.
I do both. The dating landscape has changed, or so it seems. I time capsuled for 10 years (2 long-term relationships that happened quickly one after another). Imagine my shock when I noticed many people are online now. I meet people IRL (actually right now I just met someone on the train :P). But it really does have a different feel to it nowadays.
Did you go up and initiate conversation with that person on the train? I feel like interacting with strangers has been heavily discouraged in the US but it's really the best way to expand your social circle.
I initiated by saying: I like your scarf-jacket combo. Did you match it on purpose?
Note: when giving a compliment, expect nothing in return. Simply know that you prefer a conversation but be ready to jump out at a moment’s notice when she isn’t feeling it.
Her: haha, no I always have this scarf
Me: even with a deep purple coat?
Her: even then…
Me: oh god… going to Berlin?
Her: yep, you?
Me: same, I think almost everyone is going to Berlin
People who think like this exude unattractiveness, no matter how old you luck or how smart and funny and talented you are in your non-dating life.
If you go online dating and end up making friends, you WON online dating, because now you have wingpeople IRL to want to hook you up with their friends.
I find this kinda odd to be honest. Like you want your friends to be happy. So if you have two single friends that you think might hit it off, why not? You don't have to set them up on a blind date, but just host some event and invite both. No real pressure.
Right. There is a lot to be said about how the apps don't really reflect the reality. What you're talking about creates a feedback loop where women get more selective as men get more desperate.
But the issue of hookups is odd. I don't know if most people find hookups objectionable. I know a lot of people probably want some kind of connection. I see that constantly in women's profiles. So how do we end up with hookups anyway in spite of no one wanting it? I mentioned elsewhere in this thread that in my experience, being upfront to women about wanting a serious relationship seems to scare them off. Why would that be?
One possibility is that women choose hookups in some cases or as a bargaining tool to get a relationship. My own thought is dating apps should probably discourage this instead of selling false hope to men. They could just limit the number of matches or maybe try to set it up so people go for relationships instead of a hookup.
>too many choice problem
This is a different issue I think but it is true. I think what happens is people assume they can do better always and that might not even be true. I could see how people would miss a good match hoping for a perfect one, then age, then face worse options and end up single and alone. I think this is a serious problem we're facing that we should confront.
Another issue I have experienced is that you realize too late that you aren't compatible. It's a lot of effort to get close to people and you end up building up all this attraction in the process. It's by design. Women won't talk to you, period, unless you build attraction. But then you start to learn about each other and realize ok wow this person is completely different and we have very different values.
If you tried this the other way around and put your values in your profile or start asking questions before any attraction is built up on these apps, the women don't respond well to it. It's too boring and dry for them.
ya I think that is true. I doubt people planning this write it that bluntly. I don't know what men who plan this say and write, probably something vaguely sexual and provocative.
I do see women write "not looking for anything serious" somewhat commonly.
OTOH I think it goes nowhere if you write you want a serious stable relationship, maybe wife and children at some point. I am guessing but I think it scares some women off and it doesn't really build attraction with them. I have seen women write this in their profiles and when you mention you want something similar the conversation fizzles out real quick. I don't think there is any hard rule here though. A lot of factors can affect this.
> feedback loop where women get more selective as men get more desperate.
> So how do we end up with hookups anyway in spite of no one wanting it?
I think this may be one aspect of the answer. If you're dying of thirst then you'll drink dirty water. But after you've hydrated yourself you think more about how dirty the water is. So you go on searching for clean water. Find yourself dehydrated again, and repeat. I don't think this is a male or female problem, but that we are sexual beings by nature. Even women have post-nut clarity. I'd say that there is even a post validation clarity too. I know when men go through sprints where they get no matches they just start matching with everyone to just get some sort of validation.[0]
But I think there are other issues too. This is definitely a complicated situation and I think the problems with the apps is that they are over simplifying the criteria that people match on. And let's be real here, there's not much incentive pressures to get these apps to actually match people. Dating businesses are weird because the end goal is to get rid of your user. If you're trying to maximize profits you aren't trying to maximize compatibility.
> Another issue I have experienced is that you realize too late that you aren't compatible. It's a lot of effort to get close to people and you end up building up all this attraction in the process. It's by design. Women won't talk to you, period, unless you build attraction. But then you start to learn about each other and realize ok wow this person is completely different and we have very different values.
Something from my perspective, that I don't think is by any means unique to me, is that I notice that someone becomes more physically attractive the more I mentally jive with them. I think this is what gimmicky shows that hide the potential matches exploit. But I'm not sure that's useful either. This really isn't a solution I can really see technology fixing. Physical attraction is definitely the bait in relationship forming but it isn't what reels people in (unless hookup or vanity seeking, which is a valid approach, just not mine). I'm sure I've missed potential matches that would have become exceedingly beautiful to me because the selection criteria is highly dependent on photos. But I don't think things are any better on OkCupid (tried years ago) where you can write a lot about yourself. There too are different selective pressures here because of match rates and this plays a big role in strategies. But I don't think we talk enough about our differing experiences.
[0] To further elaborate on this I've even noticed that when I delete and reinstall the app that the variance of the number of matches I get is extremely high. One reset can get me multiple matches a week for over a month. Another reset can get me zero matches for an entire month. There's a lot of variables at play here, but this is mentally taxing playing with this black box, and that's more what I'm trying to get with all this. Because maybe if we understand what is mentally taxing to each of us we can build better connections (empathy definitely plays an important role in match making)
interesting that you are hacking the apps. I didn't realize you could use the same # over and over. They've done everything they can to not allow VOIP so I had to use my actual #. The extent of this I have done was previously running the app in a VM and being able to change location without having to pay but they made it too difficult and I just decided to pay because it's not that much.
definitely the business model is messed up though.
In retrospect I probably saw warning signs that I wasn't compatible with someone but ignored it because I just wanted a match. Maybe that is part of what was happening when I said I found out too late someone wasn't compatible. It's quite possible I was forcing something to happen. I have to think about that, it was months ago now.
You might be on to something describing the need for validation and desperation that happens. It's definitely making decisions with clouded judgement. A part of me thinks that people shouldn't make the matches themselves, they should be assigned after being checked for compatibility and attraction before any chatting happens. not sure there is a perfect way to do this though.
Oh there are other ways I've found to hack the algorithm. It is really black box probing. I don't think it too difficult if you're into ML interpretation or a hacker, but I firmly believe that this should not be a necessary condition to get matches. That is where the root of the issue lies. If you have to hack the algorithm to make matches, the algorithm has failed. I really do not think Tinder has anywhere near an acceptable algorithm for matching people. I also don't think Bumble is any better.
> In retrospect I probably saw warning signs that I wasn't compatible with someone but ignored it because I just wanted a match.
I think this is unfortunately what that failure causes. Men particularly are lonely (in different ways than women, see thirst analogy above) because social pressures tend to push us to not be as social. So we crave attention and will stay in bad relationships because the fear of loneliness is greater. As someone who has done this recently, I think it is often hard for us to talk about these things openly (social norms).
Both men and women are seeking validation and are desperate, but just in different ways. I really think an issue is that we're not listening to one another and assuming our realities are very similar. Empathy is one of the real things that make humans unique, but I think these apps remove that component and that's why I dislike them.
I think the willingness to meet in person has more to do with logistical issues of physical security rather than some underlying difference in desires to defer / accelerate IRL meet-ups. I think if you were able to assure both people that the other person wasn't going to go crazy on them, we'd see similar willingness to meet in-person.
I do agree with you that when in the app, there is an inherent lack of desire to really understand the other person. In my experience, however, that goes away when we are able to meet face-to-face and share our true selves more authentically. So, this desire is reasonable, I just think that trying to use technology again to try to solve it (google doc instead of hinge) really isn't very different, and we need to change modalities to actually get anywhere on this issue.
Statistics don't exactly line up with that idea. Strangers don't cause problems as much as people like to believe. Men in general have gotten a lot softer while women are the ones pulling more weight on this security.
The people causing problems are generally people you already know, or people with existing relationships. The problem is largely hearsay and doesn't line up with the behavior people exhibit (if stranger danger is so big why use dating apps at all).
The statistics are exactly this way, because women are super wary of strangers already. If they started trusting strange men into their lives that would change very quickly.
No, these are your assumptions made through fearmongering and looking away from what is actually happening. Women are not fragile flowers being super selective with strangers out of security. They are increasingly hooking up with strangers compared to before, and they specifically select men in populations which are more likely to have psychopaths or men with dark intentions. Your average woman has plenty of suitors and friends able to set her up with dates, and she chooses not to.
The entire notion falls flat the moment you look at the actions of women and men as a whole, and take a moment to remember what ideals 80s and 90s coming-of-age movies showed.
That's not the point. If one cites 'yeah it's because women are responding accordingly', they are ignorant to the fact women are A; not responding in accordance to the idea 'don't trust strangers', B; much safer than before and C; independent individuals capable of making their own decisions.
Whether the statistics would be lower if women trusted strangers less doesn't matter. It's what they choose, despite being educated on the matter since youth, and having plenty of options available in general.
I don't get the XKCD analogy. Are you inferring that women who are aware that the actual statistics say that they will be murdered by a loved one are more likely to be killed by a stranger?
The implication is that the statistics are what they are under the condition that women take the precautions that they do.
In other words, the 1/X statistic is conditioned on the average person's precautions (like not walking outside in a lightning storm), and by not applying on those precautions, you're using the statistic outside of the distribution that it applies to.
The analogy is about an aggregation error when using statistics. While the statistic is true it is not accounting for the environment one is in (it has aggregated all environments). Of course there's a big difference asking a girl on a first date on a hike in the woods vs meeting at Starbucks. (A lot of statistical paradoxes are because of aggregation errors. Conditional estimation matters a lot)
It's also a risk/reward thing though. Putting an obstacle to the first date is a great filter to remove people who aren't particularly interested or who would have incompatible lifestyle. From this respect a hike might be far preferably to Starbucks.
While I don't think you're wrong, I think the issue with the hike is being missed. It is a more dangerous situation meeting someone alone in the wilderness (exaggerating a bit) vs meeting them in a very public place that has cameras. That was the intended note.
But I think there are also some complications you're missing. These lifestyles matches can be a form of luck. Maybe you're having a busy week. You're probably paying attention to the app less because of course you will. On the other hand if you're being set up by a friend then that friend can be like "hey, they're busy this week but let's set you up next" and there is more empathy involved.
A major problem with dating apps is that they are trying to be that friend that sets you up but they are doing a really terrible job at replicating what that friend is able to actually do.
Hence the solution of relying on matchmakers in one’s network, such as parents, friends, cousins, aunts/uncles, grandparents, colleague, etc.
They will somewhat know the dating candidate, and they will have skin in the game via their reputation to present somewhat viable options so it is not as high of a chance of rejection.
However, this depends on having access to vast (good) networks, either directly or indirectly.
> The issue with the water analogy is that the "water" that the men receive is from the same source as for women therefore is just as salty.
Well, the other issue is that being lost at sea is much better than being lost in a waterless desert. You can't drink the seawater, but you don't die of thirst while you're lost at sea.
> Yes, you do die of thirst if lost at sea. You can't drink the water
You say that as if I hadn't already pointed it out. Being unable to drink the water doesn't mean you die of thirst while at sea. There are many well-documented examples of people surviving at sea for much longer than it would take to die of thirst. It doesn't matter that you can't drink seawater; you can get water in other ways.
I think you're confusing what's happening. People die of thirst faster in the desert because deserts are generally hot and dry, so you sweat profusely. Meaning you are going to lose your store of internal water faster.
Also, I think you're just taking an analogy made way too literally. Analogies are messy but used to help illustrate a point. They do require one to read the intent of the speaker more than the literal words used.
> You don't die of thirst when lost at sea. You can survive indefinitely there.
Is a objectively false statement that is trivial to verify by a quick google search or anyone who has spent any reasonable amount of time in or around an ocean.
> You can't drink straight seawater, but that doesn't matter because water is available by other means.
And those means are...? If you're floating in the ocean, good luck distilling the water. Idk if you've ever tried to distill water before, but it isn't as easy as the movies make it look. Trust me, I've done simulated survival exercises both on land and in the ocean. Or don't trust me and just google it.
There's also a huge difference in how the genders experience the apps, despite a lot of us pretending it is the same. I heard someone say "men are dying of thirst in a desert. Women are dying of thirst in the ocean. Men look at the women and say 'at least they have water.'" Most women get far more matches (the ocean water) but often they are low quality (salinity), whereas most men have a lack of matches all together. If you're just looking to get laid, then there is definitely a power imbalance (an amplified version of what exists offline) and women "have it easier". But that's not what most people want. They do want deep meaningful connections, and in that respect there's no difference between trying to drink sand and trying to drink sea water. But because we're dying of different things it creates fundamentally different strategies. (one e.g. men being nonselective with swipes but selective with matches vs women being highly selective with swipes[0]) We have fundamentally different experiences on the apps. I don't know a single man who's admitted to sending a dick pic, but every woman I know has received one. It's too easy to paint with a broad brush with the paint of our experiences, especially the bad ones.
But I think a major issue of why these apps don't work is that we're so wrapped up in our experiences that we don't recognize those of others (classic human problem: "Everyone thinks like me and shares the same experiences."). It causes us to paint with too wide of a brush when seeking something that is by definition intimate and personal. I think the problem with apps is that it is hard to see the other person as a person. While I don't know if I'd ever do one of these profiles, but the goal seems straight forward: to be seen as a human and an individual. You're not just another box of cereal on the grocery store shelf, but an individual human being. I don't think this is backwards and I think it makes sense why people see this as an alternative. They've felt dehumanized by those apps (men and women in different ways) and want to be seen as a living person.
edit: [0], another example is men wanting to meet in person quickly to make the match real vs women often wanting to me more cautious. There are different selective pressures for these things and different societal norms. But it is silly to not attempt to understand the experiences of someone we want to intimately bond with.