Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#211

Post by ThrustVectoring »

walterbell wrote: post #200
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #85

The big issue with Tinder (and a lot of other dating apps) is that they have a really shitty incentive structure for revealing your matching preferences. For Tinder specifically, you can't reveal your preferences, save by "is this better than nothing" and how much effort you put into initial messages. Compare this to a ranking + deferred acceptance system, where you can match every guy and every girl such that there'…

Are there marketplaces, in any industry, which take your approach to improving efficiency of matching?

Sorry for the late reply, but yes, there are examples. The most famous is the matching market between new doctors and hospitals.

I highly recommend this book for more information on the topic: smile.amazon.com/Who-Gets-What-Why-Matchmaking/dp/0544291131

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#212

Post by collyw »

dublinclontarf wrote: post #160
tomp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously not, when it comes to sex. Men pay for sex, women get paid for sex. That's all you need to know about the demand and supply dynamics in the sexual "market" (which Tinder embodies).

> Men pay for sex, women get paid for sex Some.

Wow down voted for that. Maybe the majority of HN reader need to pay.

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#213

Post by sebkomianos »

benten10 wrote: post #72
GuiA wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely don't disagree with you. I've tried a more temperate approach like the one you describe; and I can get it with some degree of success for a while, but it never lasts long. Hence why I'm a bit more aggressive in my approach now. I'm glad it's working for you though!

I thought I agreed with you about 'cheaping of human communication' until a couple of years ago. I believed that Snapchat was the worst thing to happen to human communication, and somehow that human interactions had been fundamentally changed for the worse. Then last year, I went on a 2-month long backpacking trip. I don't have facebook et al. and blogs are too tiring, so I decided to get snapchat just for the trip .…

Can you ellaborate on what, in specific, made you change your mind about snapchat and the rest of that kind of communication?

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#214

Post by sebkomianos »

GuiA wrote: post #16

For the most part, I find that most online social media just degrades human interaction. Twitter encourages short shallow quips, Facebook shows me my friends arguing angrily and pointlessly over random articles, dating apps encourage some of the behaviors described in the article. Heck, even HN encourages a certain kind of attitude that I don't find that great, all in all. I know that it's not black or white, and tha…

Wish I could upvote enough.

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#215

Post by sebkomianos »

benten10 wrote: post #104

There's been a lot of talk of the decrease in 'cost' of sex, etc in this thread. I want to chip in as someone who has spent a LOT of time on tinder. Last month, I was spending SEVERAL hours a day swiping on friends' behalf on Tinder. We'd swipe till our eyes hurt, and we'd swipe again. You get a limited number of swipes (and total 'targets') per day, so once someone ran out of their daily quota, I'd swipe for someone…

I am super-tired to write an extensive reply to your comment - and it is worth one - but I'll just say this for now and return to elaborate more once I have gotten some sleep: The mere "possibility" of getting laid with a right swipe on a small device your carry in your pocket, any moment you decide to perform it, and a couple of messages makes the cost seem smaller. Sure, the candidates against which you compete are now more, but still.

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#216

Post by benten10 »

sebkomianos wrote: post #213
benten10 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought I agreed with you about 'cheaping of human communication' until a couple of years ago. I believed that Snapchat was the worst thing to happen to human communication, and somehow that human interactions had been fundamentally changed for the worse. Then last year, I went on a 2-month long backpacking trip. I don't have facebook et al. and blogs are too tiring, so I decided to get snapchat just for the trip .…

Can you ellaborate on what, in specific, made you change your mind about snapchat and the rest of that kind of communication?

I left facebook because it was too tiring. I HAD to have SOME way of connecting with friends. The part I like about snapchat the most is that there's no history -- you send an image, and it's gone, so there's no particular 'baggage' associated with it: no long thread of comments, no 'history' to look at, no tedious 'you didn't like my comment/omg i got 300 likes'. For me, snapchat is somewhere between real-life interaction and texting: as ephemeral as real life 'talk' and long-distance as well... a text message. On other media, stupid things people (or you) say tend to stay around forever, in snapchat, your mistakes last as long as the snaps do. A bad pun, or a mistimed joke, for example... they don't hurt you like they do in other media.

This may sound like exaggeration, but snapchat could be the social network for adults in the longer term [not the 'look at my kid' kind, but 'we're having fun, but don't want it too seem like we're bragging' kind.

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#217

Post by benten10 »

sebkomianos wrote: post #215
benten10 wrote: post #104

There's been a lot of talk of the decrease in 'cost' of sex, etc in this thread. I want to chip in as someone who has spent a LOT of time on tinder. Last month, I was spending SEVERAL hours a day swiping on friends' behalf on Tinder. We'd swipe till our eyes hurt, and we'd swipe again. You get a limited number of swipes (and total 'targets') per day, so once someone ran out of their daily quota, I'd swipe for someone…

I am super-tired to write an extensive reply to your comment - and it is worth one - but I'll just say this for now and return to elaborate more once I have gotten some sleep: The mere "possibility" of getting laid with a right swipe on a small device your carry in your pocket, any moment you decide to perform it, and a couple of messages makes the cost seem smaller. Sure, the candidates against which you compete are…

I'm not sure I agree with you completely there. Tinder hasn't created a lot of 'I want sex, and I want it NOW' -- there's still a gap between communication and hookups, in general [here, I'll accept anecdotes as data, if you have more than few]. Now Grindr, that's a COMPLETELY different story -- I've known people literally do the 'parking garage oral sex' thing in a matter of an hour from start to finish. The general consensus seems to be that Tinder culture is nowhere near that. If you strongly believe the opposite, for good reasons, I'd reconsider my position though.

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#218

Post by sebkomianos »

benten10 wrote: post #217
sebkomianos wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am super-tired to write an extensive reply to your comment - and it is worth one - but I'll just say this for now and return to elaborate more once I have gotten some sleep: The mere "possibility" of getting laid with a right swipe on a small device your carry in your pocket, any moment you decide to perform it, and a couple of messages makes the cost seem smaller. Sure, the candidates against which you compete are…

I'm not sure I agree with you completely there. Tinder hasn't created a lot of 'I want sex, and I want it NOW' -- there's still a gap between communication and hookups, in general [here, I'll accept anecdotes as data, if you have more than few]. Now Grindr, that's a COMPLETELY different story -- I've known people literally do the 'parking garage oral sex' thing in a matter of an hour from start to finish. The general…

First of all let me say I'm glad my comment reached you, I am not sure how many people here get notified about replies to their comments.

Now, I don't strongly believe anything but I wasn't implying that the smaller cost is because of the speed at which the "sex" happens. I believe that people consider it smaller than before because even with the regular dating sites you had to sign up, upload photos, fill in your profile details, etc etc, to even get something started. All tinder asks for is a facebook account and a couple of swipes (or maybe just one :D). Sure, a match might not end up as an erotic partner but at least there was something.

Hope I made my point more clear.

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#219

Post by FriskyDingo »

pavlov wrote: post #35
Zikes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men face the same value issues as well, that door definitely swings both ways.

Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't want to feel like a commodity product that gets evaluated in two seconds should not be on Tinder. But I find it strange that the women are apparently such willing participants. If they don't want to get dick pics from the "fuckboys" (as the article calls them), why are they hanging out online with these people?

Nothing strange about it. Don't listen to what women say, but watch what they do. When dealing with women you always have to keep that in mind. For instance, I have this one rather hot friend. She hangs out with a bunch of guys who want to sleep with her. Yet, she complains that all of her male friends want to sleep with her. Yet, she still hangs out with them. Now why would she do that? Attention and validation. She may not want to sleep with most of those guys, but she likes the attention that she receives from them. It's like the episode of The King of Queens when Carrie was upset that the construction workers didn't catcall her. It's not that she enjoyed being catcalled, but that those guys no longer found her sexually desirable.

The women on Tinder, and every other online dating site, they don't all want dick pics. It does get annoying. But, they still like to feel desired, and getting a bunch of responses from men validates that a woman is still sexually viable, attractive, and that men want her. You can say that it's a confidence booster.

Re: Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”

#220

Post by jsn117 »

pavlov wrote: post #35
Zikes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men face the same value issues as well, that door definitely swings both ways.

Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't want to feel like a commodity product that gets evaluated in two seconds should not be on Tinder. But I find it strange that the women are apparently such willing participants. If they don't want to get dick pics from the "fuckboys" (as the article calls them), why are they hanging out online with these people?

"fuckboys" was/is a very denigratory term for a gay male last time I checked
Post reply on HN