4 ms·

> Given two socially well adjusted participants So non-socially-well-adjusted, raised-on-the-internet types shouldn't get to date? Your comment is tautological

by fdsaaf 10y ago

> Given two socially well adjusted participants So non-socially-well-adjusted, raised-on-the-internet types shouldn't get to date? Your comment is tautological and merely says that people who are good at dating are good at dating.

waqf 10y ago
You might as well argue that the SENPAI paper implies that people who aren't comfortable with homomorphic encryption shouldn't get to date.
- hueving 10y ago
  >who aren't comfortable with homomorphic encryption shouldn't get to date. It's 2016, homophobia should be shunned anyway.
  - eru 10y ago
    It would have been funny, had you written Homomorphobia.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- philh 10y ago
  Rather, the SENPAI protocol makes dating available to people who aren't socially adept but are comfortable with homomorphic encryption. Socially adept people can continue to flirt.
DominikR 10y ago
No one said that, but these people need to either work on improving themselves (which most people definitely can) or they have to deal with the fact that a vast majority of women will never be interested in them. There is no IT solution that we could come up with to change this and it wouldn't even be desirable in the first place. Sexual selection has the purpose to ensure that only people with desirable traits get to breed and while it isn't perfect it is my opinion that it still is the best process known to us.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  > There is no IT solution that we could come up with to change this and it wouldn't even be desirable in the first place. Tinder has worked well for some people I know
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  Yet how would I be viewed if I applied the same logic to acquiring goods and services? If you aren't able to earn a living then you should focus on improving yourself. If you can't then you are SOL. It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills. If anything, being socially awkward is met with scorn. Maybe we should swap the name to socially poor and people would have some pity
  - DominikR 10y ago
    > If you aren't able to earn a living then you should focus on improving yourself. Of course everyone should try hard to do this. > It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills. What skills are forcefully shared? And how can you possibly share social skills? Or are you suggesting that government should allocate sexual partners to everyone? I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. The bottom line is that most could significantly improve their social skills and confidence but many chose to live in denial because the first step is frightening and actually the hardest part. You just have to practice this skill like everything else in life and learn to not take judgement of others too serious.
    - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
      If social skills can be learned by practice, then we can share by teaching. Maybe force 15% of one's time socializing is done so with those considered socially awkward. Socializing, not sex. My actual point is that society says we should help those who wasted an education by giving up part of our lives (income tax is a time tax on the average worker), but society says that someone who wasted their teen years not developing social skills is just a loser. This is a troubling view. If one considers a concept of social wealth then there seems to be a resource transfer from the financially well off to the socially well off without a response in kind. In the worst case consider a child who was bullied and turned to tech, who gained financially useful tech skills but missed out on social skills. Once they grow into an adult they are then taxed to support those who picked on the 'geeks and nerds' and who scorned education in favor of social standing among their peers. So the bullies get to enjoy financial support and the dividends of their social skills while the 'geeks and nerds' get only the dividends of their financial skills. Seems we should either provide relevant welfare for both or neither... but if one side is going to be better at pushing a position that is to their advancement I can guess which. And of course this doesn't account for millions of nuances in each individual life that are exceptions, like the child who couldn't learn because they were too focused on their hunger. Maybe we can start by considering those without social skills as socially poor instead of just losers.
chronolitus 10y ago
I'm not sure what your point is? "So people who never play football shouldn't get to score goals?"
- philh 10y ago
  I think it's closer to the other way around. People who can't score goals can still contribute in a football game, for example as goalkeepers. But if you select your team based on who's the best at scoring goals, they're not going to get a chance to demonstrate their goalkeeping ability. Similarly, I think there are a lot of people who are bad at flirting but would make good romantic partners for the people they're interested in. But being bad at flirting means they often don't get a chance to demonstrate the other qualities they could bring to a relationship.

by fdsaaf 10y ago

waqf 10y ago

You might as well argue that the SENPAI paper implies that people who aren't comfortable with homomorphic encryption shouldn't get to date.

hueving 10y ago
>who aren't comfortable with homomorphic encryption shouldn't get to date. It's 2016, homophobia should be shunned anyway.
- eru 10y ago
  It would have been funny, had you written Homomorphobia.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
philh 10y ago
Rather, the SENPAI protocol makes dating available to people who aren't socially adept but are comfortable with homomorphic encryption. Socially adept people can continue to flirt.

DominikR 10y ago

No one said that, but these people need to either work on improving themselves (which most people definitely can) or they have to deal with the fact that a vast majority of women will never be interested in them. There is no IT solution that we could come up with to change this and it wouldn't even be desirable in the first place. Sexual selection has the purpose to ensure that only people with desirable traits get to breed and while it isn't perfect it is my opinion that it still is the best process known to us.

kalleboo 10y ago
> There is no IT solution that we could come up with to change this and it wouldn't even be desirable in the first place. Tinder has worked well for some people I know
Lawtonfogle 10y ago
Yet how would I be viewed if I applied the same logic to acquiring goods and services? If you aren't able to earn a living then you should focus on improving yourself. If you can't then you are SOL. It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills. If anything, being socially awkward is met with scorn. Maybe we should swap the name to socially poor and people would have some pity
- DominikR 10y ago
  > If you aren't able to earn a living then you should focus on improving yourself. Of course everyone should try hard to do this. > It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills. What skills are forcefully shared? And how can you possibly share social skills? Or are you suggesting that government should allocate sexual partners to everyone? I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. The bottom line is that most could significantly improve their social skills and confidence but many chose to live in denial because the first step is frightening and actually the hardest part. You just have to practice this skill like everything else in life and learn to not take judgement of others too serious.
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    If social skills can be learned by practice, then we can share by teaching. Maybe force 15% of one's time socializing is done so with those considered socially awkward. Socializing, not sex. My actual point is that society says we should help those who wasted an education by giving up part of our lives (income tax is a time tax on the average worker), but society says that someone who wasted their teen years not developing social skills is just a loser. This is a troubling view. If one considers a concept of social wealth then there seems to be a resource transfer from the financially well off to the socially well off without a response in kind. In the worst case consider a child who was bullied and turned to tech, who gained financially useful tech skills but missed out on social skills. Once they grow into an adult they are then taxed to support those who picked on the 'geeks and nerds' and who scorned education in favor of social standing among their peers. So the bullies get to enjoy financial support and the dividends of their social skills while the 'geeks and nerds' get only the dividends of their financial skills. Seems we should either provide relevant welfare for both or neither... but if one side is going to be better at pushing a position that is to their advancement I can guess which. And of course this doesn't account for millions of nuances in each individual life that are exceptions, like the child who couldn't learn because they were too focused on their hunger. Maybe we can start by considering those without social skills as socially poor instead of just losers.

chronolitus 10y ago

I'm not sure what your point is? "So people who never play football shouldn't get to score goals?"

philh 10y ago
I think it's closer to the other way around. People who can't score goals can still contribute in a football game, for example as goalkeepers. But if you select your team based on who's the best at scoring goals, they're not going to get a chance to demonstrate their goalkeeping ability. Similarly, I think there are a lot of people who are bad at flirting but would make good romantic partners for the people they're interested in. But being bad at flirting means they often don't get a chance to demonstrate the other qualities they could bring to a relationship.