4 ms·

> but more often than not, it never feels right I’ve talked about this before, but the entire culture of dating apps feels like everyone is putting up a facade

> but more often than not, it never feels right I’ve talked about this before, but the entire culture of dating apps feels like everyone is putting up a facade and you have to too if you want to play.

nathanaldensr 5y ago
Agreed. It amplifies the worst aspects of human existence.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Fundamentally, I do not think it is tenable for a mating system to offer participants unlimited choice (or the appearance of). Also, pictures drastically reduce the number of dimensions in which you can be attracted to someone. For example, in real life, you may become attracted to someone due to their voice, or other properties, or simply repeatedly seeing them. The other problem is that it lays bare your “value” in each interaction, and it could be damaging to one’s ego. Flirting in real life gives both parties a chance to escalate with plausible deniability. The best system I have seen though is when matchmakers who roughly know both people, and can vouch for both parties’ trustworthiness do the matchmaking. They will have the ability to objectively put two similarly “valued” people together, and possibly not only along one metric (e.g. looks). Of course, this gets more and more rare as the size of one’s social networks gets smaller or has fewer overlaps.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > I do not think it is tenable for a mating system to offer participants unlimited choice (or the appearance of). Why?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      It feels like people try aim very high in the candidates they pursue, and in the process, they end up missing the window for when their value is at its peak, and hence have to sell themselves for less than what they could have gotten earlier. Or end up simply choosing not to sell at all.
    - IamAdog93109 5y ago
      From my perspective, not OP's: At one point I read somewhere in some pop-psych book that people naturally tend towards symmetric engagements. I think this particular remark was speaking on the point of physical attraction. And from a logical standpoint this makes sense at a baseline (wherein all other things are equal). But say, your photo shows a 3/10 on the highly arbitrary meter of attraction. You're presented with a battery of perceived-people [1], these are accounts, with photos of humans who one trusts has another human at the other end that is accurately represented by the profile details. You're not immediately confronted with the fact that some people are literally only engaging in the system to accumulate matches, bots, advertisers, scammers; one naturally places their trust in the system. This trust allows the user to reasonably assume any matches made are reflective of their value. In reality about 2/3rds (anecdotal) are indiscriminate. This feedback can duly be intuited to move the personal perception of self-assessed attraction from a 3 to say a 5 or greater, and generate unrealistic expectations in the domain of physical attraction. What's more is, I'd conjecture that the external valuations are more impactful than self-assessed attraction, that weighting strongly contributes to the big picture assessment of the mating landscape. The more feedback from indiscriminate sources the greater the pull. Physical attraction is a huge component of mate selection, so this component alone can raise an individual's standards far beyond their standing power. Then there's the perception of the overall pool in every dimension. If one is given literally thousands of options and even the faintest glimmer of the hope ideal selection, they're left to pick and choose in a loop that likely won't satisfy. And if you apply the idea of hypergamy to the situation it becomes even more perverse, and this stands to destabilize what might actually become tangible by offering unrealistic prospects via the indiscriminate perceived-people. Think of the situation where a 3/10 ends up with a 3/10 but is more or less told they're capable of netting a 5-7/10, will they realistically settle for that? I suspect not, and this distortion makes their actual prospect pool seem far less appealing and creates a perverted and highly disposable form of relationship. And then you can lump in all of the economics, education, lifestyle, practical accessibility, plans and desires, etc... as further complicating the distortions offered up by the infinite choice fallacy. [1] This should be read as: bots, advertisers, influencers, etc... and facades.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Nice explanation of another part I did not think about! > I'd conjecture that the external valuations are more impactful than self-assessed attraction, that weighting strongly contributes to the big picture assessment of the mating landscape. This is why I think family/friends matchmakers are so valuable. They are able to ascribe more objective view of the higher probabilities of the type of person you would be able to land, and hence show you only those people (since their credibility is also on the line).
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  It makes vanity become a purpose on top of things like Instagram.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
It wholly mass-commoditizes something that has never been mass-commoditized (and should never be) before. When this happens, you're often left with the raw economics of the situation. And this is what's happened with dating. And hoo boy, do people not like talking about it either. It displays a lot of uncomfortable truths about men and women's places in societies. If anything it should be discussed more, but emotions often get in the way.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  That discussion is the one Kevin Samuels is leading in the Black community where these problems are even more magnified
  - thickened 5y ago
    Started watching some of his videos. Very interesting and, in earnest, doesn't seem to be any different in other communities. Amplified in some ways in particular because he brings up the incarceration rates.
    - imbnwa 5y ago
      Never heard him bring up incarceration rates (link? perhaps content I've never seen), he tends to highlight the stats around children-out-of-wedlock, ratio of unmarried to married Black women, and amount of unmarried, childless middle-class Black men. The first and second issues being fairly specific to the Black community.
      - thickened 5y ago
        I don't know the exact one to be honest - it's one of the 15+ minute ones where he has a caller and he takes apart why their expectations are over the top and they should reconsider. He lists statistics like, so-and-so % of black men earn less than $X, so-and-so % of black men are imprisoned, and so on. Probably one of the ones that expects a $500k/yr guy. For anyone who hasn't watched his YT vids, take 30 min and go through some of his shorter clips. It's quite interesting what the expectations out there are.
jrumbut 5y ago
I have heard this bothers many people, but I never saw the problem. I always thought about it in terms of putting your best foot forward and expecting most others to do the same. Once you get to know someone then it's a better time to talk about all the frustrations and disappointments of life. My experience might be out of date though, from other comments it sounds like online dating has gotten harder in recent years.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  In real life I think it’s easier to get a feel for people outside what they’re advertising and also it’s not a swipe-right/swipe-left scenario where if you don’t like the immediate presentation of a person you never have to interact with them again. Then ofc there’s the old cliches about all the information lost in purely online communication versus in-person. Dating apps just feel like I’m looking at the same few people over and over again with the outliers being seen mostly as negative. Nobody looks particularly interesting or like someone I’d get along with, whereas in real life interactions I don’t find myself filtering people this harshly. This is an issue I’ve heard of from people of all genders/sexuality’s. It just feels like a worse version of job hunting. In fact this analogy seems almost too perfect. You “apply” on an online platform with a low response rate, with a number of the “applicants” effectively treating it as a numbers game just to get something. Many of the responses you do get are rejections. Some may end up eventually getting a positive response and either win, finding a good person for them, or end up in a less ideal situation. Meanwhile everyone tells you that this is the worst way to go about things and that the right way is to have an established network you can reach out to.
  - jrumbut 5y ago
    Hey that really makes sense to me now! I think for me the curiosity aspect balanced out what you're talking about. Instead of looking for a good match right away, I would scan for anything interesting or serious red flags and then start talking and see how it went. Of course, that wouldn't work for everyone. The job hunt comparison is perfect though, since I have exactly the feelings about job seeking online that you expressed about dating. I would have never applied to the job I'm at now, which I love, based on the job description online. It was really eye opening, a lot of the best organizations to work for are the worst at recruiting. It may be because they retain people so they don't have to do it as often, I am three years in and still the new guy.

nathanaldensr 5y ago

Agreed. It amplifies the worst aspects of human existence.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Fundamentally, I do not think it is tenable for a mating system to offer participants unlimited choice (or the appearance of). Also, pictures drastically reduce the number of dimensions in which you can be attracted to someone. For example, in real life, you may become attracted to someone due to their voice, or other properties, or simply repeatedly seeing them. The other problem is that it lays bare your “value” in each interaction, and it could be damaging to one’s ego. Flirting in real life gives both parties a chance to escalate with plausible deniability. The best system I have seen though is when matchmakers who roughly know both people, and can vouch for both parties’ trustworthiness do the matchmaking. They will have the ability to objectively put two similarly “valued” people together, and possibly not only along one metric (e.g. looks). Of course, this gets more and more rare as the size of one’s social networks gets smaller or has fewer overlaps.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > I do not think it is tenable for a mating system to offer participants unlimited choice (or the appearance of). Why?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    It feels like people try aim very high in the candidates they pursue, and in the process, they end up missing the window for when their value is at its peak, and hence have to sell themselves for less than what they could have gotten earlier. Or end up simply choosing not to sell at all.
  - IamAdog93109 5y ago
    From my perspective, not OP's: At one point I read somewhere in some pop-psych book that people naturally tend towards symmetric engagements. I think this particular remark was speaking on the point of physical attraction. And from a logical standpoint this makes sense at a baseline (wherein all other things are equal). But say, your photo shows a 3/10 on the highly arbitrary meter of attraction. You're presented with a battery of perceived-people [1], these are accounts, with photos of humans who one trusts has another human at the other end that is accurately represented by the profile details. You're not immediately confronted with the fact that some people are literally only engaging in the system to accumulate matches, bots, advertisers, scammers; one naturally places their trust in the system. This trust allows the user to reasonably assume any matches made are reflective of their value. In reality about 2/3rds (anecdotal) are indiscriminate. This feedback can duly be intuited to move the personal perception of self-assessed attraction from a 3 to say a 5 or greater, and generate unrealistic expectations in the domain of physical attraction. What's more is, I'd conjecture that the external valuations are more impactful than self-assessed attraction, that weighting strongly contributes to the big picture assessment of the mating landscape. The more feedback from indiscriminate sources the greater the pull. Physical attraction is a huge component of mate selection, so this component alone can raise an individual's standards far beyond their standing power. Then there's the perception of the overall pool in every dimension. If one is given literally thousands of options and even the faintest glimmer of the hope ideal selection, they're left to pick and choose in a loop that likely won't satisfy. And if you apply the idea of hypergamy to the situation it becomes even more perverse, and this stands to destabilize what might actually become tangible by offering unrealistic prospects via the indiscriminate perceived-people. Think of the situation where a 3/10 ends up with a 3/10 but is more or less told they're capable of netting a 5-7/10, will they realistically settle for that? I suspect not, and this distortion makes their actual prospect pool seem far less appealing and creates a perverted and highly disposable form of relationship. And then you can lump in all of the economics, education, lifestyle, practical accessibility, plans and desires, etc... as further complicating the distortions offered up by the infinite choice fallacy. [1] This should be read as: bots, advertisers, influencers, etc... and facades.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Nice explanation of another part I did not think about! > I'd conjecture that the external valuations are more impactful than self-assessed attraction, that weighting strongly contributes to the big picture assessment of the mating landscape. This is why I think family/friends matchmakers are so valuable. They are able to ascribe more objective view of the higher probabilities of the type of person you would be able to land, and hence show you only those people (since their credibility is also on the line).
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
It makes vanity become a purpose on top of things like Instagram.

JohnWhigham 5y ago

It wholly mass-commoditizes something that has never been mass-commoditized (and should never be) before. When this happens, you're often left with the raw economics of the situation. And this is what's happened with dating. And hoo boy, do people not like talking about it either. It displays a lot of uncomfortable truths about men and women's places in societies. If anything it should be discussed more, but emotions often get in the way.

imbnwa 5y ago
That discussion is the one Kevin Samuels is leading in the Black community where these problems are even more magnified
- thickened 5y ago
  Started watching some of his videos. Very interesting and, in earnest, doesn't seem to be any different in other communities. Amplified in some ways in particular because he brings up the incarceration rates.
  - imbnwa 5y ago
    Never heard him bring up incarceration rates (link? perhaps content I've never seen), he tends to highlight the stats around children-out-of-wedlock, ratio of unmarried to married Black women, and amount of unmarried, childless middle-class Black men. The first and second issues being fairly specific to the Black community.
    - thickened 5y ago
      I don't know the exact one to be honest - it's one of the 15+ minute ones where he has a caller and he takes apart why their expectations are over the top and they should reconsider. He lists statistics like, so-and-so % of black men earn less than $X, so-and-so % of black men are imprisoned, and so on. Probably one of the ones that expects a $500k/yr guy. For anyone who hasn't watched his YT vids, take 30 min and go through some of his shorter clips. It's quite interesting what the expectations out there are.

jrumbut 5y ago

I have heard this bothers many people, but I never saw the problem. I always thought about it in terms of putting your best foot forward and expecting most others to do the same. Once you get to know someone then it's a better time to talk about all the frustrations and disappointments of life. My experience might be out of date though, from other comments it sounds like online dating has gotten harder in recent years.

the_only_law 5y ago
In real life I think it’s easier to get a feel for people outside what they’re advertising and also it’s not a swipe-right/swipe-left scenario where if you don’t like the immediate presentation of a person you never have to interact with them again. Then ofc there’s the old cliches about all the information lost in purely online communication versus in-person. Dating apps just feel like I’m looking at the same few people over and over again with the outliers being seen mostly as negative. Nobody looks particularly interesting or like someone I’d get along with, whereas in real life interactions I don’t find myself filtering people this harshly. This is an issue I’ve heard of from people of all genders/sexuality’s. It just feels like a worse version of job hunting. In fact this analogy seems almost too perfect. You “apply” on an online platform with a low response rate, with a number of the “applicants” effectively treating it as a numbers game just to get something. Many of the responses you do get are rejections. Some may end up eventually getting a positive response and either win, finding a good person for them, or end up in a less ideal situation. Meanwhile everyone tells you that this is the worst way to go about things and that the right way is to have an established network you can reach out to.
- jrumbut 5y ago
  Hey that really makes sense to me now! I think for me the curiosity aspect balanced out what you're talking about. Instead of looking for a good match right away, I would scan for anything interesting or serious red flags and then start talking and see how it went. Of course, that wouldn't work for everyone. The job hunt comparison is perfect though, since I have exactly the feelings about job seeking online that you expressed about dating. I would have never applied to the job I'm at now, which I love, based on the job description online. It was really eye opening, a lot of the best organizations to work for are the worst at recruiting. It may be because they retain people so they don't have to do it as often, I am three years in and still the new guy.