Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps • Hacker News Board

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#321

Post by rosege » Sun, Apr 29, 2018, 11:10 PM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #135

rosege wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment also reminded me of something I saw. Some guy put the photos of a male model on his profile then started messaging women with really crude/direct messages that there is no way the average guy would have got anywhere with or would have been shouted down - from what he made out nearly all of them sent him their number straight away

> Some guy put the photos of a male model on his profile then started messaging women with really crude/direct messages Did they do the same test where identical messages were sent, only with a "reasonably handsome" guy? Because being bold and displaying confidence goes a loooong way.

if you look at Tinder nightmares you will see lots of examples of regular guys saying these things.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#322

Post by atomical » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 12:37 AM UTC

camel_Snake wrote: post #272

dhimes wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took me half a lifetime to realize this, but you are correct. It's the man's job to try, and it's the woman's job to choose. It's honestly changed the way I think about relationships.

> It's the man's job to try, and it's the woman's job to choose. IMO this is very close, but missing an important point. It's a man's job to escalate , it's a woman's job to choose. Women definitely try. They put a lot of effort into how they are perceived (looks, mannerisms, etc.) and giving us subtextual clues that they are interested. All we have to do is be a little vulnerable and ask them out on a date, go for t…

> All we have to do is be a little vulnerable and ask them out on a date, go for that first kiss, get down on one knee and so on.

It's a lot more complicated than that. Getting down on one knee can be more expensive than a knee replacement.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#323

Post by Double_a_92 » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 6:34 AM UTC

eigenstuff wrote: post #243

Double_a_92 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that's why punish is in " ". There's an obvious imbalance in pickyness between the genders. So counter-weight that somehow. It should encourage being picky for men, and discourage it for women.

As a woman, what if I know what I want, it's hard to find in my area, and I have to dig through a lot of noise to find it? Should I then just right swipe on a bunch of dudes I'm not interested in, leading them on and wasting everybody's time, just so I can keep using the app? This is absurd.

Yeah you're right... We can't really make people not picky.

So we have to limit something for men, because it's easier to become picky.

What if you could sort people by the ratio of messages to answers? E.g. as a man you would show up more easily in results if you don't shotgun. And as a woman you will stay more hidden if your postbox is already overflowing.

However I strongly assume that most women on those site just are picky. Looking for something they can't find in real life... So the system is just broken anyway, at least for "normal" men.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#324

Post by magduf » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 1:00 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #293

magduf wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about Tinder that sucks is that you don't get a very good idea about a person from it, because all you get is a few pictures and if you're lucky, a very short free-form text session where hopefully they wrote something substantive about themselves. However, the thing that makes Tinder great (and also Bumble, though I haven't tried that one yet) is that both parties must "like" each other for any messaging t…

I think the problem with "not enough information" is that if people actually successfully progress from just using it to text each and count matches, you'll find that using just looks is extremely inefficient in actually finding quality matches. But seeing has how it's stereotypical for Tinder to be for hookups (even though most people I know use it for dating), it's probably justifiable for their intended use case.

Absolutely, for its intended use case (hookups), it's absolutely a far more efficient and utilitarian interface.

But for dating, I think it's pretty lousy. But as you said, most people (over the age of 30 I suspect) seem to use it for dating, not casual sex. And they're right to use it for that, because even though it's lousy IMO, it's where everyone is, and despite the rest of the UI being lousy for selecting quality matches IMO, the killer feature is the fact that both parties have to "like" each other. Why other dating sites like OKcupid don't adopt this, I have no idea, except maybe it's not good for their business model in their view. For women I've talked to, sites like OKC are just awful because they get so many unsolicited messages; this isn't much of a problem on Tinder and Bumble since they're in control.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#325

Post by magduf » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 1:02 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #269

magduf wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not side-stepping. On Tinder, it's very common for someone to match, and then just never say anything or respond. Women's profiles complain about this a lot.

Well, I'd say it's 90% side-stepping. Composing a message takes more work than swiping, especially more customized messages. Just saying "Hi" is not much more work than swiping, and so mostly defeats the purpose.

Maybe saying "hi" isn't much more work than swiping in your opinion, but in reality, it seems that it is because so many people don't bother to do it. Maybe they're waiting for the other person to make the first move, or maybe they just want to collect matches, or maybe they're busy chatting up someone else and don't want to start up something new just yet but still want to keep that person around as a possibility; whatever the reason, I've seen a fair number of profiles where the person complains about matches not saying anything at all.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#326

Post by magduf » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #244

magduf wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but what about the flip side? Not all women are desirable to men: fat, unattractive, already have kids, etc. There's a lot of women who just never get a date, because their photos aren't very attractive and men want pretty women (I'm a man and I'll admit this readily: if a woman is a little overweight that's an automatic disqualifier for me).

pretty == underdeveloped. Ignore this phenomenon to your own peril.

What's this supposed to mean? You think only ugly women are developed or something? This doesn't even make sense.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#327

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 2:24 PM UTC

pps43 wrote: post #270

logfromblammo wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall seeing in the movie A Beautiful Mind a scene where a group of colluding men improved their dating outcomes by instituting and honoring one rule: "nobody goes for the best one". Nash demonstrated his game theory concept, and it worked the exposition into the screenplay without going too deeply into the math. So females should probably collude to enforce dating-monogamy, to encourage males to clearly commit or…

The system you envision is Gale–Shapley algorithm for solving the stable marriage problem, but with roles reversed.

Almost, but not quite.

For one, the male class is not given any opportunity to rank females, as it is presumed that most males would attempt to game their own preference rankings to maximize their chances at getting a match. Secondly, the classes are not closed, and additional members may be added or removed at any time, when some matches may already be dating.

To be sure, whomever it is that figures out the fair dating algorithm would have to cite Gale-Shapley as a starting point.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#328

Post by ionised » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:30 AM UTC

throwaway413 wrote: post #186

ionised wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read things that stated the opposite was true for men, that their natural urge is to have sex, not to create children. The children are just the product of successful sex, and we are just vessels for our genes. My own experience confirms this, as I greatly desire sex and have no inclination whatsoever to have children. Though before the advent of contraception I likely would have ended up with children regardles…

Your sex drive is a naturally evolved mechanism to get you to have those kids. Whether or not you consciously want those kids is more about conditioning. The whole reason sex feels so good is to get us to divert such focus and energy to getting laid and making kids. Getting in each others’ jeans is, like, in our genes man.

Yes, I understand this.

Sex feeling good is the incentive to have sex and as a result, procreate.

What I'm saying is that the urge to have sex itself is the natural urge, not the resulting offspring, and it sounds like you're agreeing with me.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#329

Post by magduf » Tue, May 01, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #325

jessriedel wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'd say it's 90% side-stepping. Composing a message takes more work than swiping, especially more customized messages. Just saying "Hi" is not much more work than swiping, and so mostly defeats the purpose.

Maybe saying "hi" isn't much more work than swiping in your opinion, but in reality, it seems that it is because so many people don't bother to do it. Maybe they're waiting for the other person to make the first move, or maybe they just want to collect matches, or maybe they're busy chatting up someone else and don't want to start up something new just yet but still want to keep that person around as a possibility; w…

And I forgot to mention, I've also had the experience many, many times where I've said "hi" myself (actually, I say something a little longer than that for my first message, I try to say or ask something about something I saw in their profile or photos), and then just never get a response, but they never unmatch me either.

Re: Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps

#330

Post by therealdrag0 » Tue, May 01, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #217

maroonblazer wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the parent but it's definitely descriptive. Should it be that way? The answer likely depends on whether you're a man or a woman. From the male's POV changing the game benefits us since there's less work to do. If you're a woman then it's the opposite and a net negative. This sexual dynamic evolved for a reason, so changing it seems like the epitome of an uphill battle.

> The answer likely depends on whether you're a man or a woman. From the male's POV changing the game benefits us since there's less work to do. If you're a woman then it's the opposite and a net negative. I don't have a horse in that race, but I do have an ethical concern. If you tell men that they're supposed to try, then it's likely that a lack of success will be met with trying harder . What does this result in,…

You could also argue it's a small contribution ( don't want to give it too much credit) to the creation of `incel` which now has driven multiple frustrated young men to commit mass murders.