5 ms·

> Online dating is just manifest of what happens in real life. Absolutely not. If you're looking for a partner in real life, you're working with a small, finit

> Online dating is just manifest of what happens in real life. Absolutely not. If you're looking for a partner in real life, you're working with a small, finite "dating pool" and you calibrate your expectations reasonably. In your office, there might be twenty women you like, five of them may be interested in you. Both sides go through a straightforward process to make up their minds, and that's it. Stuff like the 80% / 20% theory ultimately doesn't matter, because in that small cohort with no gender imbalances, almost every person naturally finds a mate - just not always their first pick. In contrast, in online dating, you don't have an estimate of the dating pool, and it appears essentially infinite. This encourages two behaviors. First, you're spending very little time on individual profiles, often just swiping left or right in a matter of seconds - so individual decisions are made with much less fidelity. Second, it makes it really hard for both sides to calibrate expectations and to stop looking when they find a match that's good enough. If your date seems to like model trains a bit too much or needs to lose 20 pounds, there is a temptation to keep looking instead of trying to work with that. In the end, if you go through thousands of profiles, then (a) the results probably won't be any better than with a smaller pool (see: the secretary problem); (b) you will be a lot more miserable for much longer; and (c) the purported "80% / 20%" split actually starts to matter a lot.

mgaunard 2y ago
There is at least one app I can think of which works by giving you a finite amount of profiles to review every day. I did find that it was a bit better in several aspects.
- dabinat 2y ago
  Which app is that? “Once” used to do that but now it appears to have been sold to another company and lost that capability.
  - mgaunard 2y ago
    Coffee meets Bagel
GardenLetter27 2y ago
But also the people you meet are also looking at a "finite pool". Whereas on dating apps people will be speaking to many others and so it's much harder to find a long-term relationship. I think a better solution would be letting people freely talk to eachother by communities / interests. But that is harder to monetise. And you still have the fundamental issue that there are far more men than women.
wiseowise 2y ago
> In your office, there might be twenty women you like, five of them may be interested in you. Look at Mr. Popularity here.
- onion2k 2y ago
  Suggesting that 25% of people are compatible with each other is pretty reasonable.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bradlys 2y ago
    That is actually a really high rate.
  - consteval 2y ago
    In my experience, with modern young people even incredibly slight differences is enough to ruin that compatibility. I'm talking the shoes you wear, maybe that one time you ate at your desk, etc. It's a mindset thing. People start from a place where nobody is worthy, and then actively only notice/seek things that make them more unworthy. As in, people only notice the bad stuff, never the good stuff. You can have 99 points of compatibility but that 1 you're incompatible on tips it over - because you're only looking at that 1, the 99 are invisible.
    - pas 2y ago
      Young people feel they are not in a hurry, and a lot of self-esteem and confidence issues (especially now that their life is by-default semi-public on Instagram/etc.) This pushes them toward casual things much more, and away from commitments (especially in places where it can complicate things, like at work). So only those couples get together at work that already have a very high "cohesion".
eltoxo 2y ago
This is not really true either though. If you go to the grocery store or any place with many people you could do the same thing as online. What is interesting is the sociology of how guys will swipe right basically everyone online and basically no one in person even though the rejection % is going to be astronomically higher online. Rejection online even tends to be more rude. Getting rejected in person is almost always very polite. What is even more interesting is how there hasn't been an overall adjustment in behavior when swiping right in person is so much more valuable because of the lack of people doing it.
aurareturn 2y ago
Assume attractiveness = intelligence, money, personality, physical Here's what will happen between men and women of different attractiveness levels (based on my experience and observations): 1. Man (same level of attractiveness) + woman (same level of attractiveness) = potential relationship 2. Man (higher) + woman (lower) = casual sex, situationships 3. Man (lower) + woman (higher) = friendzone, man does stuff for woman without sex Of course there are outliers. But these are the most likely outcomes. In physics, there is a concept of the lowest energy state. For example, a ball at the top of the hill wants to release all the energy and rest at the bottom of the hill. The lowest energy state for a women is #3. The lowest energy state for a man is #2. In other words, a man naturally wants a ton of casual sex, if he can. A woman naturally wants a lot of attention, protection, resources, if she can. A very attractive man will get a lot of #2. A very attractive woman will get a lot of #3. On dating apps (and in real life), woman want either #1 or #3 in outcome. Men want either #1 or #2 in outcome. Eventually, most will settle into #1 after learning where their personal attractiveness level is.

mgaunard 2y ago

There is at least one app I can think of which works by giving you a finite amount of profiles to review every day. I did find that it was a bit better in several aspects.

dabinat 2y ago
Which app is that? “Once” used to do that but now it appears to have been sold to another company and lost that capability.
- mgaunard 2y ago
  Coffee meets Bagel

GardenLetter27 2y ago

But also the people you meet are also looking at a "finite pool". Whereas on dating apps people will be speaking to many others and so it's much harder to find a long-term relationship. I think a better solution would be letting people freely talk to eachother by communities / interests. But that is harder to monetise. And you still have the fundamental issue that there are far more men than women.

wiseowise 2y ago

> In your office, there might be twenty women you like, five of them may be interested in you. Look at Mr. Popularity here.

onion2k 2y ago
Suggesting that 25% of people are compatible with each other is pretty reasonable.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bradlys 2y ago
  That is actually a really high rate.
- consteval 2y ago
  In my experience, with modern young people even incredibly slight differences is enough to ruin that compatibility. I'm talking the shoes you wear, maybe that one time you ate at your desk, etc. It's a mindset thing. People start from a place where nobody is worthy, and then actively only notice/seek things that make them more unworthy. As in, people only notice the bad stuff, never the good stuff. You can have 99 points of compatibility but that 1 you're incompatible on tips it over - because you're only looking at that 1, the 99 are invisible.
  - pas 2y ago
    Young people feel they are not in a hurry, and a lot of self-esteem and confidence issues (especially now that their life is by-default semi-public on Instagram/etc.) This pushes them toward casual things much more, and away from commitments (especially in places where it can complicate things, like at work). So only those couples get together at work that already have a very high "cohesion".

eltoxo 2y ago

This is not really true either though. If you go to the grocery store or any place with many people you could do the same thing as online. What is interesting is the sociology of how guys will swipe right basically everyone online and basically no one in person even though the rejection % is going to be astronomically higher online. Rejection online even tends to be more rude. Getting rejected in person is almost always very polite. What is even more interesting is how there hasn't been an overall adjustment in behavior when swiping right in person is so much more valuable because of the lack of people doing it.

aurareturn 2y ago

Assume attractiveness = intelligence, money, personality, physical Here's what will happen between men and women of different attractiveness levels (based on my experience and observations): 1. Man (same level of attractiveness) + woman (same level of attractiveness) = potential relationship 2. Man (higher) + woman (lower) = casual sex, situationships 3. Man (lower) + woman (higher) = friendzone, man does stuff for woman without sex Of course there are outliers. But these are the most likely outcomes. In physics, there is a concept of the lowest energy state. For example, a ball at the top of the hill wants to release all the energy and rest at the bottom of the hill. The lowest energy state for a women is #3. The lowest energy state for a man is #2. In other words, a man naturally wants a ton of casual sex, if he can. A woman naturally wants a lot of attention, protection, resources, if she can. A very attractive man will get a lot of #2. A very attractive woman will get a lot of #3. On dating apps (and in real life), woman want either #1 or #3 in outcome. Men want either #1 or #2 in outcome. Eventually, most will settle into #1 after learning where their personal attractiveness level is.