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

281–290 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#281

Post by delecti »

claytongulick wrote: post #267
romwell wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children Yeah, and many people in the US would be way more eager to do that had we had: - affordable housing - minimum wage that allows a single parent to support themselves - universal healthcare - mandated paid (and then, unpaid) parental leave - free childcare - substancial financial assistance to new par…

What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs? How much would you have left over for raising children?

I dunno, why not ask most of Europe. Those are not radical policy suggestions.

Re: The dating app paradox

#282

Post by sweetro17 »

carabiner wrote: post #273
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…

What about throwing out the whole swipe-app paradigm with the matches and algo-stack and going back to okcupid style profiles that you can browse? Anyone can message anyone. It was the best dating site by far.

OkCupid actually wrote an article about this that's pretty interesting - https://theblog.okcupid.com/why-okcupid-is-changing-how-you-...

tl;dr tons of spam / offensive messages. I actually think that with advances in NLP and content moderation since then, you could re-introduce a paradigm like this with potentially less spam.

Re: The dating app paradox

#283

Post by orasis »

The problem with dating apps is that most people on there are looking for validation and dopamine hits, not actual dates.

The value of the dating app for most people is the dopamine hit they receive upon getting a new connection and the expectation that when they open it again they might see someone new and interesting. Once they’ve gotten the validation of the match there is very little reason to move forward with an actual date.

Re: The dating app paradox

#284

Post by maxlamb »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #279
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…

The solution to dating app problems is actual human contact and throwing dating apps away. There is too much to get wrong with text only. Say the wrong thing online and you're done. Say the wrong thing in person and you can judge by facial expressions that you did and get a chance to correct a misunderstanding. You also get a chance to actually see what the other person subliminally likes and dislikes. All in real ti…

I’ve dated for years without apps trying to meet people organically, and then also years through dating apps, and I’ve had way more opportunities for human contact with dating apps. I mean the whole point of dating apps is to meet in person once you feel the person might be a good match

Re: The dating app paradox

#285

Post by bee_rider »

skrbjc wrote: post #185
Exoristos wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well as regulating them, Western governments might want to actually fund high-quality, not-for-profit dating systems of some kind. Improved health for citizens, lessened extremism, not to mention possibly boosted population growth could result.

I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success of a nation and it's odd that the majority of how people meet now is through data apps and that there is no oversight over these at all. They have every incentive to match you with someone you are more likely to have a short term relationship than match you w…

I imagine whatever the matching algorithm, somebody will object to it. For example, if one political orientation is generally considered less attractive by women, the platform will have to decide if they want to artificially boost those people or not. I think either decision will upset somebody.

Re: The dating app paradox

#286

Post by Legend2440 »

maxlamb wrote: post #284
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to dating app problems is actual human contact and throwing dating apps away. There is too much to get wrong with text only. Say the wrong thing online and you're done. Say the wrong thing in person and you can judge by facial expressions that you did and get a chance to correct a misunderstanding. You also get a chance to actually see what the other person subliminally likes and dislikes. All in real ti…

I’ve dated for years without apps trying to meet people organically, and then also years through dating apps, and I’ve had way more opportunities for human contact with dating apps. I mean the whole point of dating apps is to meet in person once you feel the person might be a good match

Really? I find that it is way easier to meet people in person. In real life, girls approach me at the gym. On apps, I get maybe one like a week and it's usually not someone I'm interested in.

Re: The dating app paradox

#287

Post by whstl »

randomdata wrote: post #123
whstl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we ask of a dating app is roughly "Give me access to partners that are 'out of my league'." I don't really believe this is what we ask of apps. It is however what that the current apps promise us. If I install one of those apps, I need to swipe a lot of people to see an average woman. If I were single, I would probably be ok with the first 50 that show up if they weren't bots or onlyfans bait.

Apps only get used if they deliver what people want. Apps promise that because that's what people want. (There are always exceptions) > I need to swipe a lot of people to see an average woman. Right. If you were after an average woman (and an average woman was after you, we'll say someone also average), there would be no value proposition in swiping endlessly to find each other. You could both just step outside. Ther…

But the app doesn't promise women or men. It promises potential contacts. And it delivers. That's why people pay premium, etc.

If you read again what I said, I never said I was looking specifically for an average woman. What I said is that it takes some time to show them.

This changes expectations drastically. It also changes possibility of meeting someone that's "at your league", unless you use the app constantly, apply some strategy (such as swiping "no" to a lot of pretty people), or simply pay.

Re: The dating app paradox

#288

Post by golly_ned »

jstarfish wrote: post #171
Qem wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's much easier to naturally meet people in real life through work/school. It was. Nowadays people including the office in their dating pool face a high risk of harassment claims.

I investigate these complaints for a living. Please don't date anybody you work with. We'll both be happier for it. The fun always starts after a breakup and the other party doesn't want to see you at work anymore. There is usually no penalty for falsely reporting anyone to HR for harassment "in good faith," and there are likely anti-retaliation policies protecting malicious claimants from punishment for "misrepresen…

About “asking to be made unemployed and homeless”: do you take punitive action against coworkers who are together or broken up?

Re: The dating app paradox

#289

Post by d_burfoot »

Exoristos wrote: post #115
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

As well as regulating them, Western governments might want to actually fund high-quality, not-for-profit dating systems of some kind. Improved health for citizens, lessened extremism, not to mention possibly boosted population growth could result.

I think colleges would be well-advised to create dating systems that encourage healthy relationships (keyword: healthy) between students. Students who marry someone they met at university are much more likely to become enthusiastic alumni. And hookup culture is a disaster for everyone.

Re: The dating app paradox

#290

Post by gumby »

> "one-in-ten partnered adults ... met their current significant other through a dating site or app."

This seems unlikely, though I suppose there's a long tail of people who met before apps were available (computer dating goes back to the 1970s at least, but I don't believe it was that common). These days I'd think the ratio would be closer to a half. I even notice it's common in the NYT wedding announcements.

Post reply on HN