Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts • Hacker News Board

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#151

Post by ta12653421 » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 4:42 PM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #143

andy_ppp wrote: post #102

Alain de Botton claims (probably with only anecdotal evidence) that we tend to find love in people who remind us of the template our parents gave us… so this is an explanation why certain individuals end up attracted to loving terrible people. How would you hope to possibly convey this? Also social proof is such a big deal for women, I think being in public your date can pick up on all sorts of qualities like self wo…

> I think being in public your date can pick up on all sorts of qualities like self worth and confidence that are extremely difficult to convey on dating apps… In my personal experience, when I meet people from dating apps, there is a huge disconnect between "online charm" and "in-person charm". So much so, that I now try to arrange an in-person meeting ASAP when I connect with someone. You really know very quickly i…

this: > ASAP when I connect with someone Just one point to add: Have a 5min call before to hear the voice. Weeks ago I had an "experience" with someone, her texts were absolutely OK but with small typos, some which are typical if you are learning the language but all in all it was possible to have a conversation.

Then we met.

She could barely form a useful sentence in real life conversation in our langugage, and she didnt speak English :-/

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#152

Post by keskival » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 4:58 PM UTC

OkCupid used to work on the basis of high bandwidth of information and excellent matches.

This wasn't profitable enough though so they changed to the Tinder-style swiping which doesn't work. More engagement interactions means more opportunity to show ads. If you find people good matches they will just leave the app.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#153

Post by tern » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 5:15 PM UTC

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #41

tern wrote: post #26

A major factor in my world: the coolest people don't use dating apps because they find the experience awful and they have no problem meeting people in real life The spicier version: dating apps select for personality disorders, and as such, being on a dating app in the first place is a negative signal For what it's worth, I think this has always been true of the web in general (forums, chat, social media, comments se…

> A major factor in my world: the coolest people don't use dating apps because [...] they have no problem meeting people in real life > The spicier version: dating apps select for personality disorders, and as such, being on a dating app in the first place is a negative signal I guess a lot of people you would call "cool" I would rather call "annoying self-centered people who are often very concerned about their publ…

The people I had in mind were the ones who are just friendly, kind, loving people (think: Miyazaki film character or something), but there are certainly self-centered people who would be embarrassed to be seen on a dating app too.

I think the core difference is whether you're connected into a healthy community or not, or whether you're outgoing enough to find yourself making friends in circles outside your own regularly.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#154

Post by DANmode » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 5:31 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #114

foofoo12 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one makes more money There's this joke about a man in his 40s. He goes to the gym and asks the instructor which machine he should use to look more attractive to young ladies. The instructor looks at him and says "you'd do well by using the ATM outside".

When I ask myself who in my friends circles has had the happiest, longest lasting relationships it almost never were the guys with the money. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the inverse is true and you score big time if you are an ugly bum. It just means other qualities matter often more than men think. Being a kind guy, having humor, being emotionally reliable (meaning you're emotionally stable and not easily…

The parable, the story, is to teach that what brings people running to your doorstep will not always secure your happiness, desired life.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#155

Post by trashface » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 5:35 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #23

10000truths wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is often parroted, but the reasoning is flawed. The vast majority of the platform's growth will come from new users, who are entering the dating scene. If they fail to capture that audience (say, by having a reputation of not performing as advertised), then no amount of upsells or string-alongs of existing users will sustain them, as their user base will only ever decrease, and investors will see that and withdr…

Match's growth peaked a long time ago. The site is now trying to grow by "offering new products" and "cutting operational costs." The relative newcomers - Bumble and Hinge - grew by trying to offer a better experience, especially for women, who are traditionally overwhelmed with unreciprocated interest on conventional apps. Both seem to have admitted defeat now and moved to the usual model. In terms of revenue, the i…

FWIW, Hinge has been owned by match for some years now. Bumble is still independent by their stock is down ~92% over 5 years. I think they will eventually be bought out by match.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#156

Post by DANmode » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 5:35 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #67

zug_zug wrote: post #11

I think it's actually very simple... the paradox of choice. You introduce somebody to your attractive single friend there's a real chance they hit it off and form a relationship. You introduce them to 100 attractive friends, one makes more money, one has a more stable job, one is flirtier, etc then it's both exhausting and none of them seem like a great opportunity. I think there are certain basic psychological facts…

I think the secret is "clearly better than anyone I've got". If I have nobody, and you introduce me to someone, then it's simple. They're absolutely worth pursuing. If I have one or two "maybes", and you introduce me to someone, it's easy for them to be clearly better than anyone I've got, and therefore clearly "the one", at least the one to pursue right now. But if you give me one hundred, then there probably isn't…

Make the shortest list of requirements, and hard-no traits, possible.

It’s the only way.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#157

Post by DANmode » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 5:37 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #68

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the secret is "clearly better than anyone I've got". If I have nobody, and you introduce me to someone, then it's simple. They're absolutely worth pursuing. If I have one or two "maybes", and you introduce me to someone, it's easy for them to be clearly better than anyone I've got, and therefore clearly "the one", at least the one to pursue right now. But if you give me one hundred, then there probably isn't…

> If I have nobody, and you introduce me to someone, then it's simple. They're absolutely worth pursuing. Not quite. No matter how badly you want a relationship, I guarantee there exist potential partners with whom a relationship would make your life worse, not better. And for most people, the set of absolutely disastrous potential partners is most people .

The quoted section felt like a portrayal of the individual’s mentality from the example, more so than actual objective logic.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#158

Post by _yb2s » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 5:41 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #78

johnfn wrote: post #38

Controversial take, but have we considered that possibly dating apps dont suck, and that this perception is driven by a vocal minority of the people who have the worst experience on them? (A sad fact is that dating will just suck for some % of the population. Is it possible that if there were no apps the same % would be saying how IRL dating sucks?) I know many people in stable LTRs or married who met through dating…

> Controversial take, but have we considered that possibly dating apps don't suck, and that this perception is driven by a vocal minority of the people who have the worst experience on them? Yes. The reality is well known. PlentyOfFish used to publish statistics. About 10% of dating app users are "date bacon" and find matches they like. Everyone else is a dissatisfied loser. The losers provide the repeat business and…

I think it’s true that most people have a bad experience, but I don’t think it’s caused by things like height, age, and income level…. But social skills, confidence, and emotional vulnerability, which are things almost anyone can develop with deliberate effort, and also lead to better and more stable relationships.

For me, developing vulnerability and risk taking caused me to go from completely unsuccessful, to being able to date pretty much anyone I wanted on these apps. Counter intuitively, the main thing I had to do was stop holding back the things I had previously been afraid to share about myself because I was afraid they made me seem unattractive, and instead confidently own who I really am. It’s very rare for a woman on these apps to encounter someone that seems genuine, unafraid, and vulnerable- and you will stand out like crazy.

It’s not just men having a hard time on these apps- despite the huge number of people, most women really struggle to find anyone that seems appealing, and most of the dates they do go on end up awful as the men are emotionally unavailable, nervous, and afraid to be vulnerable, which makes them impossible to connect with, no matter how tall and rich they may be.

It’s very appealing to believe that the problem is something outside of your control, but it’s rarely the case.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#159

Post by BoingBoomTschak » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 5:45 PM UTC

trallnag wrote: post #123

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone is a disgusting hedonist wanting "game", you know?

I don't understand how hedonism fits into your argument. I can be a hedonist enjoying myself privately in my own four walls to the fullest without needing any game and pick-up artists.

You're reading B => A where I wrote A => B. If you're searching for "game", I reserve myself the right to use the word hedonist when describing you.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#160

Post by thomastjeffery » Sun, Nov 02, 2025, 6:16 PM UTC

ta12653421 wrote: post #146

gassi wrote: post #2

I think the author missed an important factor: misaligned incentives. Dating apps make money when users spend time (and money) on the platform. Users who find a partner tend to leave the platform, so dating companies are incentivized to prevent that from happening. Those companies then have more opportunities to up-sell those users on premium features, which they're more likely to purchase due to repeated failure and…

By far absolutely _not_ true: - i have worked in the space for some years for two of the biggest platforms in my country - dating sites track a lot KPI and discuss them and test them thoroughly - the KPI "do-more-users-leave-our-platform-earlier-if-our-matching-algo-is-just-too-good" - I promise: In alle the years, this question WAS NEVER - NEVER!!!!!!! - raised, regardless wich Manager or which Exec. This metric isn…

And yet, the premium features are overtly aligned against user success!

I believe you that these app devs think they are optimizing for user success, but that doesn't change the incentives that frame their work.

The greatest utility of a dating app should be that it provides a higher number of opportunities. This feature is explicitly broken by the most popular dating apps. Often, it is put behind a paywall, which has the same effect as being broken.