Tinder turns 10: what have we learned from a decade of dating apps?
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
More interesting data would be gender ratio on former Tinder users. Or like users over a year.
https://mobile.twitter.com/stevestuwill/status/1053677226003...
Further reading:
Race in hetero online dating:
https://web.archive.org/web/20091011031410/http://blog.okcup...
Race in same sex online dating:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/samesexdatafor...
Either the average male doing online dating is significantly less attractive than the average male generally, or women have very high standards.
I am gay btw. Got no skin in the game. I had sex with average bisexual men who told me they‘d prefer to have sex with women but can‘t get any.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcup...
Young male students and technology industry workers are heavily over represented among HN users. Let's not assume that their anecdotal experiences are representative of the broader population.
dating services are a good idea in principle, but not competetive as long as there is money to be made with keeping users on the platform.
I'd say the market is ripe for disruption, but in terms of profit potential, the casino games are probably going to be the winning model for awhile.
I have some friends who started a relatively niche dating app that is genuinely focused on connecting people, without games of luck, and though the app itself is not really a 5-star app in terms of design and development (don't tell them I said that), the fact that it's genuinely focused on connecting people has made it my preferred app in my very small dating niche. I'm not really sure if the same is possible on a mainstream scale.
It's not perfect, but if you work it, it can work for you.
Yes, it's a casino game, but learn the rules and you might just win ;)
It may degrade from here but they didn’t immediately mess it up.
Curious about how you define this, and which apo, unless you feel you cannot comment without providing/implying sensitive information about yourself.
I’d always see "responds rarely" and then get quick responses almost every time. I was an overweight student. When asked, they usually said that most people don’t even give the impression of having read the profile before sending a message.
I wonder if there is still a dating site nowadays that values depth over swiping pictures left/right (I never used Tinder, didn’t even know people used it for dating instead of hookups until a few years ago), from what I’ve heard OKC went further down the instant gratification route as well.
My last relationship lasted 7 years, so it wasn't a terrible match.
Going back to look at it though: I put a lot of effort into my messages, maybe 2-3 per day because each message took about 20-30 minutes to craft; but my response rate was about 1:10 and my date rate was ~about 1:100.
Maybe one date every 2-3 months is so few that you put a lot of effort into each one and then, likely, come across as desperate, even if you click.
I don't think it is super great for the receivers of those likes either as most matches are of poor quality and won't result on anything serious. I once tried the "friend" feature of Bumble and I got so many matches that I gave up.
I feel the market is ready for something else, but it would need to come from a non profit for it to not repeat the same mistakes.
It’s great for users looking for ego boosting via popularity and vanity metrics.
And Match.com owns 40%+ of the dating market.
I find myself asking “what does this mean for the future of the human race?”
Growing every year... Take a look at Japan, I guess thats where the rest of the western world is headed. 25% of men aged 40 and below are virgins.
Fear the men with nothing to lose
Specifically the design of algorithms in dating apps is interesting. In effect Tinder at all could play “eugenics” with users based on who they show / hide.
I would assume that’s already happening to some extent as they weight profiles based on how engaging they are to others.
The other aspect is they have a strong disincentive to encourage too many successful couples, as that means lost users / revenue.
I would always play along with the scammers. Mostly out of curiosity and bordem. I would practice my osint skills. And try to report domains for abuse.
Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction, it will be on them to change course. After all, if every man works out and makes great money, then they are all the same anyway.
> free love stuff didn't really make their prospects of a good family better
Both men and women are propagating this culture of free-love, but it's potentially unfulfilling and leaves people believing their prospects are better than they really are. A woman will sleep with a handsome chiseled burger flipper who doesn't want kids or responsibility; but will that same woman want to marry them?
> it will be on [Women] to change course.
The parent states that the power is mostly on the side of Women here, the parent is just saying that change will not come from Men. Because after all; if all Men did what is within their power: then not very much would actually change; Women drive what is acceptable.
Because after all; if all men did what is within their power: then not very much would actually change.
Think different: Stop listening to Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, etc. They told you which KPIs will get you women. They won't. Stop thinking you can convince women, or anyone who isn't a libertarian that libertarianism isn't a naive infantile philosophy.
There is way too much to list. Just stop all of it. Everything that goes with those surface symptoms is poison. Women can smell the faintest whiff of it. It makes you ugly clear through to the bone, no matter how buff you are. Being a gym rat probably makes it worse.
I should attempt to convince you that negative messages ("STOP X") are not as effective for changing behaviour than actual helpful advice; for instance in personal training you are educated to always refer to the positive. IE; instead of saying "stop raising your heels" you would say, "do you see your feet move? We should try to keep them flat"- a subtle but important difference.
W.R.T. comments like yours, I would advise you to instead focusing on the "don't improve your appearance, it is superficial" to instead focus on other things that men can do to meaningfully improve themselves.
The majority of Feminists and the majority of Misogynists alike, agree (unfortunately) that some features of men are desirable and those typically correspond to conventional attractiveness and wealth.
> Stop listening to Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, etc. They told you which KPIs will get you women. They won't.
It's not really Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson saying that though, it's society. IIRC Jordan Petersons whole schtick was suggesting that self-improvement is necessary and that you should start small (like cleaning your room); then he goes off the rails talking about equality and equity going too far or something- but the core of the beginning is good. I haven't ever watched Joe Rogan; Andrew Tate is as much as Misandrist as a Misogynist[0]
If you want to convince me otherwise I would advise (again) to inform us of what Men should actually work on to improve themselves in the eyes of Women.
If you want to convince me otherwise I would advise (again) to inform us of what Men should actually work on
...makes no sense. There is no "positive message" that works. Nobody is fooled by you "working on" something. There is no "starting small." Your room can be a mess and you can still be a person women find good company.
All that manosphere crap is poisonous. Stop all of it. You don't need to be "improved." There is no improvement that will make you a better libertarian Jordan Peterson techbro. What "society" is telling you is that women don't want an improved version of that. Stop. Being. That.
1) Obviously we should improve ourselves, otherwise we will be immature children for our entire lives. Maturity is growth, education is growth. To improve is human. You can successfully argue a case that the guidance from the Manosphere is harmful; but to deny self improvement is foolish beyond argument.
2) external parties are discerning. They do compare people on attributes, doesn’t matter if you agree that they’re superficial ones such as wealth and appearance, or deeper ones such as confidence (not arrogance), maturity, trustworthiness and wisdom. They are discerning on some axis. This is true for friends, business associates and of course: Romantic Partners. Regardless of sex/gender
1. Have you dated women, as a man?
2. Are you successful in dating women which can be measured by staying power? Could you message a woman today you haven't seen in 6 months and arrange a date?
3. If I asked you to go and get a date today from a woman previously unknown to you, could you do it?
2. yes, two days ago. But I'm baffled by your criteria here. I'm not trying to qualify as a guru. The opposite really. Stop listening to dating gurus.
3. I have done, but I wonder why you would ask since it would make no difference.
You are barking up the wrong tree. You still don't get it: There is no improvement you can make. Women date fat men. Women date nerdy men. Women date slobs. Women will pay for the date if you are broke.
Women will listen to 2.4 seconds of you mansplaining why you have not had any luck despite a crisply made bed and however much you bench press and your BMW and decide you don't get it. That is what's wrong.
There's no evidence of any biological drive for family life or having children. (There's a cultural norm for it, for sure.) There's a biological drive for sex, and that's all evolution needs to keep it going.
Wat?
I guess things like, I dunno, personality don’t matter for mate selection in your view…?
That would make users match more carefully and actually engage (or not) with existing matches.
Would also make the pool healthier.
> As can be seen in the table, using the app for casual sex and hookups was actually less common than these other motives.
But, were the star's alignment ever to change, I'm guessing that you'd be best of with a paid-for, 'serious', app like eHarmony, or OKCupid, right?
TBF, I did still connect with a couple people even with those options, but that's more because I pulled the slot machine lever enough than a credit to them. I wish they had better international options, even if they were locked behind the paid tier.
IIRC eHarmony didn't work either because it didn't even acknowledge Iceland as a place you could be, so I guess OKC has that leg up on them at least.
Mostly I'd like the ability to signal to the algorithm "I'm willing to consider relocating to these particular places if I meet someone who lives there."
Dating apps basically force men and women to make decisions on very superficial criteria. It's why the whole "I won't date men under 6 feet tall" thing started. Since women seem to have the problem of too many matches more than men do, they're the ones who get to invent the criteria.
There's so much more to attraction than pictures and a brief bio.
The impression I've gotten about modern dating (other than the terribly misguided sexual libertinism) is how lonely it all sounds. Plus, the whole shitting on marriage (and the families those marriages produce) that permeates the background assumptions of people like on this pod is like a superhighway to future unhappy bitterness for women (and men) who while away their reproductive years.
Apps like Tinder are obviously dystopian but even the "deeper" dating apps are kind of fucked up and vampiric. They assume the centrality of the self and prioritize self-fulfillment through finding optimally compatible mates. Good lord. There have been many happy marriages, but very few compatible ones. algorithmically optimizing for compatibility rather than complementarity and, frankly, productive discord (tending to future growth and harmony) is existentially suicidal for the individual and the species.
That's not to even go into the problems they create by aggressively imbalancing the distribution of sexual partners by tilting the playing field towards the high status male "players" and disenfranchising average males, thereby widening the sexual inequality gap. These are societally evil platforms.
And where are all the happy lifelong commitments? The good outcomes? Divorce rates for couples who met through dating apps are supposedly 5x those who met through friends. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their algorithms.
Marriage is so much more of a contribution to the social fabric than is pursuing personal sexual experience. No wonder these threads trace back to the Free Love movement. Slouching towards Bethlehem indeed.
I think many of the institutions that support meaningfully connecting with strangers in person are in decline.
Some of them are being out competed by isolating activities, like screens. Some of them are being recognized as philosophically unsound, like church.
Basically to not use them. Same thing we learned with a lot of other "social" services.