Online dating has basically become a joke anyway. I've met several women on it but more often than not, it never feels right. It's like the expectation of the event is to pursue a relationship. Not to actually have fun doing what you want to.
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.
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.
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My experience might be out of date though, from other comments it sounds like online dating has gotten harder in recent years.
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.
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.
I have since stopped. I dont use the apps anymore. I want to meet someone naturally. It eliminates that pointless friend phase without feeling obligated early on.
Also, dont get me started on Snapchat and snapscores.
My usage ended years ago though, while I connected more on a friendship level with a lot of the people I met they all started as dates. I've heard from a few people that's changed and become more ambiguous.
Maybe there needs to be a new system for more serious daters.
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.
Why?
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.
> 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).
I spent years going on dates and refining a charming persona, but that was the means to the end. Companionship is far more fulfilling than thin ego boosts, but you'll never find a partner unless you're willing to put in effort to become attractive to many potential partners and then attempting relationships. Sure, it's a facade and not who you are in your pure, unrefined, mammalian form, but it's a good version of yourself.
None of this is particularly revolutionary; it's just how courtship and mating works with mammals. Tinder is just the lubricant.
I think there’s a winnowing effect as you age out of the app. So it may not be that they’re all bad or good but rather that you have to seek your audience elsewhere as you age out of the apps. I think this is probably true for anyone looking for a relationship.
I think this is just dating in general. People that are broadly attractive are more likely to not be still dating at 35 compared to people who are not as broadly attractive.
Online dating is just increasing your dating surface area by 10-100x fold.
Yeah, it's called having a mating instinct. People will put up with all sorts of horribleness to satisfy it.
Sure some people are just looking for a fling but I’d be willing to bet money most people who date are looking for a relationship and eventually marriage.
Both men and women.
Those that wanted marriage and kids already have that.