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

The dating app paradox

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#241

Post by pertymcpert »

julianeon wrote: post #222
phlipski wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect here - "20 years of successful online dating" sounds like an oxymoron! Unless you're choosing to date and to not enter into a long term relationship?

Actually this brings up an interesting point: the article implicitly assumes that the winning condition, the optimal outcome, is a long term relationship. But is it? Certainly many rich guys don’t act like that (stay w one person for 50+ years). This is important, because if we don’t have a consensus on what the best outcome is, that would explain why we’re not getting one. There may not be a single optimal outcome f…

We don't need consensus since consensus is impossible with a large population. You just need a vast majority and the vast majority agree on the winning condition.

Re: The dating app paradox

#242

Post by unsignedint »

sctb wrote: post #183
unsignedint wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After dedicating an hour to completing eHarmony's extensive questionnaire, I was unexpectedly informed that there were no matches available for me, resulting in my inability to join their service. While initially disheartening, I appreciate eHarmony's honesty and their decision not to charge me the $249 membership fee given the lack of potential matches. This transparency is commendable, although the experience ultim…

I'm sorry to hear that; of course it would've been be disheartening! If you're interested in sharing, I'm curious if you speculated at the time why that might have been the case (e.g. where you live, unique interests, etc.), and how you went about things after that experience.

My ethnic background, despite not imposing significant restrictions on my preferences, may have influenced the outcome. Additionally, my friend pointed out that my atheistic/agnostic stance could have further narrowed my potential pool of matches, possibly eliminating up to half of the available candidates.

Re: The dating app paradox

#243

Post by Meekro »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #79
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As an iPhone user, I’d seriously consider using a dating app that ONLY allowed you to “Sign in with Apple”, This way you can also avoid the poor Android users and clear them off the gene pool. /s

If I had a dollar for every "green bubble" comment I got when I started texting someone from a dating app, I'd almost be able to to buy an iPhone

Wait, so this is a thing in the real world? I thought it was just people on Twitter being dumb. Like, prospective dates are judging you on your brand of phone?

Maybe I'm just too old now (mid-30's) but I don't even know what kind of phone most of my friends and acquaintances have.

Re: The dating app paradox

#244

Post by Terretta »

user_7832 wrote: post #231
BurningFrog wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By standard Economic theory, that is not a stable strategy, since it incentivises starting new dating apps. It only has to be moderately successful to ensure a profitable exit. Over time, Match would run out of money. Given that Economists overwhelmingly get these things right more than our intuitions, I'm really curious what explanations they have.

> since it incentivises starting new dating apps It might, but there are lots of sticky things in human behaviour. A person fully aware of the situation in your statement, and only looking for money may do so, but the vast majority of people (off HN) likely do not have the skills (tech/business), do not care about the skills, might not want to start a company or simply are happy enough with their life to not want to…

So, 50/50 of a billion dollars, or having to financially engineer to operate within $1000 a day* cash flow?

You're right, there's only one rational bet.

* More if you set up with a bank with intraday transfers.

Re: The dating app paradox

#245

Post by user_7832 »

garciasn wrote: post #153
glimshe wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any examples you would be comfortable sharing (ok to change the low level details of the situation)?

I had no access to any financial account, ever. Once I gained access, after the fact, there were nearly $16K in cash advances against a credit card I didn’t even know I had. Purchased all new dresses. Purchased workout equipment (rarely, if ever used). Purchased sex toys and sex-related clothing I never saw used. 5 new credit cards in her name. Pieces of paper with divorce related info I assumed were for a friend of…

I'm sorry to hear that. Wouldn't some of that be considered a crime/fraud, meaning legal recourse may be an option? Of course a lawyer would know better.

(Not that it might be easy to recover the money, but the judge could have wages garnished.)

Re: The dating app paradox

#246

Post by Meekro »

prepend wrote: post #48
garciasn wrote: post #32

Originally responding to a flagged comment that stated you were weak for not talking to people in person: You’re not wrong, but the in-person dating pool is small and the stakes are high. I am very recently divorced, dating single for the first time in nearly 25 years after finding my wife stole $300K from the family and had been carrying on an affair for 18 months while I thought our finances and love were at an all…

> Dating apps at 45 are a literal fucking cesspool. Funny I’m in almost the same situation and have found dating apps really helpful. I’ve been using them for a few months and it’s like a firehose of dates. It’s surprising because they get a bad rap, but I think I could go on a date every night if I wanted to. I haven’t found a new partner and am just a few months in but have met nice people and relationships. As an…

I'm glad it works for you! Maybe the app should pay you to teach the other guys what they're doing wrong?

Re: The dating app paradox

#247

Post by jstarfish »

lazide wrote: post #196
jstarfish wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I investigate these complaints for a living. Please don't date anybody you work with. We'll both be happier for it. The fun always starts after a breakup and the other party doesn't want to see you at work anymore. There is usually no penalty for falsely reporting anyone to HR for harassment "in good faith," and there are likely anti-retaliation policies protecting malicious claimants from punishment for "misrepresen…

It’s not just work - it’s any community venue that other party considers ‘essential’. Church, Dr’s offices, the gym, even a grocery store (if they ‘need it’) is a potential social ‘war zone’. Oh, and Reddit too.

Of course. It works at every level, all the way down to family. Other advice here suggests joining groups to meet people, but anytime you two are under the same reporting umbrella, you're vulnerable to malicious claims when they want to be rid of you.

It's a sad state of affairs; I don't have a solution. Private citizens have no business running tribal justice systems. They used to call this form of abuse triangulation (but that term has a wildly different meaning with this crowd).

https://www.healthline.com/health/narcissistic-triangulation

Re: The dating app paradox

#248

Post by sweetro17 »

Former dating app founder here - lots of thoughts on the space - feel free to AMA

High level though, there's a lot of human behavior which makes dating frustrating with or without apps.

At it's core, even in the best case, dating has A LOT of rejection. Dating apps introduce more opportunity for incremental validation (you got liked!) but also incremental rejection (you got ghosted!) and the sheer number of interactions that lead to nothing is much higher and more quantifiable than IRL (you've all seen the r/tinder sankey diagrams)

Two "solutions" I believe would generally benefit dating

1. Apps are more transparent and equitable with how they expose profiles to other users. Don't bias toward highly liked people to increase perceived "quality" and shadow-hide show profiles that aren't liked often (and then ask them to pay lol). Show people more randomly, to better represent the true cross section of people on the app.

2. Daters set some type of routine that works for them - say "I'll try to go on ~1 date per month". Being intentional about this helps minimize the feeling that each date is so fatalistic / it's the end of the world if the person who seemed awesome when messaging is actually a jerk. It'd be nice if an app facilitated this type of routine and figured out a feedback mechanism to reward users who were generally pleasant / respectful on their dates.

Re: The dating app paradox

#249

Post by ravenstine »

renjimen wrote: post #230
ravenstine wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, do some experiments outside of just gender. Make an account for a dog. Or be a guy who's a total douchebag. You may not like what you find. EDIT: Seems people here don't like what I have to say or think I'm kidding. I haven't done the dog experiment myself, though I've seen it done a few times by others. It's quite the realization when a dog gets more attention than you do as a human on a dating app. Yeah…

> Many women in my locality are looking specifically for a good time with him. Attention != success.

For some men, such an experience would be the closest thing to success they've seen in quite some time.

Re: The dating app paradox

#250

Post by user_7832 »

Terretta wrote: post #244
user_7832 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since it incentivises starting new dating apps It might, but there are lots of sticky things in human behaviour. A person fully aware of the situation in your statement, and only looking for money may do so, but the vast majority of people (off HN) likely do not have the skills (tech/business), do not care about the skills, might not want to start a company or simply are happy enough with their life to not want to…

So, 50/50 of a billion dollars, or having to financially engineer to operate within $1000 a day* cash flow? You're right, there's only one rational bet. * More if you set up with a bank with intraday transfers.

Not a revenue of $1000, but always being $1000 away from being in debt.

...yeah I get "what if I spent $900 on a purchase and got the money back the next day" is a valid criticism, but I mean, just above poverty.

By the way the P(expected) = (1 billion * 0.5) + ((almost) zero * 0.5) = a very respectable 500 million, which even at $1000 a day would take 500,000 days or over a thousand years.

Post reply on HN