6 ms·

I guess. But it seems like a lot of pretending. Maybe I'm too cynical, but men have a pretty basic algorithm for choosing a mate: 1. Is she acceptably attrac

I guess. But it seems like a lot of pretending. Maybe I'm too cynical, but men have a pretty basic algorithm for choosing a mate: 1. Is she acceptably attractive? 2. Is she acceptably not crazy? Match those two things and you are 99 percent of the way to the chapel. Women have more complicated criteria mainly because what they really want (someone at the top of social pyramid) is ineluctably scarce.

ianai 9y ago
That’s unfair to both men and women.
- Udik 9y ago
  It's rather exaggerated, but it's true that men are immediately attracted by looks and women by social status (or promise thereof). And that the craziness factor is a turn off, for both. It's also true that we tend to judge rather harshly those who don't appear to have an interest that goes beyond these immediate and basic factors.
  - ianai 9y ago
    Yep if you add in what OP left out it sounds less crude.
  - kelukelugames 9y ago
    I don't know if women value social status as much as they did twenty years ago. And men now care more about earning power of their partners.. In tech, I've met a lot of co-workers with husbands in less prestigious jobs.
Udik 9y ago
Well, let's say that those factors are the most immediate ones for attraction. This doesn't translate much to "the chapel". I've been thinking a bit about online dating (heh) and dating in general. My latest idea is that a successful match is not much a matter of state, but rather a matter of process. Two people might be well suited for each other but to get beyond the most superficial attraction you need time spent together and meaningful experiences. They could create a dating website that encourages "matches" to go through a set of random activities, that would be fun (and, I guess, successful).
- dominotw 9y ago
  There is a site (couple of them) on similar idea howaboutwe.com
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  The problem you have to solve is convincing people to invest time in a stranger. And forgo safety. After a few online dates people learn that writing skills don't always translate to personality. Stunning photos don't mean stunning in person.
  - Udik 9y ago
    The safety aspect can be managed (much as it is already done in online dating). But yes, you definitely have to invest a bit of time- it might be worth it if it works better than tens of casual encounters that go nowhere.
- Theodores 9y ago
  ...this is called 'speed dating' or 'club 18-30' where a drink-related task is set and the interaction goes from there. I think they do meaningful walking holiday things for the more mature folks and participants get a reasonable chance of finding someone through this process. Lucky punters might have to go to Ibiza as part of this ritual to meet the guy from five miles up the road and back in their home town they do not live their life on a daily basis like how they spent their holiday in Ibiza that time. There may not be messaging online but there can be clumsy 'my friend fancies you' messaging not attempted since early teenage years. In these organised events it is clear that everyone is there to find a partner, so there is no time spent chasing those that are not in the same 'available state', it is straight onto 'process'. I don't believe the numbers get better, if real world online organised dating was that good there would be more of it than there is, I think it peaked before everyone had smartphones.
egwynn 9y ago
I think it's more like "[a lot of] men [you know] have a pretty basic algorithm for choosing a mate". That's an OK thing to say (because it may be true!) but it's a pretty bad postulate to assume casually while engineering a human system (because it has clear drawbacks and isn't obviously inevitable). WLOG, the same criticisms hold for what you have to say about women.

ianai 9y ago

That’s unfair to both men and women.

Udik 9y ago
It's rather exaggerated, but it's true that men are immediately attracted by looks and women by social status (or promise thereof). And that the craziness factor is a turn off, for both. It's also true that we tend to judge rather harshly those who don't appear to have an interest that goes beyond these immediate and basic factors.
- ianai 9y ago
  Yep if you add in what OP left out it sounds less crude.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  I don't know if women value social status as much as they did twenty years ago. And men now care more about earning power of their partners.. In tech, I've met a lot of co-workers with husbands in less prestigious jobs.

Udik 9y ago

Well, let's say that those factors are the most immediate ones for attraction. This doesn't translate much to "the chapel". I've been thinking a bit about online dating (heh) and dating in general. My latest idea is that a successful match is not much a matter of state, but rather a matter of process. Two people might be well suited for each other but to get beyond the most superficial attraction you need time spent together and meaningful experiences. They could create a dating website that encourages "matches" to go through a set of random activities, that would be fun (and, I guess, successful).

dominotw 9y ago
There is a site (couple of them) on similar idea howaboutwe.com
kelukelugames 9y ago
The problem you have to solve is convincing people to invest time in a stranger. And forgo safety. After a few online dates people learn that writing skills don't always translate to personality. Stunning photos don't mean stunning in person.
- Udik 9y ago
  The safety aspect can be managed (much as it is already done in online dating). But yes, you definitely have to invest a bit of time- it might be worth it if it works better than tens of casual encounters that go nowhere.
Theodores 9y ago
...this is called 'speed dating' or 'club 18-30' where a drink-related task is set and the interaction goes from there. I think they do meaningful walking holiday things for the more mature folks and participants get a reasonable chance of finding someone through this process. Lucky punters might have to go to Ibiza as part of this ritual to meet the guy from five miles up the road and back in their home town they do not live their life on a daily basis like how they spent their holiday in Ibiza that time. There may not be messaging online but there can be clumsy 'my friend fancies you' messaging not attempted since early teenage years. In these organised events it is clear that everyone is there to find a partner, so there is no time spent chasing those that are not in the same 'available state', it is straight onto 'process'. I don't believe the numbers get better, if real world online organised dating was that good there would be more of it than there is, I think it peaked before everyone had smartphones.

egwynn 9y ago

I think it's more like "[a lot of] men [you know] have a pretty basic algorithm for choosing a mate". That's an OK thing to say (because it may be true!) but it's a pretty bad postulate to assume casually while engineering a human system (because it has clear drawbacks and isn't obviously inevitable). WLOG, the same criticisms hold for what you have to say about women.