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

401–410 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#401

Post by sublinear »

swozey wrote: post #385
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…

> and the sheer number of interactions that lead to nothing is much higher and more quantifiable than IRL I've done tons of online dating and used to bartend so I'm around single IRL people all the time. I absolutely have far, far more "successful interactions" in OLD, unless you're also referring to chatting, which is pointless to even discuss. I'm referring to actually meeting the person and whether that turns out…

> I have no idea if she's attracted to me, nor single, etc. I've probably spent thousands of hours casually talking to someone I may find interesting only to find out before they leave that they're either not interested or not single or not hetero, whatever.

This sounds very off. It's extremely common for people to overshare when drinking. If you can't figure things out in that environment I'm not sure how much lower the barrier to entry can be.

This sounds like dating app propaganda or I just live somewhere with much friendlier people.

Re: The dating app paradox

#402

Post by morbicer »

jessriedel wrote: post #346
hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This won't work; if you do this, you'll expose that the average online dating user i…

> "online dating is only for the ugly and desperate"; the article points out that this is the way Gen Z perceives online dating already. The article notes that Gen Z usage of dating apps is down, but it's not clear to me it's because they think it's low status. (Polo is unpopular, but it's high status.) Do you have more info on why Gen Z isn't using dating apps? It being low status is certainly possible, but lower ov…

I think it's pretty simple - Gen Z are young and have better opportunity to date IRL. They are surrounded by many peers, have more free time and friend circles are still strong.

As people grow older, they have more obligations, they sometimes move away from where they were raised thus breaking away from friends, they generally hang out in less homogenous age bracket.

I bet Gen Z will get on dating apps in their 30s.

Re: The dating app paradox

#403

Post by carabiner »

sweetro17 wrote: post #366
hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This won't work; if you do this, you'll expose that the average online dating user i…

I see your point here - and I do agree, from experience, people sometimes express a desire for a bit of reality distortion in dating (we often heard that they want the experience to feel more like 'fate' or 'chance' than overly engineered). That said, I don't fully agree with the idea that there's a uniform concept of x/10 scale for daters and that they uniformly will balk at those below that uniform rating and there…

Do you also think women hate shirtless photos? Btw, this photo went viral a few weeks ago: https://imgur.com/a/CfXdtK2

Re: The dating app paradox

#404

Post by shiroiushi »

ethbr1 wrote: post #350
shiroiushi wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>- free childcare Where exactly are all the workers going to come from to support this one? There's already a labor shortage, and presumably you want to make sure child-care workers are highly vetted. On top of this, with an aging population, there's a greater need for care workers for seniors, and here there's a lot of problems with these workers abusing the seniors. >- walkable safe environments, transportation, an…

>>- free childcare > Where exactly are all the workers going to come from to support this one? This extends to most child-cost related issues: childcare, primary-education, activities, secondary-education, tertiary-education. Scaling the child:child-cost-worker ratio up needs to be a huge part of this. Which is going to require some out of the box thinking (e.g. cultural acceptance of MOOCs / online degrees).

Um, I don't think this answers my question. Online courses aren't a substitute for early-childhood daycare. You have to have actual people present in-person to do these jobs, and people willing to do these jobs for the wages offered are in short supply, or are people you really don't want watching your kids. This also extends, as you seem to say, to other jobs with high contact with young children, like elementary school teachers. There's a shortage of them too.

I suppose increasing salaries a lot might help, but we seem to be talking about government workers here, so that seems unlikely to happen.

Re: The dating app paradox

#405

Post by Rebelgecko »

Meekro wrote: post #243
Rebelgecko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's usually half joking but people remark on it more often than not.

Part of it is because they're not used to communicating with people outside of the Apple walled garden, so there's some extra hurdles for video calls, sharing photos, things like that.

Re: The dating app paradox

#406

Post by arvinsim »

shiroiushi wrote: post #369
nvarsj wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way these apps work, you pretty much have to pay as a guy. It's like a club where women get in free. The algorithms will derank you very fast unless you're a 10/10 male, and you will basically get no matches from then on. Most guys who are successful on dating apps are paying for it.

That hasn't been my experience at all, and I definitely don't think I'm a 10/10. I've had absolutely no trouble getting dates. (This does not mean that all the dates were great, or led anywhere BTW; the vast majority were nice enough people but there was no interest on one side or the other.) When I see posts like this, I really wonder if men like you just don't know how to write a decent profile intro/bio and post s…

> hen I see posts like this, I really wonder if men like you just don't know how to write a decent profile intro/bio and post some good photos. I think there are definitely certain things that make a dating profile more attractive, and many people aren't good at it.

But that itself is a filter, no? Not everyone have interesting lives to fill a good bio nor attractive enough to have some attractive photos.

Re: The dating app paradox

#407

Post by hnthroaway992 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #322
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, whatev…

Prostitutes are people. With their own preferences and standards. Is it truly that unbelievable to you that there's people that don't even meet hooker's standards for a client? Or that people believe that they don't meet even that standard?

Then there's those that live in countries where prostitution is illegal. How does someone that's socially awkward and has no network to speak of, look for and hire someone working in a profession that's outside the law?

On the other hand there's a degree of protection for both sides when the only insights to the other is just a small block of text that flashes on a screen. It's hard to be a disappointment when you're just a box that's garnered 15 seconds of paid for attention.

Re: The dating app paradox

#408

Post by arvinsim »

rowyourboat wrote: post #91
leach wrote: post #68

Dating apps by and far are quite useless. If you ever want to know how insidious they are, just download one, finish your profile, and swipe for 10 minutes a week. Since you are not an "active user" they will give you the most attractive people to swipe on. Every couple of days they will give you a "limited time" discount on gold or platinum or whatever. The push notifications are my favorite part, "you could be miss…

I'm always so confused by the advice to go to bookstores to meet people. What kind of bookstores do you guys go to where the customers talk with each other?

I am an avid book reader but even I cannot leverage it because I buy through my Kindle.

Re: The dating app paradox

#409

Post by quantumspandex »

helloplanets wrote: post #393
throwaway2037 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a recipe for women to feel creeped out. Countless surveys have shown that women do want to be approached. And don't forget about the "Brad Pitt vs Stalker" duality that exists for women and dating: They either view you as handsome who can do no wrong (including approaching them at Meetups), or some kind of creep. There is little in-between. Also, women view about 80% of men as unattractive. It is not a norma…

> Also, women view about 80% of men as unattractive. It is not a normal distribution, as men rate women's attractiveness. No source for a claim like this, on a forum where it's the norm for even the most mundane things? Please link one, would be interested in having a look at the study.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23060886

Re: The dating app paradox

#410

Post by phonon »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #321
prepend wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 stud…

No, women in their 40s get less picky, particularly if you are near their age, don't have baggage, and have the same child raising goals.
Post reply on HN