One thing I don't think gets enough discussion is how bad apps like Tinder are for men's sense of self-worth. The larger percentage of men on these apps combined with the fast swipe setup turns it into a complete meat market where a lot of men can very quickly think that women don't want them.
Thanks, I couldn't find it. OkCupid blog posts were a treasure trove of facts about online dating that absolutely do not care for the readers feelings.
Are the apps really at fault here? It's it possible that some men had an inflated sense of self-worth, and the apps are just providing a reality check?
Those percentages don't pass a simple sanity check. Look around you. The average heterosexual man is in a long-term relationship with a woman. Regardless of dating apps, that is still the default state.
Young male students and technology industry workers are heavily over represented among HN users. Let's not assume that their anecdotal experiences are representative of the broader population.
This is actually an issue on both sides of the power law: you might feel terrible from having zero matches, but it might also not be entirely healthy for you to be part of the group of men who have all the matches.
The thing that I've learned is that dating apps are nothing more than casino games. Lots of colorful flashy buttons that you pay to frantically click on hoping to get lucky, even though you know the system was engineered to keep you pushing buttons and spending money.
I'd say the market is ripe for disruption, but in terms of profit potential, the casino games are probably going to be the winning model for awhile.
I have some friends who started a relatively niche dating app that is genuinely focused on connecting people, without games of luck, and though the app itself is not really a 5-star app in terms of design and development (don't tell them I said that), the fact that it's genuinely focused on connecting people has made it my preferred app in my very small dating niche. I'm not really sure if the same is possible on a mainstream scale.
I used OkCupid back when OkStats (their statistics blog) still existed (and found my wife, though the 9000 km distance made things harder). But what I quickly realized, was that by simply not being an asshole, you’d get great response rates.
I’d always see "responds rarely" and then get quick responses almost every time. I was an overweight student. When asked, they usually said that most people don’t even give the impression of having read the profile before sending a message.
I wonder if there is still a dating site nowadays that values depth over swiping pictures left/right (I never used Tinder, didn’t even know people used it for dating instead of hookups until a few years ago), from what I’ve heard OKC went further down the instant gratification route as well.
I have also had better luck by reading and referencing OkCupid profiles.
My last relationship lasted 7 years, so it wasn't a terrible match.
Going back to look at it though: I put a lot of effort into my messages, maybe 2-3 per day because each message took about 20-30 minutes to craft; but my response rate was about 1:10 and my date rate was ~about 1:100.
Maybe one date every 2-3 months is so few that you put a lot of effort into each one and then, likely, come across as desperate, even if you click.
Might be a cultural thing, but those numbers all seem high to me. I spent less time on fewer messages and zero dates (but then for me, a date is only a tiny step away from a steady relationship) ;)
I used Hinge for a while and it seems to be balanced such that a free user can actually get dates. It isn’t perfect, but I actually got 4 first dates and chatted with a few other genuine people, whereas on other apps like tinder I gave up more quickly because it was clear that I was gonna need to pay to actually match with a person. (Possibly I would actually match for free if I had looks that were driving more engagement)
I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I find the hinge system bleak too. I've been on there a year and somewhat rarely get people to respond after a initial "match" let alone only managing to meet 2 people in real life. I say it is bleak for sure unless you're a swimsuit model
Yeah I have a friend who I think of as at least tier above me looks-wise and she said she didn’t get any matches at all… so I dunno. (She didn’t clarify… it may have been she didn’t get any matches that she would consider)
Hinge has been sucked up into the Match.com umbrella. I haven't used it lately, but I wouldn't expect it to hold up to its past success stories anymore.
The financial incentives of dating apps are just bad. To make money you have to keep your (male) users on the platform and make them desperate enough so they pay. This is contrary to their mission statement and I can't see how people working on these apps aren't cynical.
I don't think it is super great for the receivers of those likes either as most matches are of poor quality and won't result on anything serious. I once tried the "friend" feature of Bumble and I got so many matches that I gave up.
I feel the market is ready for something else, but it would need to come from a non profit for it to not repeat the same mistakes.
Replying to myself as I haven’t seen it discussed yet…
Specifically the design of algorithms in dating apps is interesting. In effect Tinder at all could play “eugenics” with users based on who they show / hide.
I would assume that’s already happening to some extent as they weight profiles based on how engaging they are to others.
The other aspect is they have a strong disincentive to encourage too many successful couples, as that means lost users / revenue.
The "human race" will be fine-- the problem will be a small subset of people(mostly men, but some women too) who will struggle to get into relationships.
Thought there always have been a subset throughout history. The issue nowadays is about social pressures and perceived lack of a more fair market whomever the participant may be.
The future of the human race looks more and more like test tube babies genetically engineered for socially productive and harmonious dispositions, robosexuality the norm for non-elites and non-untouchables. Aggressive reproduction management of the underclass. Surrogate live births for those who can afford it. A small fringe of communities akin to the Amish who practice traditional human reproduction. Just follow the trend lines to the horizon and you'll see it.
The past 3 times I have tried to use tinder, I was left thinking it's just a front for onlyfans, sex workers and scammers. Profiles would either have 'onlyfans $name' or 'of $name' or 'I don't use this app much here's my Instagram'. But when you opened up their insta profile first line in their about me section was a onlyfans link. Sprinkle in some gift card scammers, sex workers, not being good looking and huge anxiety problems and I was left disappointed and frustrated every time. If I reported profiles it would just show them later on and not block them. So I would always report them again and again.
I would always play along with the scammers. Mostly out of curiosity and bordem. I would practice my osint skills. And try to report domains for abuse.
I think people are very slowly coming to the realization that all the free love stuff didn't really make their prospects of a good family better, and after all, for the most part that is our biological drive.
Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction, it will be on them to change course. After all, if every man works out and makes great money, then they are all the same anyway.
It's not "in OP's view". We know that _on average(!)_ they don't really matter that much. What matters _on average(!)_ is power, position, and success. Even in this thread someone already posted how differently women and men rate each other.
> I think people are very slowly coming to the realization that all the free love stuff didn't really make their prospects of a good family better, and after all, for the most part that is our biological drive.
There's no evidence of any biological drive for family life or having children. (There's a cultural norm for it, for sure.) There's a biological drive for sex, and that's all evolution needs to keep it going.
> free love stuff didn't really make their prospects of a good family better
Both men and women are propagating this culture of free-love, but it's potentially unfulfilling and leaves people believing their prospects are better than they really are. A woman will sleep with a handsome chiseled burger flipper who doesn't want kids or responsibility; but will that same woman want to marry them?
> it will be on [Women] to change course.
The parent states that the power is mostly on the side of Women here, the parent is just saying that change will not come from Men. Because after all; if all Men did what is within their power: then not very much would actually change; Women drive what is acceptable.
Stop thinking there is a set of KPIs they can attain to get women to think they are worth spending time with.
Think different: Stop listening to Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, etc. They told you which KPIs will get you women. They won't. Stop thinking you can convince women, or anyone who isn't a libertarian that libertarianism isn't a naive infantile philosophy.
There is way too much to list. Just stop all of it. Everything that goes with those surface symptoms is poison. Women can smell the faintest whiff of it. It makes you ugly clear through to the bone, no matter how buff you are. Being a gym rat probably makes it worse.
I should attempt to convince you that negative messages ("STOP X") are not as effective for changing behaviour than actual helpful advice; for instance in personal training you are educated to always refer to the positive. IE; instead of saying "stop raising your heels" you would say, "do you see your feet move? We should try to keep them flat"- a subtle but important difference.
W.R.T. comments like yours, I would advise you to instead focusing on the "don't improve your appearance, it is superficial" to instead focus on other things that men can do to meaningfully improve themselves.
The majority of Feminists and the majority of Misogynists alike, agree (unfortunately) that some features of men are desirable and those typically correspond to conventional attractiveness and wealth.
> Stop listening to Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, etc. They told you which KPIs will get you women. They won't.
It's not really Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson saying that though, it's society. IIRC Jordan Petersons whole schtick was suggesting that self-improvement is necessary and that you should start small (like cleaning your room); then he goes off the rails talking about equality and equity going too far or something- but the core of the beginning is good. I haven't ever watched Joe Rogan; Andrew Tate is as much as Misandrist as a Misogynist[0]
If you want to convince me otherwise I would advise (again) to inform us of what Men should actually work on to improve themselves in the eyes of Women.
If you want to convince me otherwise I would advise (again) to inform us of what Men should actually work on
...makes no sense. There is no "positive message" that works. Nobody is fooled by you "working on" something. There is no "starting small." Your room can be a mess and you can still be a person women find good company.
All that manosphere crap is poisonous. Stop all of it. You don't need to be "improved." There is no improvement that will make you a better libertarian Jordan Peterson techbro. What "society" is telling you is that women don't want an improved version of that. Stop. Being. That.
The core thesis of your argument (that self improvement is not required) is false for two main reasons.
1) Obviously we should improve ourselves, otherwise we will be immature children for our entire lives. Maturity is growth, education is growth. To improve is human. You can successfully argue a case that the guidance from the Manosphere is harmful; but to deny self improvement is foolish beyond argument.
2) external parties are discerning. They do compare people on attributes, doesn’t matter if you agree that they’re superficial ones such as wealth and appearance, or deeper ones such as confidence (not arrogance), maturity, trustworthiness and wisdom. They are discerning on some axis. This is true for friends, business associates and of course: Romantic Partners. Regardless of sex/gender
I'm not familiar with Jordan Peterson, but I don't understand your point. Most women won't be impressed if your home has clothes on the floor and dirty dishes in the sink.
OK let's see if you are qualified to have these opinions.
1. Have you dated women, as a man?
2. Are you successful in dating women which can be measured by staying power? Could you message a woman today you haven't seen in 6 months and arrange a date?
3. If I asked you to go and get a date today from a woman previously unknown to you, could you do it?
If you can answer yes to all these questions, then your opinion is valuable.
1. Yes, but I'm not sure what you mean by "as a man." Why do you make that distinction? Why does it matter to you?
2. yes, two days ago. But I'm baffled by your criteria here. I'm not trying to qualify as a guru. The opposite really. Stop listening to dating gurus.
3. I have done, but I wonder why you would ask since it would make no difference.
You are barking up the wrong tree. You still don't get it: There is no improvement you can make. Women date fat men. Women date nerdy men. Women date slobs. Women will pay for the date if you are broke.
Women will listen to 2.4 seconds of you mansplaining why you have not had any luck despite a crisply made bed and however much you bench press and your BMW and decide you don't get it. That is what's wrong.
This comment is just totally disconnected from reality. Sure, a minority of women are willing to date fat slobs. But all else being equal most women prefer a man who's in good shape, clean, and well groomed. Of course, that won't entirely compensate for being boring or having terrible social skills.
Personally, I think it's within men's power to be attractive to most women. I know because I had that experience between the age of 30-40. But what is attractive is very difficult to achieve for most men, requires a lot of things to go right and a single misstep based on ignorance can set you back enough to be unrecoverable. Not to mention that women are constantly surrounded by men of high status (at work, social media, etc). These are all new problems.
Not really, you'd just encourage people to convert to a secondary chat channel (whatsapp, snapchat, text, whatever is popular locally) and then drop their match on the app.
Think about it: If a dating app would've worked perfectly, they had no customers. They would "just" match one half to the world to the other and done. But since we're such complicated creatures, this app is still thriving.
I think you're naively assuming that the goal of the users is to find a long-term partner. Among younger users, especially younger men, the goal is to find dates for short-term relationships / sex. It's one of the reasons Tinder caught on with younger users a lot more than previous dating sites did.
The young men I know who prefer stable relationships are not using Tinder for that, as the podcast in this article says. There are non-Tinder and non-app options that are more geared toward that.
I've had mixed experiences with OKC. On one hand it got me a handful of dates while I was looking locally in the states. On the other hand, I moved to Iceland and their international search options go from "Everyone within 500 miles" to "The entire world, with no ability to filter by country" and those options just don't work in Iceland (unless you match with someone in Reykjavik, maybe).
TBF, I did still connect with a couple people even with those options, but that's more because I pulled the slot machine lever enough than a credit to them. I wish they had better international options, even if they were locked behind the paid tier.
IIRC eHarmony didn't work either because it didn't even acknowledge Iceland as a place you could be, so I guess OKC has that leg up on them at least.
I’m curious what you think a good behaviour would have been? I’ve never used dating apps, but it seems to me that once you move to an island with the population of Cleveland, Ohio, your dating pool is limited to that island…
Mostly yes, but my two most successful dating relationships (both met on OKC!) while on said island were long-distance. So not exclusively.
Mostly I'd like the ability to signal to the algorithm "I'm willing to consider relocating to these particular places if I meet someone who lives there."
If you're a man, aren't ridiculously wealthy and/or good looking and you're still using dating apps you're an idiot or lazy.
Dating apps basically force men and women to make decisions on very superficial criteria. It's why the whole "I won't date men under 6 feet tall" thing started. Since women seem to have the problem of too many matches more than men do, they're the ones who get to invent the criteria.
There's so much more to attraction than pictures and a brief bio.
What's wrong with meeting people IRL? Does that just not happen anymore? It used to be that friends would hook their friends up. Or you'd meet someone at school or through work. Is that no longer the case?
The impression I've gotten about modern dating (other than the terribly misguided sexual libertinism) is how lonely it all sounds. Plus, the whole shitting on marriage (and the families those marriages produce) that permeates the background assumptions of people like on this pod is like a superhighway to future unhappy bitterness for women (and men) who while away their reproductive years.
Apps like Tinder are obviously dystopian but even the "deeper" dating apps are kind of fucked up and vampiric. They assume the centrality of the self and prioritize self-fulfillment through finding optimally compatible mates. Good lord. There have been many happy marriages, but very few compatible ones. algorithmically optimizing for compatibility rather than complementarity and, frankly, productive discord (tending to future growth and harmony) is existentially suicidal for the individual and the species.
That's not to even go into the problems they create by aggressively imbalancing the distribution of sexual partners by tilting the playing field towards the high status male "players" and disenfranchising average males, thereby widening the sexual inequality gap. These are societally evil platforms.
And where are all the happy lifelong commitments? The good outcomes? Divorce rates for couples who met through dating apps are supposedly 5x those who met through friends. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their algorithms.
Marriage is so much more of a contribution to the social fabric than is pursuing personal sexual experience. No wonder these threads trace back to the Free Love movement. Slouching towards Bethlehem indeed.
