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

391–400 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#391

Post by prawn »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #320
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.

> possibly boosted population growth Without a financial stability and solved housing, this will be a hard one... hard to have a kid, if you have 4 roommates in your 30s. Let's not forget all the devaluing of trades and other non-college professions (where you start work at ~18, and start having kids at 20) in favour of colleges (in case of USA, with loans), slow rising careers and even if you manage to get a big eno…

Where are trades being devalued? In Australia, they seem incredibly in demand and paid well enough.

Re: The dating app paradox

#392

Post by Spivak »

lmm wrote: post #365
throw310822 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange analysis. Considering that what people want from dating apps is sex and partners, and that both are easier to obtain from people of matching attractiveness. As a former dating app user, the possibility is something I never cared about: I cared about a date, there is a marketplace and- while I will try to find someone acceptable - certainly I'm not wasting my time chasing people out of my league. That produces…

> Considering that what people want from dating apps is sex and partners, and that both are easier to obtain from people of matching attractiveness. But people don't have an accurate perception of matching attractiveness. The average person is a 5 who thinks they're an 8. And they've been looking at celebrities rather than average people, so if you match them with a 5 then they'll think that's a 3.

You're defining attractiveness like boomers handing out grades where in real life that's not how the 10 scale is used, it follows video game review rules where 7 is middling.

And this is right to happen with humans same as video games. It's not centered at average it's centered where 5 is "not quite unattractive." And because the typical human is attractive the average sits at around 7.

Re: The dating app paradox

#393

Post by helloplanets »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #309
mancerayder wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a recipe for women to feel creeped out. Even at Meetups women get bugged by men who for lack of a better term lack awareness and communication skills. And by this I do imply men talking to women, because despite claims to the contrary, it's the accepted norm (and there are always exceptions). That's my experience, it may be different in same sex communities. There's no great place for people to meet anymore.

> That's a recipe for women to feel creeped out. Countless surveys have shown that women do want to be approached. And don't forget about the "Brad Pitt vs Stalker" duality that exists for women and dating: They either view you as handsome who can do no wrong (including approaching them at Meetups), or some kind of creep. There is little in-between. Also, women view about 80% of men as unattractive. It is not a norma…

> Also, women view about 80% of men as unattractive. It is not a normal distribution, as men rate women's attractiveness.

No source for a claim like this, on a forum where it's the norm for even the most mundane things? Please link one, would be interested in having a look at the study.

Re: The dating app paradox

#394

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway290 wrote: post #384
nradov wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Body type is a significant factor for way more than 50%. People lie on surveys because they feel guilty for being superficial.

> Body type is a significant factor for way more than 50%. People lie on surveys because they feel guilty for being superficial. I think you are extrapolating your own view. You have no way of knowing what they feel and even for an educated guess you do not know which country/social class/occupation those users tend to be from in the app being discussed.

[deleted]

Re: The dating app paradox

#395

Post by throwaway2037 »

Madmallard wrote: post #31

Dating apps for most people seem like a complete waste of time and actually detrimental to your life. There are exceptions, of course, like people much too busy. As a male, it seems guaranteed (probably due to supply vs demand disparity?) that you will only have matches that are significantly less attractive than you. I think most people will consider me average in looks. I don't think I've ever matched with a girl t…

> more than half the women I met up with also had an STI.

How did you know? Did they tell you or did you "discover" it x-days later?

Re: The dating app paradox

#398

Post by toomuchtodo »

ravenstine wrote: post #74
michaelt wrote: post #34

If you're interested in this sort of thing, I can recommend creating an account on your dating app of choice with the opposite gender. The experiences are as different as night and day - and the different user groups have completely different requirements of the product. The article is interesting, but IMHO they've really missed the key asymmetries that make good dating apps so hard to build.

Better yet, do some experiments outside of just gender. Make an account for a dog. Or be a guy who's a total douchebag. You may not like what you find. EDIT: Seems people here don't like what I have to say or think I'm kidding. I haven't done the dog experiment myself, though I've seen it done a few times by others. It's quite the realization when a dog gets more attention than you do as a human on a dating app. Yeah…

I feel this both aligns with and is at odds with https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/why-women-lose-the-dating-g..., but I suppose age is the crucial factor at play.

Re: The dating app paradox

#399

Post by throwaway2037 »

dhosek wrote: post #86
65 wrote: post #78

I bet if you made dating apps paid upfront at a lower price than premium subscriptions (e.g. $10/month rather than $20/month on other apps), you'd still get a ton of users as people are willing to pay for a way to find love, and you'd get your much desired revenue. And you wouldn't have to deal as much with enshittification. The only other problem to solve is the 90/10 rule - where 90% of the women are only intereste…

I worked at eHarmony in 2009 and we had a monitor in the office which showed user complaints. Apparently, the business people had A/B tested and determined that the additional revenue from ads outweighed the annoyance that users experienced (I actually asked directly about this). The other thing was the large number of people who were frustrated by the low density of users in their geographical region. Spending a lot…

> who were recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction

How did you know this? Did people really put this in their public profile???

Re: The dating app paradox

#400

Post by morsch »

pertymcpert wrote: post #241
julianeon wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this brings up an interesting point: the article implicitly assumes that the winning condition, the optimal outcome, is a long term relationship. But is it? Certainly many rich guys don’t act like that (stay w one person for 50+ years). This is important, because if we don’t have a consensus on what the best outcome is, that would explain why we’re not getting one. There may not be a single optimal outcome f…

We don't need consensus since consensus is impossible with a large population. You just need a vast majority and the vast majority agree on the winning condition.

The average marriage in the US lasts 8 years.
Post reply on HN