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

321–330 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#321

Post by throwaway2037 »

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…

> 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.

To state the obvious, you must be in the top 20% of attractiveness, and probably over 6 feet / 183 cm. Literally, you are a statistical outlier. Multiple studies and experiments have shown that 80% of the women are seeking attention from the 20% most attractive men. Notice that I didn't say anything about "great personality".

Re: The dating app paradox

#322

Post by ajsnigrutin »

droptablemain wrote: post #304

The article doesn't mention this at all but there seems to be an abundance of "content creators" on dating sites targeting men. They will chat with you for a day or so and then try to sell you their "product." It's anecdotal but this happened to me several times. You also hit a bunch of profiles that are clearly promoting similar services. I'm sure it's not great for women either, but dating apps in modern times are…

I never understood sites like onlyfans... i mean, I understand the sites and creators, but I don't understand men who pay for that.

On one hand, you have normal porn... with some google-fu (well... bing-fu) and disregard for copyrights, you can find anything you want for free, but you have to jerk off by yourself.

On the other side, you have prostitution, where you pay, and you get actual sex (bj, hj, pegging, whatever you're into and pay for).

And then you have onlyfans... you pay... and then you have to do the deed yourself? why?!

Re: The dating app paradox

#323

Post by jimkleiber »

sweetro17 wrote: post #315
jimkleiber wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious to your thoughts: what do you think about a nonprofit dating app? Do you think they may shift the balance of your quote from above? > I do think apps generally want you to find a partner, but are generally okay with making the experience valuable to them (even if that means gamifying and playing with who gets to see who and when) along the way.

I could see it for sure - it'd at least be worth experimenting with. Beyond the functionality itself, I'd be most curious about how the idea that its a non-profit influences perception of the app and the people using the app. Profit or non-profit, it'd be nice to see apps talk more openly about how they approach matching - I think Coffee Meets Bagel did this a while back.

Ah sweet, yeah, the impact on social dynamics as well. Thanks for replying :-D

Re: The dating app paradox

#324

Post by shiroiushi »

sapphicsnail wrote: post #229
thriftwy wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Conservative doesn't necessarily == old. I'm a woman who loves other women, we've been around forever, but conservatives want to make it difficult for us to have relationships.

Conservative means old-fashioned, not old. More specifically, it means returning to some halcyon (usually mythical) "good old days" when things weren't "degenerate".

Sure, homosexuals have been around forever, but societal acceptance of homosexual relationships is relatively new. Conservatives (in the US) want to turn the clock back on that, and make those relationships socially unacceptable or even illegal.

Of course, conservatives have certain ideas of when exactly the "good old days" were. Homosexuality was very accepted (even encouraged) in ancient Greece, for example, but Christian US conservatives obviously don't want to go back to those days.

Re: The dating app paradox

#325

Post by sweetro17 »

gnicholas wrote: post #299
sweetro17 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great qs - As for why apps don't show profiles more randomly - I think because the space is so competitive, perceived quality is so important and frankly its "easy" for apps to leverage who they show to who and when in order to make users most likely to keep swiping and/or upgrade. I do think apps generally want you to find a partner, but are generally okay with making the experience valuable to them (even if that me…

Thanks for the responses. In terms of goals, I was thinking more of the relationship goals. Many men are happy using apps to play the field (I've talked with friends who simultaneously 'dated' half a dozen or more women), whereas most of the women I know used apps to find longer-term relationships. This can result in a small fraction of men going on a large number of dates (expecting that they don't need to commit) a…

There are statistics studies both endorsing and invalidating this concept.

Some OkCupid / Tinder data suggest that "likes" are not evenly distributed, which has been extrapolated out to mean that dating is unbalanced. On the same token, unmarried rates are pretty equal across genders in the US suggesting that from an outcomes perspective people are achieving their relationship goals (at least in terms of marriage there are other goals).

In our app, which was much more heavily skewed toward actual dates than likes, I would not characterize the pattern of people who went on dates heavily skewed toward a small portion of men - so it may be real from a liking perspective (I can't claim to refute data directly from the dating apps) but may be more of a myth when it comes to actual dating.

Re: The dating app paradox

#326

Post by ajsnigrutin »

michaelt wrote: post #34

If you're interested in this sort of thing, I can recommend creating an account on your dating app of choice with the opposite gender. The experiences are as different as night and day - and the different user groups have completely different requirements of the product. The article is interesting, but IMHO they've really missed the key asymmetries that make good dating apps so hard to build.

[flagged]

Re: The dating app paradox

#327

Post by ajsnigrutin »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #317
blendo wrote: post #62

For a straight male, you’ll see a surprisingly large number of fake profiles. Anecdotally, women seem to report this too. (Reddit has MANY such posts!) So identity verification is a real problem. As an iPhone user, I’d seriously consider using a dating app that ONLY allowed you to “Sign in with Apple”, in the belief that it’s the “best” way to ensure a real human is behind the sign-in, more-so than email/pwd, or even…

Where I live, for at least one dating app, you need to take a photograph next while holding your passport. I'm sure that a human verifies it.

Giving your full personal data to a dating app where an underpaid human checks the passport info, doesn't really sound like a smart idea.

Re: The dating app paradox

#328

Post by ajsnigrutin »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #262
Meekro wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

YES. It is ABSOLUTELY A THING. I personally haven't dealt with it, but I personally know people who have. They tend to skew younger, and it's a big deal in middle/high schools. Kids will actually bully other kids just because they have an Android. It's pathetic that Apple marketing has worked so well at convincing people that they're the luxury product.

Well, at least it was innovative, you could bend an iphone way before the "fold" series phones from samsung :)

Re: The dating app paradox

#329

Post by poulsbohemian »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #279
sweetro17 wrote: post #248

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 interacti…

The solution to dating app problems is actual human contact and throwing dating apps away. There is too much to get wrong with text only. Say the wrong thing online and you're done. Say the wrong thing in person and you can judge by facial expressions that you did and get a chance to correct a misunderstanding. You also get a chance to actually see what the other person subliminally likes and dislikes. All in real ti…

>The solution to dating app problems is actual human contact and throwing dating apps away.

You aren't wrong, but you dramatically expand your dating options by using these apps. Just relying on your social circles is no different than remaining in the Middle Ages, just relying on a possible partner to show up at church or in the market. These apps spread your geographic and social opportunities, after that it's up to the human contact you describe.

Re: The dating app paradox

#330

Post by sweetro17 »

monero-xmr wrote: post #306
maxlamb wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve dated for years without apps trying to meet people organically, and then also years through dating apps, and I’ve had way more opportunities for human contact with dating apps. I mean the whole point of dating apps is to meet in person once you feel the person might be a good match

The benefit of dating apps IMO is that everyone on there is explicitly there to find a partner for some reason. In real life it’s a bit of a guessing game, which is fine, but the simple math is that love is easier to find where all the people looking for love are hanging out.

+1 - one of the biggest things we found actually, is externalizing the potentially uncomfortable elements of dating generally helps people be more authentic and focus on getting to know each other. A few examples:

- As you said, dating apps, everyone is there to date, so you don't have to feel awkward about approaching someone not knowing if they're not single or interested in you or even if they are in the mood for conversing with a stranger - Hinge did a good job forcing Q&A. Before that people often thought it was uncool / signaled trying too hard to add a bio so people often had less info to go on. - On our app - we helped facilitate where people went on their first date (generally tried to pick more affordable / neutral options) - this took the pressure off of worrying if the person picking made a bad / too crowded choice - blame it on us!

Not saying dating apps can remove everything uncomfortable about dating, but they can definitely help!

Post reply on HN