Finding Your Soul Mate Online May Be Harder Than the Dating Sites Suggest
nautil.us
nautil.us
Note that I said, "meeting." I didn't consider initial meetings "dates" which took lots of pressure off. I thought of OKCupid as a way to meet women who seemed interesting and who I might end up being interested in dating.
I was able to meet 1-2 women a week, usually for coffee, tea, or a walk in the park. Most of the time it was just a nice conversation and we went our separate ways. A few I became friends with, a few I dated, and in the end I met my partner of going on 5 years now.
Here are my tips: 1) Put minimal energy into each message. Say hi, acknowledge you read their profile, and ask a question. 2) Set up a real life meeting quickly. If I got a response, my second message would ask if they wanted to get together for coffee/whatever. 3) Include as little information as possible in your profile. Dont try to be funny or over share. It just a gives people a reason to reject you.
A lot of women seemed inclined to send a bunch of messages back and forth, which was mostly a waste of time... You find out much more about actual chemistry in 10 minutes face to face than in days or weeks of exchanging messages.
At the time I tended to go back and forth between dates with people I met through friends, at parties etc vs online dating. Overall I'd say the online dating pool back then tended more towards introverted people... Seems less true now that it's become more mainstream.
The people I did go on dates with tended to be highly intelligent though, more so than the ones I met in real life.
Anyway, I'm happily married now. Good luck out there!
The fact of the matter is that women are primarily interested in a top smaller percentage of high value men (this is called hypergamy). This smaller group of desirable men would most like to have multiple mates (this is called polygamy). Marriage, and the accompanying culture and customs, 'corrects' this by trying to create a 1-to-1 mapping. Both extreme strategies described are traditionally shamed and discouraged.
Why? Because marriage (monogamous long-term bonding) is good for society. It incentivizes the largest amount of people to be productive, and reduces civil unrest by distributing sexual access to women across as many men as possible. For more on sex and society, check out J.D. Unwin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
Now, how this relates to dating difficulties. The fact of the matter is that people become unhappy in a relationship of any kind when they think they are getting the short end of the stick, and could be doing better. They'll rationalize it six ways to Sunday, "my partner doesn't understand me", "my partner smothers me", "they don't do enough chores", "we don't understand ourselves", whatever, but at the end of the day they think they ought to have a better mate, and are fed up with their current one! And oh golly gee, look at the easily accessible options out there. Swiping for a new novel partner is so much easier than building anything substantial. Plus they might be better in bed.
This is especially true of women, who, by pure numerical inevitability, largely marry below what they would prefer. We know that women initiate most divorces too, at ~70% (fun fact: among college-eduated couples, that number rises to 90%). A smaller amount of men end up locked to one person too, when they know in another world they could have more mates. Such are the sacrifices for the monogamous society - often referred to as patriarchal, because women are more sexually restricted.
So in conclusion, what bothers me about articles like this, who delve deep into rationalizations instead of simple mate value and attractiveness, is the implication of a 1-to-1 mapping between men and women. Is there a 'Soul Mate' for most people? Probably not.
My goal was quite simple: rather than a popularity contest, I wanted someone who was my intellectual equal. This was a novel concept to the women I dated. None of them could cope: dominate or be dominated was the game. I knew my wife as a friend for 10 years before we married. To this day, we see each other as equals, which is unbelievably fulfilling (even after years of marriage).
Other than our love of technology (as early geeks) we don't have many hobbies in common. I don't think any dating sites would have helped us find each other because of our different interests.
I don't believe in a soul mate and never did. My wife and I both understand our personal needs and our needs as a couple. Find that commonality and you are likely to find great happiness.
Sadly, I think you are right.
There's still a part of that believes in the Soul Mate thing, but in my case it's always been tied into looks, and my immediate surroundings. And I never thought, on my worst day; I was remotely superficial, but I am.
I've gotten to the point, where I just cringe when I hear someone is getting married.
I will admit to this though. I definetly think there's something to chemistry. I've always had something inside myself that just knew when a physical relationship would work. That chemistry had nothing to do with physical appearance. Sometimes I really didn't even like, nor respect the person I was with.
If any dating site can come up with a chemistry app, they would make a fortune.
And no--just because someone photographs well; in no correlates to chemistry, at least for myself. I once dated this very attractive lady. She knew she was attractive, but wasen't capitalizing on it then. When we held each other, their was just someting that didn't feel right. One night she accused me of being gay. I took the easy way out, and said "maybe", but in reality being with her was like hugging my sister.
I made the mistake of being too honest with a girlfrined once. We were being honest about our past partners. She kept on asking me, "Why did you sleep with her, if you couldn't stand her?". I told her the truth--because sex has nothing to do with love. She was irate that night, and following week, but had me repeat that story over, and over again. We were both drinking when she would ask me to repeat these non-love sex stories.
Ugh--went off course again. I'm not feeling well. I have Shingles on my torso, and never thought the pain would be this intense.
I'm sorry about the pain you're in, and don't want to ban you, but these comments have been over the line frequently and for a long time. If at some point you're ready not to post any more of them, and keep to the HN rules, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
So why am I not a high value male? I have an Ivy league education. I have a 6 figure income. I'm creative. I'm talented, to the point where I've competed in international music competitions. I think it's telling that the majority of the messages I get on Tinder are from east asians.
I've also commented here in the past when I was dating a creole woman, and I was disappointed in the number of fellow commenters here who rejected the idea of dating someone apparently based on their race. The US, California, and the Bay Area in particular are fabulous multicultural societies, in the global and historical context. However, it's far from colorblind here. I've been racially an "anomaly" most of my life. The Bay Area is the first time I've experienced what it's like to be part of a "them."
Here's the thing though. Your valuable traits you've listed imply a lot about your potential to provide (clarification: survival resources). In a first-world country where the women have their material resources met, the women just don't need that provider value as much. Think about it: Bay Area has a lot of above-average net worth families. Women are highly educated and employed. So your ability to provide, in and of itself, I don't think will be very attractive in your environment.
Would it be more attractive to an East Asian from a less prosperous background? I would think so.
Why is this? Harsher environments change sexual strategies and preferences. I highly recommend watching this video on r-K selection theory, it most certainly applies to humans as well on some level: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06JBpW6O7I&index=3&list=PLM...
Anyways, what now? Let's say you agree with my premise. I've seen plenty of guys there. I'm guessing you're a highly intelligent and hard-working first or second generation immigrant with a technical job. I've seen this pattern a lot: people like this have trouble with Western women. Well, you need to play more to social status to differentiate yourself. Things like charisma, social dominance, preselection (women like men that other women like) are things to look into. Looking good physically as a man goes a long way as well: get on a solid lifting / bodybuilding program, groom and dress well. There are plenty of resources all around for these things I've mentioned.
To summarize: it's 2016 and you live in the Bay Area. You don't need to provide for women. You need to excite them. You need to differentiate from other men in attractiveness, both socially and physically. There are certain parts of the internet which focus on this stuff and have proven results, though I'll let you search around rather than linking anything here on HN (though I think someone else in this thread posted a link).
I think this is an illustration of the phenomenon, but it's not the phenomenon you think. Half of the 4 sentences in my self description had nothing to do with my ability to provide. Also, the 1st two sentences had much to do with my socioeconomic status and implied level of education -- both of which are sub-cultural markers. Yet you project on me a preoccupation with providing.
Growing up as someone from this culture who just so happens to have this face, I know from both sides the distortion of this culture. We east asian men are supposedly useful economic and intellectual entities with inferior aesthetics or souls or something like that. Your projection fits this pattern.
The Bay Area is the same millieu where there was a widespread racist idea in the dot-com years, that south asians were somehow incapable of the deep thinking required for creating a disruptive startup. I didn't say that. It's from the self account of an Indian entrepreneur in a documentary about race in Silicon Valley. I don't really see this place as having changed.
If you are from the dominant culture, of course you are spinning this in terms of those complaining being somehow inferior. Not all those who complain are without reason. If you look at culture historically, this happens again and again, and it's quite hard to see from inside the dominant culture.
That's why I said imply. And yes, of course they do. Good education and talented == good job == money.
> Growing up as someone from this culture who just so happens to have this face, I know from both sides the distortion of this culture. We east asian men are supposedly useful economic and intellectual entities with inferior aesthetics or souls or something like that. Your projection fits this pattern.
My best friends are East Asian men. So I know the stereotypes pretty well. I wouldn't call it a projection so much as an acknowledgement of how the average American woman will view you, subconsciously or not.
Anyways, if my post offended you, that was not the purpose. The purpose was to expose you to the realities of stereotypes and subconscious thought patterns that women (and perhaps society as a whole) will place upon people like you, and have placed on people like my friends.
You can complain and bemoan about it, sure, I sympathize. But what I'm trying to express to you is the simple reality of how mating dynamics are different in prosperous Western countries, how women will likely view you, and what types of strategies you could cultivate to increase your odds of success.
And for the record, I think your culture (or type of people, whatever you want to call it) are very high value. That's why they're my best friends, and my startup co-founders. But I think society has terrible values (or value functions, rather) when it comes to social capital and the dating market. Look at the pop culture to get a taste of how disdainful of engineers and computer people we are. Always shown as very undesirable. I saw this first hand through college telling people I was a "computer engineer". 'Gross, not cool at all, maybe in 10 years though after I'm done partying' was the general attitude I got from girls, before I started to cultivate different traits.
So you're basically saying, yes, there is bias. Deal with it.
And for the record, I think your culture (or type of people, whatever you want to call it) are very high value. That's why they're my best friends, and my startup co-founders.
Please pay attention. I was born here and grew up here all my life. I don't speak Korean. There was no culture/subculture for me to be a part of. My family had to drive 45 miles to visit with other asian friends who weren't even also Korean. Culturally, I'm just an upper middle class American guy. But almost a half century of experience has taught me that there is something to having this face, and that I would have to work harder to overcome bias. My parents just came out and told that to me straight-up, and they were right. Color blind we are not, and I think it's valuable for me to point it out, because it is the truth.
'Gross, not cool at all, maybe in 10 years though after I'm done partying' was the general attitude I got from girls, before I started to cultivate different traits.
In my case, I think putting my money where my mouth is involves finding one who is similarly overlooked. My most successful relationships have fit this pattern.
If one doesn't respect their life-partner enough to be able to sincerely treat them as a "poet and a genius" then I'm not sure that's a relationship worth having. In fact, I think that being truly in love in anything less than that sort of situation is a curse. (Which is a notion some westerners find strange in Korean culture. Now I think it is wise.)
It takes extra effort to not be vapid on Tinder and co, and to recognise that a person's ability to craft a compelling impression out of a few flattering photos and a shred of text is an indicator of a capacity for self-branding and not necessarily much else.
I think it is also dependent on age: younger people tend to go for appearances far more.
Nonetheless, confidence is not as subjective: it really has a positive impact when all other things are held equal.
but lucky for you women are not that vapid
But have you ever tried dating someone whom you just weren't physically attracted to? I have (twice). It turns out it doesn't work in the long run. Convincing yourself that its the "right thing to do" will work in the short term, but eventually you'll build resentment towards them until the relationship falls apart.
I'd encourage you to reconsider this viewpoint, and to stop promulgating it. Be honest with yourself. Anything else is just being reckless with another human being's emotions.
Likewise, women do not purely look at physical appearance to decide if they find somebody attractive, and neither do men. There are clearly other factors at play.
So for somebody to say: I am not physically attractive and therefore not suitable to date is likely not true. Even if you could objectively say that you were physically unattractive, your best bet is to compensate by being better at the other things that form attraction.
If you're regularly sending opening messages more than a sentence or two long, you're probably investing way too much effort to start out.
1) Hello 2) Show I read their profile. "Oh you like The Mountain Goats? I saw them when I was in Chicago last summer." 3) Ask a question about their interests. "I've been looking to take cooking classes. Any recommendations?"
I had an incredibly high response rate, 1 out of every 3 or 4.
"Looking pretty friendly with that penguin, do you guys still keep in touch?"
"Id say we should hula hoop together, but my hula hoop is in the shop. Unless you have a spare?"
I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of rationalizations as to why this isn't true, but accepting that you can do better is the first step to improving.
Try this - for your first message just send 'Hey I noticed your page and have a question for you' ('noticed' not 'saw', 'page' not 'profile', and 'question for you' not just 'question'). Why does this work? It makes someone curious what you noticed and what your question is while minimizing neediness, which is kryptonite to a woman's attraction. Want to really blow your mind? Create a woman's profile on whatever site you've used.
Do what you've always done, get what you've always gotten. The women that I met through sites were almost all sweet, sharp, quality people and they would all tell me how they would receive hundreds of messages.
That reality can make a lot of average to somewhat good looking men feel ugly.
Are you in incredibly good shape?
Have you hired a professional stylist?
Have you hired a professional photographer?
Have you taken professional pictures shirtless, with dogs, traveling, and with cool friends?
I'm guessing you haven't done all of the above, so there is hope.
Women are attracted to your overall value, not just looks. Find a way to show it online.
Implement all of the strategies from this online dating guide: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3l310a/the_red_...
- https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/wiki/dosanddontsprofile
- https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/wiki/dosanddontsmessaging
Men and women don't have the same challenges in dating so combining advice for the two is unhelpful.
(Ignoring the ad hominem)
I think that our culture's "knowledge" about how men/women/gender works is out of whack. Monogamy seems to be demonstrably more stable, but I suspect it's simply better than the preexisting alternatives for high population densities and highly organized societies. I don't think our brains and our cultures are any better suited to human sexuality with access to effective birth control any more than our brains and cultures are suited to a world full of freely available fats and carbohydrates.
That said, one should also be wary of any ideology that seems to come with a tinge of hate or disdain to a particular "type" of person.
That might be 2 hours a day picking your clothes, 2 hours fixing your hair, brushing your teeth, whatever... short term things.
That might also be 2 hours a day in the gym (physical appearance), or 2 hours a day practicing public speaking (confidence, crowd control), anything which helps radiate attractiveness, draw people in so they can see all the things that make you attractive which don't appear at first glance.
If you're not spending 2 hours a day trying to look attractive or be attractive, you can't really complain because the most attractive people I know spend (invest) on the order of that much time to get there and stay there.
If it's a weight thing, hit up the weight loss subreddits (/r/loseit, /r/fitness, /r/progresspics, etc) and talk to a psychologist about it. When you don't take care of yourself it can manifest as weight gain, but the core is not taking care of yourself which is fundamentally psychological. (ie: rating yourself as a 2 on a scale of 1-10 doesn't bode well for positive self-image and self confidence).
Talk to a psychologist about it, seriously. May is Mental Health Awareness month so it's a perfect time to look into it and take action.
If it's anything else cosmetic (hair, teeth, skin, clothes) that's an easy fix and a lot of times can literally be resolved in an afternoon if you have the right instruction (/r/skincareaddiction, /r/malefashionadvice, /r/streetwear).
My email is ramses0@yahoo.com if you or anyone else wants to continue the discussion (news.y.c messaging isn't the thing I check the most) and if you're in the Bay Area I wouldn't mind meeting up some time, hanging out and just talking.
I think the two hours at once thing is more meaningful because it makes you really great at that one thing. Then you get to spend the whole day thinking in the back of your mind "I'm really great at this one thing".
Anyway, this is probably quite close to the truth.
I mean I've had conversations for years in high school about the ugliest and nerdies guys in my class. We'd basically be going over 'why he wouldn't just do x, y and z, because he'd go from a 2 to a 6 with a basic change in apparel, clothing, perfume, haircut, and to a 7 within a year by working out'. I mean that's what most of the 7s do in this world. I'm no different, really, just a normal dude who brushes his teeth, showers, mimics a casual hip style and gets a haircut at a hip place once a month. I barely pay attention to my looks, but I definitely make sure to get the basics right.
Of course once a year, an ugly person would become 'beautiful' over the summer vacation and would return to school with a new look, confirming the notion. Nothing changed about them in those 2 months, except the cut of the hair, the pieces of clothing, the paint and smell. A lot of the time it was just kids 'maturing' their style for the first time at age 15. Isn't everyone familiar with that story?
I mean, take all of those makeover shows where they transform someone who's just horrible... usually the only 'big' thing they do is find a person with horrible teeth and fix that, which isn't a trivial thing... but that's not applicable to most people, perhaps a tiny bit of whitening is needed which I don't think costs much anymore these days. But other than that, it's all just a few hundred bucks of clothing, a $30 haircut, $30 perfume. Add 2x 60 minute workout sessions and a decent diet and you're pretty much there.
I think most people who haven't put in any effort, can get a change that's at least somewhere on this spectrum: http://static.businessinsider.com/image/527bdb6969beddec59df...
Essentially they're optimising for themselves. Why do the filter work on a group of maybe's, when you can filter on a smaller group of certainties?
So if someone accepts you and does't reply, I'd say nowadays (not 1-2 years ago), it's pretty likely they didn't change their minds, but simply decided for the first time you're not for them.
Other than that, don't read into it too much. I've got one pretty attractive friend, easy 7, who doesn't match shit, in fact we were laughing about it among friends (including him) a few weeks ago, he hadn't been on a date in months and he was definitely trying. Keep ya head up! :)
Could it be that by being more picky, we give ourselves a better chance of staying together?
EDIT: I found a more recent one with a relative rate vs. marriages: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12011714/Divorce-rate...
It may be that, as the article suggests, the decrease in % divorce rates has dropped partly due to the increase in social acceptability of cohabitation, allowing couples to try it out before getting married.
Nevertheless, taking simply divorce rates into account, the situation has improved from 20 years ago.
So have marriage rates - perhaps those who DO get married these days, really mean it.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/11/marriag... I know the article is a bit old, the trend is still visible though.
Then later as they achieve temporary and then permanent residency the marriage can be used to apply for visa for the spouse.
I have met a few international student couples who marry at 20 or 21, and one of them drops out, for this advantage.
And since they're living pay check to pay check anyway, it's not risky for either of them.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/divorce-cohabitation-stud_n_4...
One of the problems, however, online or with sponsored offline events, is the low number of results. Unlikely to happen, but I'd like to see data on the number of single individuals in a particular city vs how many of them are on a dating app/site. I'd bet the percentage is really low (barring Tinder in major US cities). Not to mention a comment I made the other week here on HN about there needing to be a "def not looking for a hook up" option on an app like Tinder.
Going further, perhaps the solution is an alternative to speed dating - to make dating secondary and having a good time primary. Tinder is "I'll show you the person, you decide what to do next". I'd much rather have a Meetup.com type approach, so to speak. Provide the good time, based on a certain subject, where everyone happens to be single and the male/female ratio isn't skewed. Make the interactions one-on-one, and add to it a comfortable time limit (10-15 min increments) to ensure rotation. With a higher percentage of single people using said apps, and sponsored events like these, I see a win-win.
In the end, I don't necessarily expect a soulmate. Just get way more people using Meetup.com and have single people wear a green sticker on their shirt (place + single indicator + subject I'm interested in).
I went to one that was hosted at the TechStop in SF. Sadly the guys running it were extremely attractive and given they were "in-charge" and leading the classes pretty much made all the women swoon.
Another one I went to was party games based. It was early in their event system so there were some rough spots but it was still fun. Another was just a meetup at a bar. I think I prefer organized activities.
The hardest part is getting enough people that are likely to be a match. If 100 people come 50/50 men women there's some chance there might be someone you're interested in. If 15 people come the odds are pretty low .
But if "just enjoy your life" involves staying at home and making computers do interesting things, then this is terrible advice. "Slapping on a sticker" is much more likely to meet with success than staying at home.
- the emphasis is predominantly based on looks and sex appeal.
- people can take an awfully good looking photo
- you are more confident online. You can be a person other than who you really are. With a damn good photo and the mask of the internet, you can be a dream come true.
- solid, loving relationships are based on attachment, bonding and openness. The above factors set off a relationship to a start contrary to that.
That and I think a lot of women face quite a bit of harassment on these sites or at least used to. That can reduce trust in the platform and perhaps increase the occurrence of the factors above.
Still do, there's plenty of examples online, like: https://www.reddit.com/r/creepyPMs/
Perhaps one step is a write up of what you wish to get out of the service. Over time, find patterns with those write ups and that behaviour.
Interrsring problem.
Afterward, you rate your dates. And so does the app’s artificial intelligence, which can recognize signs of compatibility (or incompatibility) that you might have missed. At the end of the night, the app tells you which prospects are worth a second look. Over time, the AI might even learn (via follow-up experiments) which combination of signals predicts the happiest relationships, or the most enduring.
Excuse me? I need an algorithm now to figure out who I like and whose relationship I want to deepen? I need an algorithm to detect my love?? Sometimes I feel like this mechanistic mindset is exactly what is wrong with dating today. What happened to good old feelings?
Essentially, women don't find men very attractive, but that does not stop them from talking to them (last graph). Men tend to go for the 9s and 10s though. Still, your did-I-get-replyed-to rates are comparable regardless of looks. It's only a 3x increase between 1s to 10s, something a little hard-work and typing can overcome if you live in a big city.
So, for all the commenters here that are complaining about not getting replies: It's not your fedora or neckbeard, it's your message content. You may or may not be coming off as an asshole or a wet-blanket.
remnider: This was from 2009, and the rise of bots (see the AshleyMadison fiasco) has skewed everything, I'd wager.
If I am not wrong, women can be very selective in who they want while same is not the case with men.
Also, women are probably more selective than men in that they have a lower (swipe-right/total swipes)% but that doesn't necessarily mean their average swipe has a higher physical attractiveness among all women.
I just went on a couple OKC dates after a recent breakup. First one we had a fair amount in common "on paper" but there was just no chemistry or ability to really click in person, but it was perfectly pleasant.
Second date we had arguably less in common but clicked instantly. Maybe an hour in, she asked "so how's this going so far for you?". I smiled and said "seems pretty good! you?" and she laughed and agreed.
I guess in the future we'd check an app to tell us how we feel about each other? Next up: try eating this food and ML will tell you whether you enjoyed it!