4 ms·

Know a young man, an Engineer in silicon valley. No takers on his online dating app. Started his own company, changed his title to Founder and CTO, they lined u

Know a young man, an Engineer in silicon valley. No takers on his online dating app. Started his own company, changed his title to Founder and CTO, they lined up, filled his inbox. He thought that seemed shallow. The rest of the profile info was irrelevant it seemed. I suggested a more generous interpretation. Folks 'fishing' for a partner were just throwing their line in the 'deep end'. They have to start somewhere, and there are no lack of choices.

ChatGTP 3y ago
Don’t you see the difference ?
- jug 3y ago
  If I understand this correctly, I think this is a very good point. This is not just putting on a mask of wealth. It would also speak a lot about personal drive and your character. Of course, a assumptions and preconceived notions would be involved but hey it's dating and socializing, not an analysis.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >This is not just putting on a mask of wealth. It would also speak a lot about personal drive and your character. Is it? None of his other profile items pointed to "personal drive and your character"?
    - jug 3y ago
      No, but this did.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Perhaps "personal drive and character" only show if you're a CEO, or some similar compensated position. Maybe poor people have no drive and character. (Ayn Rand approves).
        jug 3y ago
        Look, I'm just making an argument out of preconceived notions (see my earlier message stating this). It's a dating app rife of this, not a deep analysis. I was assuming you were looking for an explanation.
  - TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
    See, "founder and CTO" would put me off dating: I think I'd prefer someone I could potentially spend some actual time with.
coldtea 3y ago
>I suggested a more generous interpretation. Folks 'fishing' for a partner were just throwing their line in the 'deep end'. They have to start somewhere, and there are no lack of choices. Well, in this interpretation, money is still the differentiator. So how is it more generous? Seems to me it points to the same attitude towards relationships that your friend finds "shallow" being the case.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  The 2nd part of the description. Why go fishing in the shallow end, catch a small fish? Why not just as good a partner, but with money? That's not hard to understand. I think it's more about bitterness than logic in most cases.
  - thunky 3y ago
    The real problem here is the idea that it's somehow wrong to prefer to marry someone with money. And because that is seen as a morally bankrupt position, we then need to jump through hoops to justify their preference with a "generous" interpretation.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Perhaps the real problem is that people don't find it enough of a "morally bankrupt position".
      - thunky 3y ago
        Perhaps. But like it or not, money (or the absence of it) has a huge effect on lifestyle, health, safety, procreation, etc. So pretending that the only purpose of marriage is to enter into an oath of true love, even though marriage itself is largely a financial contract, is maybe just a bit detached from reality.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Why go fishing in the shallow end, catch a small fish? Why not just as good a partner, but with money? For the same reason men don't look at money and money signals when picking female profiles (as verified by several studies). How come it works for them, but when it comes to women picking men suddenly it's a matter of not "fishing in the shallow end"? There is indeed a logic in "all other things being equal, prefer the person with money". It's a calculating logic, not a logic of love and appreciating the other person as a person. In the end, I take offense in the very notion of "all other things being equal", as if people are replacable cogs, and money can be use for the differentiaton and sorting the best out. In any case, the record numbers of lonely, partner-less men and women (to the point of the US surgen general calling out an "epidemic"), speaks to the success of this logic... >I think it's more about bitterness than logic Yes, in the sense that it iss bitterness to the fact that the selection is based on pure calculation. That's more something associated with the "oldest profession" than a basis for marriage.
candiddevmike 3y ago
This could be a good honey pot, create an extremely shallow/wealthy profile and never date anyone that interacts with it.
smabie 3y ago
Women like ambitious men who are good at things? Seems reasonable to me
greybox 3y ago
Online dating is rough. I worried over the pandemic that the main place people used to form social bonds that could turn into a romantic relationship, Work, would disappear as people retreated from offices and started working from home. But I think the answer may be complicated than that. Maybe people are more afraid these days to pursue romantic relationships with people they meet at work due to fear of the consequences that have been smeared all over the media in recent years. I think this is a shame. I'm happily married but I've worked in a few jobs before where I've really clicked with someone, and the thought did pass through my mind that if we were both single, maybe there could be something there. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same thought occurred to them. I have no idea how, in that situation, I would have gone about it though, but it would probably be spending a lot of time with that person outside of work as part of an extended social group. But chances to do this dwindle as people move between cities/towns more frequently for work. I guess that's what pushes people to use these dating apps. I have a theory that people who meet their loved ones through pre-existing social groups, have happier long term relationships with their partners. Screw Match and their silly monopoly on romance.
- bushbaba 3y ago
  There’s a real risk of courting at work. Don’t do it, it’s not worth the HR investigation for sexual harassment. Multiple post employers I’ve seen some men not take no for an answer. I’ve seen some woman over react from a single attempt by a male. tldr you hit on a girl/guy at work you do risk a HR violation.
  - greybox 3y ago
    Yeah I can definitely see this. Maybe the problem then isn't that we don't feel we can approach people at work, but that we don't have long term, large social groups where we can meet potential partners
- TMWNN 3y ago
  >Maybe people are more afraid these days to pursue romantic relationships with people they meet at work due to fear of the consequences that have been smeared all over the media in recent years. I think this is a shame. I'm happily married but I've worked in a few jobs before where I've really clicked with someone, and the thought did pass through my mind that if we were both single, maybe there could be something there. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same thought occurred to them. I have no idea how, in that situation, I would have gone about it though Anti-sexual harassment training, and more broadly the discouraging of socialization between men and women as bushbaba mentioned, has definitely reduced the opportunity for men and women to marry. The flip side of the male executive no longer being able to chase his secretary around a desk to try to pinch her on the butt is another executive not being able to politely court the secretary he is in love with (and vice versa). I don't have a good answer for how to get the one without the other, but both are consequences of modern sensibilities.
golemotron 3y ago
It's just hypergamy, an evolved trait in women.
2Gkashmiri 3y ago
in my city at least and the rest of india but i can talk about my city in particular. A guy is supposed to be earning big bucks. No matter how you do it, you just need big bucks. Top marks if you are a "government employee" because that signals the family will always have food on the table. This also means, by the time you are 23-25-28, a guy needs to land something big or else he must remain a bachelor (this is still traditional, family does the arranging and finding a partner thing) . Girls OTOH, have 2 classes. 1 where groom expects the bride to be "housewife, not going to work after marriage) so these ladies just finish studies and "wait". 2. where the guys expect their wives to be "working" so the ladies have developed this hack where they work, as literal slaves in primary schools as teachers earning a pittance but "yep, she is working" checkbox gets ticked. its a hopeless thing really
- klipt 3y ago
  If a government job signals a man is a good provider, a teaching job probably signals a woman likes (and is good at) dealing with children.
  - 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
    government jobs are like 3% of the population if you are stretching it. that means the rest of the adult population realistaically does not have a shot at government jobs but it is still the criteria. "a teaching job probably signals a woman likes (and is good at) dealing with children." i gave a primary school teacher as an example. it is equally okay for the same person to do bookkeeping/assistant/data entry operator. the point for these people is to say "the lady is doing a job" not what or how much is she earning. edit: "If a government job signals a man is a good provider," nope. it signals that the person (guy/girl) got lucky.
tennisflyi 3y ago
So advertising works/good adwords are important?

ChatGTP 3y ago

Don’t you see the difference ?

jug 3y ago
If I understand this correctly, I think this is a very good point. This is not just putting on a mask of wealth. It would also speak a lot about personal drive and your character. Of course, a assumptions and preconceived notions would be involved but hey it's dating and socializing, not an analysis.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >This is not just putting on a mask of wealth. It would also speak a lot about personal drive and your character. Is it? None of his other profile items pointed to "personal drive and your character"?
  - jug 3y ago
    No, but this did.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Perhaps "personal drive and character" only show if you're a CEO, or some similar compensated position. Maybe poor people have no drive and character. (Ayn Rand approves).
      - jug 3y ago
        Look, I'm just making an argument out of preconceived notions (see my earlier message stating this). It's a dating app rife of this, not a deep analysis. I was assuming you were looking for an explanation.
- TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
  See, "founder and CTO" would put me off dating: I think I'd prefer someone I could potentially spend some actual time with.

coldtea 3y ago

>I suggested a more generous interpretation. Folks 'fishing' for a partner were just throwing their line in the 'deep end'. They have to start somewhere, and there are no lack of choices. Well, in this interpretation, money is still the differentiator. So how is it more generous? Seems to me it points to the same attitude towards relationships that your friend finds "shallow" being the case.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
The 2nd part of the description. Why go fishing in the shallow end, catch a small fish? Why not just as good a partner, but with money? That's not hard to understand. I think it's more about bitterness than logic in most cases.
- thunky 3y ago
  The real problem here is the idea that it's somehow wrong to prefer to marry someone with money. And because that is seen as a morally bankrupt position, we then need to jump through hoops to justify their preference with a "generous" interpretation.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Perhaps the real problem is that people don't find it enough of a "morally bankrupt position".
    - thunky 3y ago
      Perhaps. But like it or not, money (or the absence of it) has a huge effect on lifestyle, health, safety, procreation, etc. So pretending that the only purpose of marriage is to enter into an oath of true love, even though marriage itself is largely a financial contract, is maybe just a bit detached from reality.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Why go fishing in the shallow end, catch a small fish? Why not just as good a partner, but with money? For the same reason men don't look at money and money signals when picking female profiles (as verified by several studies). How come it works for them, but when it comes to women picking men suddenly it's a matter of not "fishing in the shallow end"? There is indeed a logic in "all other things being equal, prefer the person with money". It's a calculating logic, not a logic of love and appreciating the other person as a person. In the end, I take offense in the very notion of "all other things being equal", as if people are replacable cogs, and money can be use for the differentiaton and sorting the best out. In any case, the record numbers of lonely, partner-less men and women (to the point of the US surgen general calling out an "epidemic"), speaks to the success of this logic... >I think it's more about bitterness than logic Yes, in the sense that it iss bitterness to the fact that the selection is based on pure calculation. That's more something associated with the "oldest profession" than a basis for marriage.

candiddevmike 3y ago

This could be a good honey pot, create an extremely shallow/wealthy profile and never date anyone that interacts with it.

smabie 3y ago

Women like ambitious men who are good at things? Seems reasonable to me

greybox 3y ago

Online dating is rough. I worried over the pandemic that the main place people used to form social bonds that could turn into a romantic relationship, Work, would disappear as people retreated from offices and started working from home. But I think the answer may be complicated than that. Maybe people are more afraid these days to pursue romantic relationships with people they meet at work due to fear of the consequences that have been smeared all over the media in recent years. I think this is a shame. I'm happily married but I've worked in a few jobs before where I've really clicked with someone, and the thought did pass through my mind that if we were both single, maybe there could be something there. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same thought occurred to them. I have no idea how, in that situation, I would have gone about it though, but it would probably be spending a lot of time with that person outside of work as part of an extended social group. But chances to do this dwindle as people move between cities/towns more frequently for work. I guess that's what pushes people to use these dating apps. I have a theory that people who meet their loved ones through pre-existing social groups, have happier long term relationships with their partners. Screw Match and their silly monopoly on romance.

bushbaba 3y ago
There’s a real risk of courting at work. Don’t do it, it’s not worth the HR investigation for sexual harassment. Multiple post employers I’ve seen some men not take no for an answer. I’ve seen some woman over react from a single attempt by a male. tldr you hit on a girl/guy at work you do risk a HR violation.
- greybox 3y ago
  Yeah I can definitely see this. Maybe the problem then isn't that we don't feel we can approach people at work, but that we don't have long term, large social groups where we can meet potential partners
TMWNN 3y ago
>Maybe people are more afraid these days to pursue romantic relationships with people they meet at work due to fear of the consequences that have been smeared all over the media in recent years. I think this is a shame. I'm happily married but I've worked in a few jobs before where I've really clicked with someone, and the thought did pass through my mind that if we were both single, maybe there could be something there. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same thought occurred to them. I have no idea how, in that situation, I would have gone about it though Anti-sexual harassment training, and more broadly the discouraging of socialization between men and women as bushbaba mentioned, has definitely reduced the opportunity for men and women to marry. The flip side of the male executive no longer being able to chase his secretary around a desk to try to pinch her on the butt is another executive not being able to politely court the secretary he is in love with (and vice versa). I don't have a good answer for how to get the one without the other, but both are consequences of modern sensibilities.

golemotron 3y ago

It's just hypergamy, an evolved trait in women.

2Gkashmiri 3y ago

in my city at least and the rest of india but i can talk about my city in particular. A guy is supposed to be earning big bucks. No matter how you do it, you just need big bucks. Top marks if you are a "government employee" because that signals the family will always have food on the table. This also means, by the time you are 23-25-28, a guy needs to land something big or else he must remain a bachelor (this is still traditional, family does the arranging and finding a partner thing) . Girls OTOH, have 2 classes. 1 where groom expects the bride to be "housewife, not going to work after marriage) so these ladies just finish studies and "wait". 2. where the guys expect their wives to be "working" so the ladies have developed this hack where they work, as literal slaves in primary schools as teachers earning a pittance but "yep, she is working" checkbox gets ticked. its a hopeless thing really

klipt 3y ago
If a government job signals a man is a good provider, a teaching job probably signals a woman likes (and is good at) dealing with children.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
  government jobs are like 3% of the population if you are stretching it. that means the rest of the adult population realistaically does not have a shot at government jobs but it is still the criteria. "a teaching job probably signals a woman likes (and is good at) dealing with children." i gave a primary school teacher as an example. it is equally okay for the same person to do bookkeeping/assistant/data entry operator. the point for these people is to say "the lady is doing a job" not what or how much is she earning. edit: "If a government job signals a man is a good provider," nope. it signals that the person (guy/girl) got lucky.

tennisflyi 3y ago

So advertising works/good adwords are important?