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

421–430 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#421

Post by The_Colonel »

Spivak wrote: post #392
lmm wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a lot of subjectivity. For me, an average human is 5 and not really attractive.

Re: The dating app paradox

#422

Post by herbst »

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?

The EU is funding game studious and other tech companies with millions right now. It just happened nobody seems to have proposed the right idea yet.

Re: The dating app paradox

#423

Post by The_Colonel »

intrasight wrote: post #357
atleastoptimal wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true. The sad reality about dating is that, for 99% percent of people, the partner that would be ideal for their tastes is "out of their league" so to speak. Humans have dealt with this reality of dating acting somewhat like a marketplace via mores of commitment, dating within social classes, condemnation of promiscuity, etc., but the human nature is still there. 10's want 10's, but 5's don't want other 5's, t…

A better, and tried and true solution, is ... Alcohol. Helping ugly people reproduce for 10,000 years.

Drinking alcohol at home doesn't help.

It's likely the going out (and then drink alcohol) which helps. And people nowadays don't go out a lot.

Re: The dating app paradox

#424

Post by The_Colonel »

monero-xmr wrote: post #306
maxlamb wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The benefit of dating apps IMO is that everyone on there is explicitly there to find a partner for some reason. In real life it’s a bit of a guessing game, which is fine, but the simple math is that love is easier to find where all the people looking for love are hanging out.

The trouble there is that the attractive people on the dating apps often aren't looking for partner, instead it's often just for self-validation. And as discussed above, these are preferentially shown to many people.

Re: The dating app paradox

#425

Post by throw310822 »

watwut wrote: post #412
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…

The idea that real world couples necessary match attractiveness is kind of incels invention. And then they get angry whenever they see a couple with one person super attractive and other .. normal.

I find the whole argument, especially with the grades, silly. But it is true that usually partners match each other by attractiveness- also keeping in mind that attractiveness is not exclusively physical and means different things for different people. Attractiveness is not a scalar, it's a vector.

Re: The dating app paradox

#426

Post by herbst »

leach wrote: post #68

Dating apps by and far are quite useless. If you ever want to know how insidious they are, just download one, finish your profile, and swipe for 10 minutes a week. Since you are not an "active user" they will give you the most attractive people to swipe on. Every couple of days they will give you a "limited time" discount on gold or platinum or whatever. The push notifications are my favorite part, "you could be miss…

You are talking specifically about the male experience.

As 'female' it doesn't matter how often I use the app, if my profile attracts enough males I get matches and ice breakers all day long. If I accidentally open the app after 2 months it just gets more.

I don't need to match or look out. I get nice and stupid messages in mailbox and can choose from them.

If I go to match 80% (made up but realistic number) of the profiles shown already matched with me.

The apps don't want me to buy anything, they nag me for my time.

I could go on. By design I will only see the most successful or 'aggresive' profiles and nothing else.

Re: The dating app paradox

#427

Post by nvarsj »

shiroiushi wrote: post #369
nvarsj wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way these apps work, you pretty much have to pay as a guy. It's like a club where women get in free. The algorithms will derank you very fast unless you're a 10/10 male, and you will basically get no matches from then on. Most guys who are successful on dating apps are paying for it.

That hasn't been my experience at all, and I definitely don't think I'm a 10/10. I've had absolutely no trouble getting dates. (This does not mean that all the dates were great, or led anywhere BTW; the vast majority were nice enough people but there was no interest on one side or the other.) When I see posts like this, I really wonder if men like you just don't know how to write a decent profile intro/bio and post s…

It's certainly possible to get dates without paying. But the difference between paying and not paying is pretty huge on apps like Bumble and Hinge (for men at least). For me, it was a difference between a few matches a week and multiple matches a day.

Profile wise you are right, this is part of what makes a guy "10/10" or not (which might not match 10/10 in real life). For me, I am a divorced dad in my 40s with kids. That causes a lot of women to swipe left and there isn't much I can do about it, unless I lie.

I think in general on dating apps, women are way choosier, men are less choosier, and this leads to a feedback cycle. Women have too much choice so they swipe left more, and men feel they have little choice so they swipe right more.

If you pay the app, it artifically boosts your match rate constantly so you still get shown to lots of women regardless of swipe rate. This gives most guys a much better chance of finding the right woman for them.

Contradicting myself though, the woman I'm dating now matched me OkCupid (where I was experimenting with a long form profile), and I didn't pay anything for that - but it was kind of luck I think.

Bottom line is it comes down to a number game with OLD. The more people who see your profile across apps, the more chances you have. Paying is a cheat code in that respect and improves odds.

Re: The dating app paradox

#428

Post by hnthroaway992 »

shiroiushi wrote: post #416
arvinsim wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hen I see posts like this, I really wonder if men like you just don't know how to write a decent profile intro/bio and post some good photos. I think there are definitely certain things that make a dating profile more attractive, and many people aren't good at it. But that itself is a filter, no? Not everyone have interesting lives to fill a good bio nor attractive enough to have some attractive photos.

No, I disagree. Just ask anyone in advertising: how you present something makes a huge difference in perception. Sure, not everyone can look like Brad Pitt in his prime, but your profile will look radically different with different photos. Having photos shot by a talented photographer, for instance, will get you better results than a couple of bathroom selfies. The same person can look much more attractive at certain…

Doesn't that have a slight problem for someone genuinely has no interests whatsoever?

For me there are no hobbies, no interests, no experiences, no stories, no partner, and no friends. But I have reason to continue this way, and it grants me a token of solace for the trouble.

But what of those as hollow as myself without such incentive? It would seem a painful position to be, existing as a shell of a person but without reason to embrace the isolation. What for them then?

Re: The dating app paradox

#429

Post by kmmlng »

roenxi wrote: post #260
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.

There are more fundamental questions here of whether we want population growth. There seems to be a de-facto equilibrium springing up where wealthy countries quietly drop below replacement rate fertility and then migration from poorer regions happens. It isn't immediately clear why this is a bad thing either. It seems intuitively fair, sustainable for the forseeable future, nobody is being forced to do anything again…

It causes lots of problems because many of our systems have been set up in times of growth and won't function without it. Take for example "pay-as-you-go" pension systems in much of Europe. Here, you don't fund your own retirement, but the current working population funds the retirement of the current retirement population. This works great when you have population growth, because you can have e.g. five working people fund one person's retirement. If the ratio moves closer to 1:1 or worse, this becomes a lot more challenging.

Of course, population growth cannot continue forever, so we will have to figure this out anyway. Still, for any individual country, the smart move seems to be to stave it off for as long as possible, observe how other countries deal with it, and then implement the solutions that have actually worked for others yourself.

Re: The dating app paradox

#430

Post by PoignardAzur »

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.

Revealed preferences are a thing, no matter the social class. What people self-report to want and what they actually want is rarely the same, especially in fields with high social pressure.
Post reply on HN