4 ms·

Survivorship Bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias I met my wife online after a year of fruitle

Survivorship Bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias I met my wife online after a year of fruitless first dates. Maybe I'm just unappealing or something but it was truly a miserable part of my life. Edit: I'm gonna add in here that most people don't have the stick-to-itiveness that most readers of this site do.

zulln 7y ago
So you met your wife after a year and call the whole thing a failure?
- jressey 7y ago
  What I'm saying is a might as well have dated random people for a year, it would have been the same result. The dating sites sell you on 'matching.' Oh, and if you think you're using it for free, think again. They are collecting all kinds of personal information about you
  - JimboOmega 7y ago
    Only OkCupid does; Tinder barely tries and even then it's hidden. For the most part the selling point is that you get introduced to people you wouldn't just meet in your normal social cirlces/events. Apps besides OkCupid have mostly moved to the model where you put in a few basic facts (age/sex, do you drink, etc), upload some pictures, a short (< 500 characters in Tinder) text blob, and off you go swiping. There's no attempt to match you on interests let alone any deeper compatibility metrics. Also on the data collection front, the business model is more based around advertising, and just knowing you're single is all the info they need. They can bombard you with ads for events to go to, clothes to wear, etc. You're the most lucrative market if you're 18-35 and single.
    - lnanek2 7y ago
      Actually, they do try to match you on attractiveness. Also how much you swipe. If you swipe to like every profile you get different results.
      - JimboOmega 7y ago
        This is what I meant by "barely". It still makes no effort to actually look for compatibility.
  - peruvian 7y ago
    > What I'm saying is a might as well have dated random people for a year, it would have been the same result. The dating sites sell you on 'matching.' Dating apps sell you on showing you more people you otherwise would never meet. The chemistry and "good match" are left to the two people to figure out via chatting and a date.
    - ssully 7y ago
      I think this is the right attitude (and correct description), but not everyone understands this. I have a friend who finally started using dating apps after I've pressured him for years. From my view, he is a decent guy who is reasonably good looking, but had no luck getting dates the "old fashioned way". He hasn't had any serious relationships success (i.e. anything greater then 6 months), but he is actually getting dates now. He still complains about the "quality" of the dates, but I honestly think a dating app can only match you based on so much, and from there you have to take over the work.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        > I have a friend who finally started using dating apps after I've pressured him for years. Dear God why would you do this to someone?
        jakear 7y ago
        Loneliness sucks, and for some people it can be difficult to try to meet new people in “real-world” social interactions.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        I'm one of those people, but dating apps only ever made things worse. I can't imagine why anyone would want to use them unless they literally could not live with being alone. Fortunately for me I have decades of experience at that.
  - baddox 7y ago
    Don't most people use dating apps to essentially "randomly meet people"? My impression is that the dating app is simply a relatively new "place" to "randomly meet people." It's basically just like any other place to randomly meet people, like church, a hobby, a bar, a party, etc.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
umvi 7y ago
It's not survivorship bias if you failed 100 times before your 1 success. It's only survivorship bias if they hit the jackpot and the very first date worked out perfectly and they lived happily ever after. I was grinding away on tinder/going on dates for months before I found success. But that's not the dating app's fault - I was seeing the same thing using non-app strategies.
- ballenf 7y ago
  Survivorship bias is anyone who has had success at a task, regardless of how long it took. The lottery winner who played every week for 40 years will tell you buying a ticket every week is the secret to success at winning, irrespective of the millions of people who do that and never win. So the grandparent comment did use the term correctly. Unless they were responding to someone who never “won” at the dating game. The ultimate statistical issue is about the outcome of a task biasing the incentive for testifying about the task. It’s usually winners who are more prone to speak to their approach to the problem than losers, so we don’t know if the winning solution is representative of success or an aberration from the norm.
  - umvi 7y ago
    > Survivorship bias is anyone who has had success at a task, regardless of how long it took. I don't believe that. It depends on the task and how much of it is chance vs. skill. Winning the lotto is literally 100% chance, 0% skill. Odds are worse than 1 in a million, so yes, I agree with your assertion that a lotto winner who played for 40 years and finally won is exhibiting survivorship bias if they claim the key to winning is playing every week. However, if I have a goal to run a 6 minute mile, and I fail 100 times before I finally succeed. Does that mean I have survivorship bias if I say that I found running a little faster every day and not giving up to be the key to success? Dating does have an element of chance, yes, but it also has an element of skill - you get better social skills the more you use them. It's a bit disingenuous to compare "the dating game" (which billions of people "win" every year) to lotto (which probably < 100 people win per year). If I had to start the dating game all over knowing what I know now, I'm confident I could find a wife much faster than my first time around - especially with the help of online dating apps. I'm older and wiser and I understand females now way better than I did when I started out.
nradov 7y ago
Why was it miserable?
- jressey 7y ago
  Over and over I got excited that I was going to meet a person who ostensibly had a lot in common with me, and it just never was the case. I also continually got the same search results all year.
  - nradov 7y ago
    It's hardly fair to blame the dating service for your unrealistic expectations. Having a lot in common isn't a sound basis for a relationship. Most first dates never turn into anything; that's always been the case and it's just how humans work. It's not surprising that you got the same results all year. The matching algorithms don't change very quickly.
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      Yeah, I know more about my compatibility with someone after talking with them for a few minutes that I do from reading a perfect list of their interests and opinions. It's why we date instead of picking our spouse from an Excel spreadsheet. Dating apps cannot fix this, but they can make it easier to meet more people. I thought a great take on this was the Black Mirror episode where your dating-app compatibility score with someone was the percentage of times your virtual clone escapes the simulation with them. How else can you predict chemistry?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  My personal experience is that dating itself just a miserable, tedious affair. Online dating at best doesn't make it any better.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Dating is only as miserable and tedious as you want to make it. If you're not satisfied with results so far then change your approach. This may require multiple iterations over several years until you find something that works for you.
peruvian 7y ago
Seems like it worked? Most people don't find anyone to be in an actual relationship with.
maximente 7y ago
well, when using these sites/apps, people have different motivations. some are fairly short term (exotic weekend abroad, want a romantic experience on top). some just want to meet new people. some want to find whatever love means to them. some people are bored and want attention from people. it sounds like you wanted to find a long term/partner for kids/etc. type thing. that's fine, just realize not everyone on these sites/apps are looking for that, and there's no motivation to give you that bc your value to them ends when you're off the platform.
john-radio 7y ago
> I met my wife online after a year of fruitless first dates. If you found them all to be so fruitless, never enjoying yourself at all, then yes that does sound kind of unappealing. Sorry to come in here and bust your chops while knowing nothing about you :) But shouldn't dating be enjoyable?
- gilrain 7y ago
  Hey, at least they don't rag on random people and leave sorry-not-sorry smilies like some unappealing folks do.
- jascii 7y ago
  While it could have been stated more delicately, there is, in my experience, truth in the statement as I have found that enjoyment and success (for whatever subjective definition of the word in this context) in dating has largely been dependent on my own attitude at the time, and less with the way I met the other person.
scrollaway 7y ago
I met a couple of interesting people over the years on OkCupid and Meetic. Three, total. Over nine years. I dated one of them briefly, made excellent friends with another. I ended up in a now-ended relationship with someone I met in an online forum, and now in a very happy relationship with someone I met at a board game Meetup. Dating sites made me feel miserable when I used them. Constantly fruitless, frustrating. Any success I've had with them is survivorship bias. This shouldn't be a numbers game. The fact that it is exacerbates the "inbox bloat" attractive people get.
- peruvian 7y ago
  > This shouldn't be a numbers game This is almost exactly how it is in real life though. The more people you approach for a date -> the more chances you might have. And forget actual dating apps - people are using regular social media like Instagram to "meet" people too.

zulln 7y ago

So you met your wife after a year and call the whole thing a failure?

jressey 7y ago
What I'm saying is a might as well have dated random people for a year, it would have been the same result. The dating sites sell you on 'matching.' Oh, and if you think you're using it for free, think again. They are collecting all kinds of personal information about you
- JimboOmega 7y ago
  Only OkCupid does; Tinder barely tries and even then it's hidden. For the most part the selling point is that you get introduced to people you wouldn't just meet in your normal social cirlces/events. Apps besides OkCupid have mostly moved to the model where you put in a few basic facts (age/sex, do you drink, etc), upload some pictures, a short (< 500 characters in Tinder) text blob, and off you go swiping. There's no attempt to match you on interests let alone any deeper compatibility metrics. Also on the data collection front, the business model is more based around advertising, and just knowing you're single is all the info they need. They can bombard you with ads for events to go to, clothes to wear, etc. You're the most lucrative market if you're 18-35 and single.
  - lnanek2 7y ago
    Actually, they do try to match you on attractiveness. Also how much you swipe. If you swipe to like every profile you get different results.
    - JimboOmega 7y ago
      This is what I meant by "barely". It still makes no effort to actually look for compatibility.
- peruvian 7y ago
  > What I'm saying is a might as well have dated random people for a year, it would have been the same result. The dating sites sell you on 'matching.' Dating apps sell you on showing you more people you otherwise would never meet. The chemistry and "good match" are left to the two people to figure out via chatting and a date.
  - ssully 7y ago
    I think this is the right attitude (and correct description), but not everyone understands this. I have a friend who finally started using dating apps after I've pressured him for years. From my view, he is a decent guy who is reasonably good looking, but had no luck getting dates the "old fashioned way". He hasn't had any serious relationships success (i.e. anything greater then 6 months), but he is actually getting dates now. He still complains about the "quality" of the dates, but I honestly think a dating app can only match you based on so much, and from there you have to take over the work.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      > I have a friend who finally started using dating apps after I've pressured him for years. Dear God why would you do this to someone?
      - jakear 7y ago
        Loneliness sucks, and for some people it can be difficult to try to meet new people in “real-world” social interactions.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        I'm one of those people, but dating apps only ever made things worse. I can't imagine why anyone would want to use them unless they literally could not live with being alone. Fortunately for me I have decades of experience at that.
- baddox 7y ago
  Don't most people use dating apps to essentially "randomly meet people"? My impression is that the dating app is simply a relatively new "place" to "randomly meet people." It's basically just like any other place to randomly meet people, like church, a hobby, a bar, a party, etc.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

umvi 7y ago

It's not survivorship bias if you failed 100 times before your 1 success. It's only survivorship bias if they hit the jackpot and the very first date worked out perfectly and they lived happily ever after. I was grinding away on tinder/going on dates for months before I found success. But that's not the dating app's fault - I was seeing the same thing using non-app strategies.

ballenf 7y ago
Survivorship bias is anyone who has had success at a task, regardless of how long it took. The lottery winner who played every week for 40 years will tell you buying a ticket every week is the secret to success at winning, irrespective of the millions of people who do that and never win. So the grandparent comment did use the term correctly. Unless they were responding to someone who never “won” at the dating game. The ultimate statistical issue is about the outcome of a task biasing the incentive for testifying about the task. It’s usually winners who are more prone to speak to their approach to the problem than losers, so we don’t know if the winning solution is representative of success or an aberration from the norm.
- umvi 7y ago
  > Survivorship bias is anyone who has had success at a task, regardless of how long it took. I don't believe that. It depends on the task and how much of it is chance vs. skill. Winning the lotto is literally 100% chance, 0% skill. Odds are worse than 1 in a million, so yes, I agree with your assertion that a lotto winner who played for 40 years and finally won is exhibiting survivorship bias if they claim the key to winning is playing every week. However, if I have a goal to run a 6 minute mile, and I fail 100 times before I finally succeed. Does that mean I have survivorship bias if I say that I found running a little faster every day and not giving up to be the key to success? Dating does have an element of chance, yes, but it also has an element of skill - you get better social skills the more you use them. It's a bit disingenuous to compare "the dating game" (which billions of people "win" every year) to lotto (which probably < 100 people win per year). If I had to start the dating game all over knowing what I know now, I'm confident I could find a wife much faster than my first time around - especially with the help of online dating apps. I'm older and wiser and I understand females now way better than I did when I started out.

nradov 7y ago

Why was it miserable?

jressey 7y ago
Over and over I got excited that I was going to meet a person who ostensibly had a lot in common with me, and it just never was the case. I also continually got the same search results all year.
- nradov 7y ago
  It's hardly fair to blame the dating service for your unrealistic expectations. Having a lot in common isn't a sound basis for a relationship. Most first dates never turn into anything; that's always been the case and it's just how humans work. It's not surprising that you got the same results all year. The matching algorithms don't change very quickly.
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    Yeah, I know more about my compatibility with someone after talking with them for a few minutes that I do from reading a perfect list of their interests and opinions. It's why we date instead of picking our spouse from an Excel spreadsheet. Dating apps cannot fix this, but they can make it easier to meet more people. I thought a great take on this was the Black Mirror episode where your dating-app compatibility score with someone was the percentage of times your virtual clone escapes the simulation with them. How else can you predict chemistry?
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
My personal experience is that dating itself just a miserable, tedious affair. Online dating at best doesn't make it any better.
- nradov 7y ago
  Dating is only as miserable and tedious as you want to make it. If you're not satisfied with results so far then change your approach. This may require multiple iterations over several years until you find something that works for you.

peruvian 7y ago

Seems like it worked? Most people don't find anyone to be in an actual relationship with.

maximente 7y ago

well, when using these sites/apps, people have different motivations. some are fairly short term (exotic weekend abroad, want a romantic experience on top). some just want to meet new people. some want to find whatever love means to them. some people are bored and want attention from people. it sounds like you wanted to find a long term/partner for kids/etc. type thing. that's fine, just realize not everyone on these sites/apps are looking for that, and there's no motivation to give you that bc your value to them ends when you're off the platform.

john-radio 7y ago

> I met my wife online after a year of fruitless first dates. If you found them all to be so fruitless, never enjoying yourself at all, then yes that does sound kind of unappealing. Sorry to come in here and bust your chops while knowing nothing about you :) But shouldn't dating be enjoyable?

gilrain 7y ago
Hey, at least they don't rag on random people and leave sorry-not-sorry smilies like some unappealing folks do.
jascii 7y ago
While it could have been stated more delicately, there is, in my experience, truth in the statement as I have found that enjoyment and success (for whatever subjective definition of the word in this context) in dating has largely been dependent on my own attitude at the time, and less with the way I met the other person.

scrollaway 7y ago

I met a couple of interesting people over the years on OkCupid and Meetic. Three, total. Over nine years. I dated one of them briefly, made excellent friends with another. I ended up in a now-ended relationship with someone I met in an online forum, and now in a very happy relationship with someone I met at a board game Meetup. Dating sites made me feel miserable when I used them. Constantly fruitless, frustrating. Any success I've had with them is survivorship bias. This shouldn't be a numbers game. The fact that it is exacerbates the "inbox bloat" attractive people get.

peruvian 7y ago
> This shouldn't be a numbers game This is almost exactly how it is in real life though. The more people you approach for a date -> the more chances you might have. And forget actual dating apps - people are using regular social media like Instagram to "meet" people too.