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

Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 202 posts

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#171

Post by kelnos »

foofoo12 wrote: post #87
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…

> 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".

It's an entertaining joke, but I think most people wouldn't want a partner that mainly chose them because they have money.

(Certainly there's a baseline: most people want a partner with at least the financial resources to take care of themselves.)

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#172

Post by kelnos »

KolibriFly wrote: post #108
nkrisc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commonly called “analysis paralysis”. For most people, I believe, once you have more than a small number of options it’s basically impossible (or feels so) to analyze and compare all options to make what seems like a rational and logical decision. So some people will just get frustrated and pick one arbitrarily, or give up and pick none. A small number of people will make a spreadsheet and devote way too much time to…

It's wild how the brain taps out after like 5–7 options, but dating apps hand you an infinite scroll of possibilities and say "good luck"

I'm not sure if it's still like this (I've been off the market for a while now), but this was why I liked Coffee Meets Bagel way back when: you only got a small number of possible matches per day.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#173

Post by kelnos »

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…

There are plenty of people you could be with that would be a strictly worse experience than being alone.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#174

Post by kelnos »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #160
ta12653421 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

> The greatest utility of a dating app should be that it provides a higher number of opportunities.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Limiting opportunities can actually be a better experience. Too many choices can lead to decision paralysis.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#175

Post by kelnos »

whynotmakealt wrote: post #84
eastbound wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only new factor that COVID brought in No it also brought kids who missed one year of socialization, positive social experiences, mingling. Just one year? It changed habits forever in favour of remote classes, in which schoolm don’t play their role in giving a cohesive experience for students.

As a kid in final days of high school. This is so true. I was talking to this about this to my mum just a few days ago and she said that no it didn't impact, but I was so shocked because honestly I feel like its just not even the kids but everyone which got impacted but I genuinely feel like that there was this sense of loneliness in covid I am not sure but before covid everyone was friends with everybody else kind o…

I agree with you in general, but I'm pretty sure the change you saw in how in boys and girls interacted with each other before and after COVID was due to puberty, not COVID, given the ages you were at the time.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#176

Post by voidmain »

kelnos wrote: post #170

To the point about the incentives of for-profit companies: dating apps are more profitable if they take longer to match you with someone you like. If everyone finds their ideal match within a week, they cancel their subscription and the company makes no more money off them. If the company puts some barriers in the app that slows down the process, you remain their customer for longer. Of course, there's a tension: the…

Yes. OkCupid basically solved dating, at least for people like me. It took me 2 dates to find the love of my life, and then I left the site (and all dating sites) forever. I paid them $0. Match Group, whose sites are designed to keep you single or in repeated failed relationships forever, made lots more money, bought them out, and ruined the site so they would stop shrinking the market.

It's a lot like how tech companies, data and advertisers have ruined news, friendship, phone, email, politics, ...

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#177

Post by _yb2s »

tsss wrote: post #169
_yb2s wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And those social skills, confidence, emotional vulnerability appear where exactly on the profile? Please. Online dating is 80% looks, 10% height and 10% money.

You have photos and text, try making them funny and showing off that you’re not afraid to hide things about yourself that others would hide- maybe emphasize and show a weird hobby or interest that other people might be worried to share. Of course this only works if you’re actually funny or actually have unusual hobbies. One guy I know literally posted silly photos of himself awkwardly pole dancing and got tons of matches. Even if you’re tall and rich, I advise being interesting instead and making it impossible to tell those things, if you want to match with people that are not boring and shallow. Have a good time and be light hearted- having a bad attitude about how dating is unfair will be impossible to hide and looks like a major personality flaw.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#178

Post by voidmain »

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…

The good dating apps just naturally made less money than the horribly destructive ones and got bought out and converted into destructive ones.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#179

Post by lotsofpulp »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #116
KolibriFly wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paradox of choice feels like one of those concepts that sounds trivial until you live it. Dating apps amplify it to an absurd degree

It’s impressive to me how many people mistake relationships for a choice issue when it’s entirely a building in common thing. Obviously, having a shared vision or the ability to built one initially matter but the rest is very much work. At this point in my life, I’m fairly convinced that some people would be able to build a successful relationship with nearly anyone while other are doomed to fail even with the "perfe…

>At this point in my life, I’m fairly convinced that some people would be able to build a successful relationship with nearly anyone while other are doomed to fail even with the "perfect" person.

It may be that some women may prefer being single (for a variety of reasons) than be paired with a large enough portion of men such that the effects become visible on the societal scale.

Women being able to go through life without having to be paired up with a man is a relatively new thing, the long term effects of which are just coming into fore.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#180

Post by trallnag »

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #159
trallnag wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1) Good point. 2) Fine.
Post reply on HN