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

291–300 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#291

Post by golly_ned »

phlipski wrote: post #179
ben7799 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to look for some kind of social hobby that naturally attracts a wide range of people, both men and women, is in person, and makes you happy regardless of whether you're actually meeting people. Certain sports qualify. Volunteer groups can qualify. Some hobbies work. For sports today the rock climbing community is very inclusive and the sport naturally causes people to get to know each other since you can't c…

Married with 3 kids here. If was single today I'd be at the local rock gyms 24/7. I took my kids climbing a few weeks ago and I couldn't believe how many women were in that place. Roughly a 50/50 male/female ratio, and everyone is super fit. Yoga pants - chefs kiss . Easy to strike up conversations too when looking for help with a problem...

| Married with 3 kids

| Yoga pants - chefs kiss

Gross.

Re: The dating app paradox

#292

Post by TruthSeeking »

orasis wrote: post #283

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 a…

I imagine that's way more true for women than men. And that's not exclusive to dating apps. Nightclubs for example are filled with scantily clad women looking for nothing more than validation, while most men in there are looking for action.

Re: The dating app paradox

#293

Post by lazide »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #234
lazide wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just work - it’s any community venue that other party considers ‘essential’. Church, Dr’s offices, the gym, even a grocery store (if they ‘need it’) is a potential social ‘war zone’. Oh, and Reddit too.

Quitting a gym has lower cost than quitting a job, though. Especially if the "quitting" does not occur in amicable circumstances.

You wouldn’t get a chance to quit either one, probably.

The job might fire the accuser - they might have an incentive to investigate.

At the gym you might get arrested and then banned, with no one interested in doing followup to figure out the actual truth - just have you released after it was clear it was fake. The gym wouldn't want anything to do with you either way afterwards.

Re: The dating app paradox

#294

Post by sgillen »

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 mean apps can facilitate actual human contact though, common advice I see is to transition from text to a low stakes in person meet up as soon as possible.

Re: The dating app paradox

#295

Post by throwaway2037 »

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?

> What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs?

I guess the middle class needs to pay 45% effective tax rate on all income. And, upper incomes would need to pay about 55% effective tax rate.

> How much would you have left over for raising children?

How much more do you need if you have all of those benefits? Not much.

Re: The dating app paradox

#296

Post by CyberDildonics »

icedchai wrote: post #216
sakawa wrote: post #96

I'd like to bring back an article, more analytical on this paratox (the title, Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating, speaks a lot), from the old and now dead OkCupid blog. Funnily, this post was deleted just after the acquisition from the Match Group in 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20100821041938/http://blog.okcup... Latest discussion on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33163930

OkCupid really went to pot after the acquisition. You can't even browse/search any more. It's all Tinder-style matching. Is that what people really want? Online dating has gotten progressively worse over the past ~10 years. Even Craigslist personals is gone... Where can one meet a weirdo nowadays?

You're in it bro

Re: The dating app paradox

#297

Post by throwaway2037 »

amatecha wrote: post #254
prepend wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never used a government web site that was better than a marginal ad driven site. I can barely pay my trash bill and can’t imagine a dating app run by any aspect of US federal, state, or local government.

Enjoy: https://www.canada.ca/en.html / https://design.canada.ca/ https://www.government.nl/ https://www.nasa.gov/ https://vancouver.ca/ https://richmond.ca https://www.gov.uk/

I am neither British, nor a shill, but the team behind gov.uk is pretty amazing. They have an excellent blog that explains about their design and tech processes.

Re: The dating app paradox

#298

Post by komadori »

pgsandstrom wrote: post #2

I have a somewhat unrealistic dream that someday dating apps will be viewed the same way as roads: Essential infrastructure that needs to be handled by the public. A government developed dating app whose only goal is to help people find healthy relationships. All my american friends balk at this. But as a swede, I dont think it is completely impossible. The completely impossible dream would be that we as a society st…

Singapore has something akin to a state-run dating agency since 1984: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Development_Network

Re: The dating app paradox

#299

Post by gnicholas »

sweetro17 wrote: post #274
gnicholas wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think apps don't do (1), if it would benefit dating? Because people would just choose to use different apps because of the perceived quality issue you mentioned? To what extent do you think the core issues are driven by the different goals of men/women, and the dynamics they create?

Great qs - As for why apps don't show profiles more randomly - I think because the space is so competitive, perceived quality is so important and frankly its "easy" for apps to leverage who they show to who and when in order to make users most likely to keep swiping and/or upgrade. I do think apps generally want you to find a partner, but are generally okay with making the experience valuable to them (even if that me…

Thanks for the responses. In terms of goals, I was thinking more of the relationship goals. Many men are happy using apps to play the field (I've talked with friends who simultaneously 'dated' half a dozen or more women), whereas most of the women I know used apps to find longer-term relationships.

This can result in a small fraction of men going on a large number of dates (expecting that they don't need to commit) and a large fraction of women not thrilled that the desirable guys don't want to get serious. Are there ways around issues like this? Or is this more of an urban myth than a reality?

Re: The dating app paradox

#300

Post by deadbabe »

I never had a problem getting matches on dating apps, but it’s hard to not let that go to your head. Often times I feel like I’m just swiping through a catalog looking for a quick fix.

For real relationships, having a strong network of friends who can introduce you to new people organically is key. Without that, you have nothing and basically must rely on dating apps. If you go out and do stuff just because you want to meet people and not actually do the activity, it is real easy to pick up on and puts people off.

Post reply on HN