3 ms·
It's the opposite. You're now missing out on the valuable signal of whether someone is obsessed with wealth and class or not.
by computerfriend 4y ago
It's the opposite. You're now missing out on the valuable signal of whether someone is obsessed with wealth and class or not.
- sangnoir 4y agoI have ascended to the even more-conceited plane of "I don't bother with social signifiers" (which ironically is a signifier in itself- but in my case, I mostly do not care). Then again, I'm not currently in the dating pool, so YMMV
- feet 4y agoI know you aren't the GP, but if you didn't care would you buy an iPhone for social reasons?
- sangnoir 4y ago"social reasons" is too broad to say conclusively. If i was desperate to get an "in" with a specific circle, then perhaps? I'm pretty utilitarian, so the probability is low: my current peer circle probably uses cars as a social signifier, and unbothered in that area as well.
- orangecat 4y agoWomen who are in their 20s or 30s and at least moderately attractive are deluged with male attention. It's not necessarily irrational for them to use quick and dirty filters, even if that often produces false positives.
- michaelmrose 4y agoits 2022 you can with a few minutes work probably figure out way more with his name and adress.
- golergka 4y agoYou assume that somebody who bases an opinion on somebody else on his wealth is obsessed with it. You would be right if and only if you were taking about conscious decision-making only. But people don't work like that. We're affected by a lot of biases that we might deny or not even aware of. It doesn't make sense to label somebody who is affected by this bias as a person necessarily obsessed with wealth; most likely, they are a very nice person who honestly thinks that they don't care for how much somebody else makes.