3 ms·
There's a implicit, insipid value judgement in your first thesis. That someone's social network is small does not make it "poor", nor does it mean that they're
by taco_emoji 9y ago
There's a implicit, insipid value judgement in your first thesis. That someone's social network is small does not make it "poor", nor does it mean that they're bad at socializing. That a stigma exists for some reason you can identify does not make it a good reason.
> There is currently no online service that can correctly predict if someone will enjoy your physical presence.
I mean, no shit? That's why you go on dates and try people out just like meeting them any other way.
> If online dating really worked you would only have to go on three dates before you met a perfect partner.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I'm not really sure why that should be true at all.
- peterwwillis 9y agoYou are right - a small network does not make it poor. But a person with poor social networking skills will tend to end up with a poor social network, in terms of having a number of available potential partners from which to choose. I shouldn't have said the network itself was poor. Merely its use in finding a life partner would be poor. You're right again, that online dating shouldn't necessarily work out in just three dates. But given a social network similar to your own, along with tools to filter and sort for the most ideal match, and a bigger pool of potential matches, it should result in immediately presenting you with the person that you would normally have found in a version of your social network that was bigger than normal and then meeting them in person. With a bigger social network, in theory, you should have to go on fewer dates in order to find a good partner, because there is a larger pool from which to find the best candidate. Of course, it doesn't work out this way.