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

The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#121

Post by mancerayder »

nashashmi wrote: post #32
mancerayder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Below 26 is your killer. Statistically, people marry later than before, and women are more educated (both 'than before' and 'than men'). Women have more career opportunities than before, so why would they want to marry at 26 (or sub-26, as you put it). That kills their opportunities for careers and post-collegiate education. Family values? That's one specific to your region of the country (I'm in a less pious part of…

Not really true. There are many women out there who marry below 26, even with career opportunities. Debt tends to be low, though not zero. And family values are high. However, they do tend to be from a set of ethnicities that are not extreme Western or American. The women you may be referring to are unbounded, liberal, and non-restrictive. The set of men they tend to attract are less serious, less guided, are more sh…

My stats are 'overall average' and 'United States'. My point was more that 'sub-26, family values, no debt' is bucking a serious demographic trend. I don't expect that trend to taper any time soon, either, as economic pressures are connected to it.

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#122

Post by hiram112 »

bruceb wrote: post #42

Considering HN is a relatively affluent crowd would anyone who is having trouble online dating pay to have their dating profile edited/rewritten and also their msgs to potential dates (I say to women as would seem to be most likely) . Thus saving time and lessening frustration? There seem to be a lot of decently intelligent men that are not skilled at writing good profiles and msgs. Thoughts on what one would pay, wi…

Agreed. However, it is far more effective to get professional pictures - high quality, one in a suit, one with a Pet, one with some friends / somewhere exotic.

You can go on Craigslist and get a 'professional' photographer to do a session with you for $100 or so (relative to COL). You will still need to put in effort with getting some fitting clothes, asking friends for help, etc. Professional, in this case, usually means someone that has a high-end camera and knows enough to use it.

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#123

Post by hiram112 »

sotojuan wrote: post #75
bruceb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can easily control type of pics and text you write on your profile along with type of messages one sends.

Yes, but how many people will be OK with the idea of paying someone to choose what to say and what to send to a potential mate? I'm guessing more than I think (after all, people pay to learn from "pick up artist"). What I like about real life dating and meeting is that if something goes wrong, at least I know what it was (for the most part, definitely not always). I've had friends who don't reply to messages because…

You don't need to pay someone to write messages for you.

As much as things like PUA and /redpill are hated on this site, I've learned a few grains of wisdom from some of the online dating threads.

Advice for Guys:

1. Don't write long messages. 2. Try to keep the ratio at 1/1 or less (you vs them). 3. Go for a number / date as soon as possible. 4. If #2 or #3 fail, move on to someone else. It is a numbers game, and you are at the disadvantage as a 20 something guy.

I have had decent success in my 30's using this strategy - far more than I had in my 20's, though a lot of this is due to my age and other factors, not just messaging.

Honestly, if I knew at 25 what I know now, I wouldn't recommend any guys that aren't in the top 20% of attractiveness (i.e. tall, fit, good job, social skills) to bother with online dating. It is about as effective as trying to pick up random women at bars at closing time (i.e. it probably won't work, and will waste a lot of time, energy, pride, and money).

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#124

Post by avn2109 »

wyager wrote: post #111
jasode wrote: post #9

>So is there an ideally sized choice set when it comes to dating—one large enough to include variety and depth, yet small enough that you can fairly weigh each prospect’s potential without tripping your brain’s overload switch? [...] Fisher puts people somewhere in the middle of that range. “Once you’ve met nine people who are vaguely in the ballpark, choose one and get to know that person better. If nothing works in…

It is worth noting that the 1/e secretary problem solution is optimal only if your goal is to maximize the probability of choosing the single best secretary. If your goal is to do expectimax optimization, as decision theory would dictate, you should make a decision after reviewing sqrt(n) applicants. That's assuming a uniform distribution of utility among secretary choices. If the distribution is non-uniform, another…

I assure you that in dating, utility is not even close to uniformly distributed over secretaries. It is almost the least uniform naturally-occurring distribution I can think of.

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#125

Post by tomp »

mancerayder wrote: post #54
imaginenore wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you make a strict distinction between hooking up and dating, everything starts to make sense. Hooking up stats are rather clear: around 80% of women have sex with around 20% of men. That's why an average looking guy on PoF/CL/Tinder/OkCupid has very little chance compared to real life. This imbalance is actually caused by the guys. Your average guy will throw himself at almost any woman. You join a site, you go…

Hooking up stats are rather clear: around 80% of women have sex with around 20% of men. That's why an average looking guy on PoF/CL/Tinder/OkCupid has very little chance compared to real life. While I think this sounds very true, do you have a reference? It completely matches the experience in the city I live in, and I'd love to be able to quote it to people.

The closest thing to "fact" is that about 1/3 of men alive historically have reproduced, compared to about 2/3 of women (or is it 40%-60%?).

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#126

Post by tomp »

Spooky23 wrote: post #63

This is the key passage of the article that pretty much says it. In short, if you're faced with 30 jars of jam to choose from, you'll narrow by brand or GMO-status or whatever. Facing a choice for a mate in a list of 1,000 people, you filter by height, race, tits, or some other attribute. Your outcome will be the same (ie. you'll have jam in your toast or a person in your life), but the criteria different. > When Ben…

This makes compete sense. As they say in the world of freelancing, "if you have too much demand, raise prices". Same in dating, if you have too much choice, raise standards ". Conversely, beggars can't be choosers.

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#127

Post by techdragon »

projektir wrote: post #119
auganov wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's just not true? "accepting a date" from how many people? 0-3? I guess for bar/club goers perhaps it's different. But the notion that you're going to have a substantial number of people "lined up" if you're just going about your life is simply false. Sure you can ask people out, but then it's as much of a choice as going online is. Not a default you're passively opted into. Even OP has admitted that they were…

Thank you, this weird myth that women are just walking around with this amazing pool of compatible men to choose from needs to go away and definitely has no place here. Even for women for whom there is a really large pool, which is not all women, it just creates a lot of extra noise to sift through but it's not really quality. From what I heard, nobody gets anything serious started in clubs. Bars are probably better…

I completely concur with the notion that the pool of "compatible" dates is a total myth. That's a total pile of excrement in need of swift disposal.

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#128

Post by szemet »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #95
curiousdater wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah as bisexual guy and in my experience women are more judgemental then guys. They after all might procreate with you.

Just to put some data on this phenomenon. Women rate 80% of men as less attractive than average. Oddly enough, they message them anyways. https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dat...

Average? That's ok. If it were median there would be some problem here though... ;)

(e.g. If every men is the same, except one who is beautiful, than everybody is below the average but one.)

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#129

Post by Consultant32452 »

szemet wrote: post #128
Consultant32452 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to put some data on this phenomenon. Women rate 80% of men as less attractive than average. Oddly enough, they message them anyways. https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dat...

Average? That's ok. If it were median there would be some problem here though... ;) (e.g. If every men is the same, except one who is beautiful, than everybody is below the average but one.)

Uhh, you can't have 80% below the median. That's impossible by definition.

Re: The Problem with Modern Romance Is Too Much Choice

#130

Post by szemet »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #129
szemet wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average? That's ok. If it were median there would be some problem here though... ;) (e.g. If every men is the same, except one who is beautiful, than everybody is below the average but one.)

Uhh, you can't have 80% below the median. That's impossible by definition.

Yes that's my point. But 80% below the average can be a valid/true valuation, no logical glitch here: If the "wisdom of the (female) crowd" says that's the case, then it may be true - so I don't see the issue here...

So to clarify - your data says nothing about whether women are judgemental - they may be just realistic ;) If beauty is in the eye of the beholder than how can we argue them?

Post reply on HN