A Million First Dates • Hacker News Board

Re: A Million First Dates

#11

Post by GuiA » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:34 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #6

mr_luc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: I'm young, but I still measure my core friendships in decades ... I'm not going to settle for a life where 'romantic partner' is not a core friendship, one which I can rely on in the same way as my lifelong friends and close family. I think that a lot of people feel the same way. To me, that's more persuasive even than the 'think of the children argument', and much less likely to change. The 'think of t…

Now you have to really hope that your romantic partner sees things just the way you do.

That's a primary concern in pretty much every single romantic relationship.

Re: A Million First Dates

#12

Post by aes256 » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:34 PM UTC

mr_luc wrote: post #5

aes256 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument goes that internet dating has made commitment less attractive, and divorce more common. That's not necessarily a bad thing. In the future we will have fewer people clinging to abusive partners and putting up with destructive relationships. Online dating provides more options. On the other hand, a lot more children are going to grow up without both their biological parents. Is that such a bad thing? I'm n…

Counterpoint: I'm young, but I still measure my core friendships in decades ... I'm not going to settle for a life where 'romantic partner' is not a core friendship, one which I can rely on in the same way as my lifelong friends and close family. I think that a lot of people feel the same way. To me, that's more persuasive even than the 'think of the children argument', and much less likely to change. The 'think of t…

People change; they come and go.

To me, the notion of marriage flies in the face of this basic observation. How can you possibly commit to spending the rest of your life with someone when you know so little about how they will change, intentionally or not?

> The 'think of the children' argument is pretty strong here. We all know the stats: kids from single-parent families tend to grow up in more negative environments, tend towards worse outcomes.

This sounds like selection bias to me.

At present, in Western society at least, members of certain socioeconomic classes are significantly more likely to become single parents, and it is likely the socioeconomic conditions their children grow up in that have the most significant effect on their outcomes.

Conversely, abusive relationships and unhappy marriages also provide negative environments for children to grow up in. A future in which relationships are more fluid could reduce the number of children growing up in these environments.

Re: A Million First Dates

#13

Post by mr_luc » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:38 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #6

mr_luc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: I'm young, but I still measure my core friendships in decades ... I'm not going to settle for a life where 'romantic partner' is not a core friendship, one which I can rely on in the same way as my lifelong friends and close family. I think that a lot of people feel the same way. To me, that's more persuasive even than the 'think of the children argument', and much less likely to change. The 'think of t…

Now you have to really hope that your romantic partner sees things just the way you do.

Well, I haven't solved that part!

Nor do I think the permanence-of-marriage problem is any more or less solvable than the disadvantaged-single-parent-children problem.

But the permanence-of-marriage problem interests me, at least in my case.

And it seems like a problem that can be addressed in ways that improve outcomes, even granting that it has random/unknowable components.

Re: A Million First Dates

#14

Post by greggman » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:41 PM UTC

My personal experience doesn't match some of the ideas presented in that article

>> At the selection stage, researchers have seen that as the range of options grows larger, mate-seekers are liable to become “cognitively overwhelmed,” and deal with the overload by adopting lazy comparison strategies and examining fewer cues

I find exactly the opposite. People that I would be happy to talk to if I met them in person with no knowledge about them I easily reject because some minor thing in their profile suggests some incompatibility even if it might not be in actuality.

>> Easy

For whatever reason it's not been easy for me. I'm on several sites. The issue above means I don't write that many people. Of those I write they rarely respond. Through online dating I've not managed to meet more than 1 person a year, probably less.

I could go on. Maybe it's that unlike Jacob I actually am looking for "the one" so it makes me more picky.

Re: A Million First Dates

#15

Post by furyg3 » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:43 PM UTC

ZoFreX wrote: post #4

aes256 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument goes that internet dating has made commitment less attractive, and divorce more common. That's not necessarily a bad thing. In the future we will have fewer people clinging to abusive partners and putting up with destructive relationships. Online dating provides more options. On the other hand, a lot more children are going to grow up without both their biological parents. Is that such a bad thing? I'm n…

Yes, I thought that most of what the article stated was well supported, but they made a leap from "people are more likely to leave relationships that aren't that great" to social values suffering. I'd rather be single than trapped in a marriage I don't really enjoy.

It's tough, though. If you ask very happily married 60+ old couples, I think most will tell you that there was a patch or two they didn't really enjoy, and that they are happy they rode it out.

The trick is knowing when to make that call. Having a list of a thousand compatible singles a click away probably lowers the "walk away" threshold quite a bit.

Re: A Million First Dates

#16

Post by danso » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:43 PM UTC

This article is a good read, but this following excerpt is an angle I would love to see a more expanded look into:

Indeed, the profit models of many online-dating sites are at cross-purposes with clients who are trying to develop long-term commitments. A permanently paired-off dater, after all, means a lost revenue stream. Explaining the mentality of a typical dating-site executive, Justin Parfitt, a dating entrepreneur based in San Francisco, puts the matter bluntly: “They’re thinking, Let’s keep this fucker coming back to the site as often as we can.” For instance, long after their accounts become inactive on Match.com and some other sites, lapsed users receive notifications informing them that wonderful people are browsing their profiles and are eager to chat. “Most of our users are return customers,” says Match.com’s Blatt.

Re: A Million First Dates

#17

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:47 PM UTC

aes256 wrote: post #3

casca wrote: post #2

TL;DR: anecdotally, "internet dating has made people more disposable"

The argument goes that internet dating has made commitment less attractive, and divorce more common. That's not necessarily a bad thing. In the future we will have fewer people clinging to abusive partners and putting up with destructive relationships. Online dating provides more options. On the other hand, a lot more children are going to grow up without both their biological parents. Is that such a bad thing? I'm n…

> On the other hand, a lot more children are going to grow up without both their biological parents. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not convinced it is, but I've never really bought into the concept of family.

May I ask: Do you have children? What would you feel if your partner left the country with those children? Would you still feel the same way if you did not have the money for law to get some kind of custody of those children?

Re: A Million First Dates

#18

Post by vidarh » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 4:03 PM UTC

greggman wrote: post #14

My personal experience doesn't match some of the ideas presented in that article >> At the selection stage, researchers have seen that as the range of options grows larger, mate-seekers are liable to become “cognitively overwhelmed,” and deal with the overload by adopting lazy comparison strategies and examining fewer cues I find exactly the opposite. People that I would be happy to talk to if I met them in person wi…

> because some minor thing in their profile suggests some incompatibility even if it might not be in actuality.

That is a lazy comparison strategy compared to actually getting to know someone to find out whether or not it reflects an actual incompatibility.

We see the same in many other settings, like shopping: Give people more choice beyond a relatively small number, and they on average become less likely to find a choice they see as satisfactory. If your choice is ketchup or mustard, it's relatively easy. If you're faced with five of each, you might decide what you really want is mustard from a specific village, hand picked by virgins.

Re: A Million First Dates

#19

Post by Evbn » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 4:04 PM UTC

greggman wrote: post #14

My personal experience doesn't match some of the ideas presented in that article >> At the selection stage, researchers have seen that as the range of options grows larger, mate-seekers are liable to become “cognitively overwhelmed,” and deal with the overload by adopting lazy comparison strategies and examining fewer cues I find exactly the opposite. People that I would be happy to talk to if I met them in person wi…

You aren't disagreeing. Both you and the article state that your decision making process collapses.

Re: A Million First Dates

#20

Post by Evbn » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 4:06 PM UTC

aes256 wrote: post #12

mr_luc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: I'm young, but I still measure my core friendships in decades ... I'm not going to settle for a life where 'romantic partner' is not a core friendship, one which I can rely on in the same way as my lifelong friends and close family. I think that a lot of people feel the same way. To me, that's more persuasive even than the 'think of the children argument', and much less likely to change. The 'think of t…

People change; they come and go. To me, the notion of marriage flies in the face of this basic observation. How can you possibly commit to spending the rest of your life with someone when you know so little about how they will change, intentionally or not? > The 'think of the children' argument is pretty strong here. We all know the stats: kids from single-parent families tend to grow up in more negative environments…

People don't change totally randomly. Relationships take work, like any other hobby or vocation