How Couples Meet | Hacker News Reader

How Couples Meet

web.stanford.edu

64 pointsrzk73 comments

Help me understand the advice I hear, "Forget about apps, take a class, or just talk to people, and a relationship will find you."

It would seem that it takes at least twice as much effort pursuing this strategy today than it did 20 years ago, it's only becoming worse. How is it justified?

Note: I'm happily married. The advice is a large proportion of what I read online when dating advice is given.

My suspicion is that this is (a) advice from people like us who got out of the dating pool before online dating came to dominate and don't have firsthand experience of how much things have changed in a short time period, and (b) wishful thinking from people who are looking at this trend and saying "it doesn't have to be like this; there's a better way to live..."

I think you are right. I also think the Internet magnifies conventional advice, because nobody gets attacked (by anyone they care about) for promoting conventional advice even when it's dead wrong.

I respectfully disagree, having grown up at a time when online dating became mainstream. Though some people might give this advice due to the motivations you've mentioned, I've also heard people share this opinion due to their poor experiences with online dating.

I've written more about this in another comment in this discussion, but I've known people who have had experiences where they were more likely to get stood up, broken up with unexpectedly, and especially ghosted from online dating versus by people they've met in-person. The process can also be draining for many people: I've talked to people who have been exhausted by regular rejection, or by spending lots of energy and time on bad dates (in contrast to dates that are likely to go better with people they've met in-person). They've then found themselves happier by dating people they've first met in-person, instead of online.

For a wider perspective, a 2023 US survey found that online dating has been positive for 53% of respondents, and negative for 46% [1]. So, people have had mixed experiences with online dating in general. I think online dating can work great for many people (I personally know a few people who've been very happy with their experiences), though it's not necessary for having a good relationship, nor a positive experience for many others.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi...

On some level, the apps are optimized to keep you coming back. Whether it is an explicit business strategy or an outcome of the algorithm optimizing for profit, it doesn't really matter. The customer and software company do not have aligned incentives.

99% of dating advice is survivorship bias.

The remaining 1% is "Be attractive, don't be unattractive"

First and foremost, it's probably because the advice was accurate 20 years ago, but advice doesn't go away just because it stops being true.

Secondly, if meeting online continually fails to work for you specifically, it's possible that it will continue to not work for you, and so looking into other options is probably a good idea.

I like to think that people who say this are really trying to adjust your behavior to make you a better candidate. Following that advice will make you come across as less desperate, it'll make you more interesting, it'll make you more practiced socializing, and if all else fails, it'll probably leave you more a more well single person than you otherwise would've been.

> but advice doesn't go away just because it stops being true.

yeah it kinda does. context is everything and 20 years ago is a wayyyy different time. MeToo and brutal gender politics have changed the landscape, and most of the younger folks I work or interact with -- discord, man -- have implied that they're struggling with meeting people, struggling with fear (of being accused of something, or fear of men accosting them), often short on cash, and living with their parents -- which makes bringing somebody home difficult.

in-person is always an option, but I get why people may not feel that way.

Sure, but people keep giving the same advice based on their lived experience. They have no way to receive signals that the ground truth has changed. Go ask a baby boomer what to do if you need a job, and there's a good chance they'll tell you to march into any local business, ask for a job, offer a firm handshake, "be willing to work hard and work your way up from the ground floor." Is that good advice? Not really, no, but it probably WAS good advice in 1965.

The online version is finding people through gaming, it seems like (which is happening somewhat frequently). So basically the same advice applies (find relationships not dates). To your point though it’s a sign of how off the beaten path we are that the most natural way to meet people is now one of the least accessible.

I half-jokingly say that what motivates many couples to stay committed in a time of hardship is the idea of the possibility of "fate."

Anecdotally, just within my social group, I've seen a trend of people deciding to avoid online dating and preferring to meet others in-person. There may be a tendency for people to break up more easily after meeting online and commit less to the relationship in tough times, in contrast to people they've met in-person—perhaps in part due to the idea that fate led them to meet each other.

I also know of a few couples who met online and have made it work. For one couple, they happened to meet by coincidence a couple times due to already having mutual friends, who have had a great relationship that continues to be strong. I have an intuition that these circumstances gave the relationship a sense of being special and difficult to replace (in addition to their personalities being a great fit), strengthening their commitment to each other.

The process of online dating can also be exhausting, from the accounts of a few people I've known who tried it for a while. Dating apps are often designed to be addictive to encourage you to check often: even then, the number of rejections or failed dates can also wear you down. In these ways, online dating for many users can be high-effort and draining.

Well, wouldn't it be similarly true that if it does take twice as much effort, and the advice is asked for and received online, that the person receiving or offering the advice is sufficiently more likely to spend that time not in those spaces?

Put another way, if it's twice as hard to meet someone in real life, couldn't it be because the single person is spending twice as much time away from real life, and their potential targets are doing the same, and subsequently wondering why it's so hard to meet people there?

Pretty hard to meet someone at the gym if you're spending all your time on Reddit asking for dating advice, and the rest in the bathroom swiping through tinder, meanwhile when you finally sign up you spend all your time with headphones on looking unapproachable.

If someone asked for my advice in the dating world, it sure as hell wouldn't be "spend more time on the Internet, and relationships will happen" despite this shitty chart indicating that's how some percentage of recent couples have met

Here's an alternative perspective: the low activation energy and addictive design has resulted in people crowding into the dating app strategy (to their own detriment).

If this is true, real-world approaches might be a better strategy than they historically have been.

There's a poll that indicated most young women want to be approached more: https://datepsychology.com/risk-aversion-and-dating/

approached more... by whom? what does that person look like?

and where? there used to be 3rd places, community events (church, etc.), etc., where this could happen.

i mean i'd like more good looking people hitting on me at convenient times, too

There used to be churches, indeed. I can look over my screen and see one about thirty yards away.

Apart from churches, there are quite a few community events and activities I can think of that could draw on the unattached: tree plantings, park cleanups (I know there will be one in my neighborhood on Earth Day), tutoring, soup kitchens, etc.

The good thing is that you spend that time doing something you like or learning a new skill, and might also make friends. You also filter for partners who are interested in the same things as you.

The bad thing is that a lot of people read that advice, and many communities are ruined by men who use them as a dating pool. This is a well-documented phenomenon.

I think that the broader advice - to put yourself out there - is still valid. Going out, doing stuff, organizing stuff and meeting new people means occasionally getting a date too.

This has all lead to:

> Massively increased benefit in possessing high physical attractiveness

> Reduced relative benefit of close/serendipitous physical proximity

> A "winner takes all" effect where highly sought promiscuous men can dominate the dating market with minimal consequences/overhead

> Pervasive analysis paralysis and a sense of a better match being easily accessible, reducing investment in one's current partner

Can you explain the "winner takes all" effect here?

At second glance, time and partner exclusivity seem to be be limiting factors. So I'm not exactly seeing an "all" consequence.

Do you have any napkin math regarding distribution differences that would support your argument?

I don't know how accurate this is, but recent statistics show that far more men self-report as single compared to women in the US, by as much as tens of percentage points if I recall.

It looks like the answer is "it depends." Particularly, on how categories are compared.

There does seem to be a big gap with young people, but overall, the gap is four percentage points. The gap is also much bigger among LGB men vs LBG women which as an aside is interesting in and of itself.

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valen...

The <30 category is a whopping 30% and more relevant to the subject.

The difference in "LGB" categories can be explained by the fact that women are an order of magnitude more likely to self-report as bisexual than men.

Basically, extremely attractive men can fuck and dump their way through half the population of women in their area via online dating, leaving a trail of bitter women, while average guys get nothing and also become bitter.

I'm not quite grasping the sequence of events your describing. This is your experience as an attractive man or a bitter woman?

Tom Brady is currently dating all 30 million single women in the US at the moment.

Countdown has begun for Brady's first girlfriend younger than his NFL career

Leo DeCaprio sure is trying. But only if they're under 25

Doesn't one company own almost all the dating apps in the US? That seems... potentially problematic.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. But you're totally right. We hum and haw about Tik Tok - but we don't generally give them any information other than our scrolling (behavioural data). Dating apps have a ton more detailed information on individuals (dating preferences, age, specific geographic locations). But I suppose IAC (Barry Diller) and MTCH are US-owned.

Interesting article on the founders: https://jewishjournal.com/mobile_20111212/132669/

Boring short article that names three Tinder founders and adds no other founder details other than two claim to attend their parents’ Shabbat dinner tables every Friday.

The 'rest' describes using Tinder.

you're trending towards 60% of people meeting online via dating apps - which have the wrong incentives and have massive trust issues for couples. and btw match group has like 80% share of the dating app market.

and dating apps are brutal to the average guy.

now remove the option of meeting spouses via work. -- metoo

then add the situation of people working remotely, and finding jobs in places they didn't grow up. which means they're less likely to find spouses through friends - as one they can't easily make friends of the opposite sex due to sheer limitation in opportunity through the decimation of 3rd spaces.

what you simply have is a sure way to depopulate a population and cause frustration on everyone.

It's pretty damning when people are creating text documents and sharing them online because dating websites are such overcapitalized garbage.

There's less people meeting at bars and clubs too, especially among the younger generations who either don't drink or can't afford to.

Apparently women don't like being approached anymore either.

As a single person I am very confused about how this is all supposed to work.

The percentage of women who respond to a direct approach has been pretty bad for a while, you really have to be smooth to make it work. The "meet cute" angle is easier - i.e. fortuitously bumping into a woman in some way or striking up a conversation spontaneously about shared circumstances. Most women are open to that sort of meeting if it feels natural, but then you have to have some sort of routine for "spontaneously" striking up a conversation so it's not without its drawbacks.

Meeting spouses via work isn't dead. Just dating people whom you have power over on the org structure. You can't date your N-1 or N-2 etc, but you can still date someone in an adjacent group just fine.

Which honestly seems reasonable. Working in restaurants in rural areas I constantly saw managers removing shifts from women who wouldn't date them, and were very pushy/controlling over all the women they had reign over. There weren't many other jobs for most of these women - high unemployment areas.

Nah, it’s trivial to get #metoo’d out of a job dating someone even in another department now a days.

The hierarchy thing is definitely a thing, that’s a fireable offense even without false allegations.

But false allegations will take someone out pretty easily regardless.

Really interesting to try and think through what led to these trends.

"Met through friends" took an absolute nosedive, but at the same time, "met in bars and restaurants" has been steadily growing for the last 20 years. Why? Perhaps many of those are actually people who meet online but are embarrassed about it and choose "met in a bar" because it sounds better in some way?

It's probably a good thing that "meet as coworkers" has been on a decline.

Also, given that these surveys, HCMST 2009 and 2017, were internet surveys, using subjects who were regular internet survey subjects in an established panel, I wonder if it is perhaps biased towards users who are very comfortable using the internet.

If I had to explain the bar-and-restaurant figure, I would guess that all the methods that are growing (the bar scene and then Internet dating scene) privilege physical attraction over other factors.

These are all good points. For the last one, there is a separate study by Pew Research Center conducted in 2022 (reported in 2023), which likely reduces this bias by recruiting respondents by sending physical mail "to a stratified, random sample of households" that invites them to complete an online survey: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi...

Pew's results were different than the findings by Rosenfeld et al.: while 53% of people aged 18–29 in the US "have ever used a dating site or app," only 20% of partnered people aged 18–29 reportedly met their current partner "on a dating site or app" (I've also made a similar comment elsewhere in this discussion).

Some more context:

https://profiles.stanford.edu/michael-rosenfeld

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-w...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31431531/

To add a different, independent study for more context on the same topic, Pew Research Center ran a survey conducted in 2022 and reported in 2023 about online dating in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi...

In contrast to Rosenfeld et al.'s research, Pew reported that 53% of people aged 18–29 "have ever used a dating site or app," but only 20% of partnered people aged 18–29 met their current partner "on a dating site or app," though this statistic does not include "those who did not give an answer."

I think some distinction like met online or met through friends may be misleading but i don't have the context. For example, dating people you meet within online niche communities where most people are friends. This is much different than swiping on an app

Definitely need to distinguish between "met through a dating app/site" and "met online otherwise".

the truly terrifying trend is that "met through friends" is cratering. Are we so selfish that we don't introduce friends to potential partners? Are we too jaded about our friend's suggestions?

People have fewer friends than they used to.

That has a twofold effect:

- You have fewer friends to recommend

- you don’t want to risk the fallout from a bad recommendation affecting the small group that you do have

I've noticed a trend where people are reluctant to allow their friend groups to mix or cross. I've got probably an above-average number of friends, but the number of friends-of-friends I've met in the last three or four years is in single digits.

I think it's because they're carefully managing their persona in each group and don't want to have to explain the multiple facets of their personality. But I don't really know.

> I think it's because they're carefully managing their persona in each group

This is a great point. If that's the root cause the cratering makes sense, it's (scientifically) known that the most stable relationships exist between two people who have one or a few friends in common but who introduce subsets of friend groups to each other.

Yup, also because if someone starts going nuts in one group, it can easily cross contaminate into another and then you’re in an even bigger mess.

That can be sort of easily explained without selfishness/people being jaded.

Anecdotally speaking, I've met all of my friends through school/university/work, and all the friend groups I know of (so mine and my friend's) are basically same sex.

I don't think this is a coincidence. Getting education in tech, there were 1-2 girls in my class, by the time I've graduated it was one. Basically same at work.

So, neither I nor people I know have female friends to introduce others to.

Not sure if the situation is the same for women, but probably somewhat similar.

Also, approaching people is being seen as impolite in more situations these days, so less of that is happening.

What about meeting through any interest group? E.g. CrossFit, Climbing, underwater basket weaving? Just a little confused where those would end up on this chart?

It was sports for us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34518784

(and as far as I can tell there are just as many young fit people still doing sport as there were in our time, so I'm guessing this'd fall under "friends" by their coding?)

The amount of people I know in their mid-20s who are (relatively) well-adjusted and successful and can't find a partner is astounding. Being very introverted and with a low sex drive, the current dating landscape seems insurmountable.

Introverted is likely the real problem. You have to be able to comfortably talk to a complete stranger in sometimes pretty uncomfortable circumstances. There are tons of people out there for whom a low sex drive isn't an issue.

The chart can be misleading, because it's missing a crucial data point: the % of the heterosexual population who are in a couple. My understanding is that this % has also declined over the years, which would make the decline in "met through friends", "met in school", and "met through family" look even worse. Also, given that we don't know the % of the coupled population, the chart can't tell us whether the % of the population who met their significant other in a bar or restaurant has increased, stayed the same, or even decreased.

It might be all well and good if other forms of meeting were simply replaced by online dating with no loss, but I think there has been a significant decline in couplehood.

Has the overall number of couples shifted?

Is that spike in “online” resulting in more people pairing off that’d otherwise be single, or is it actually cannibalizing the other modes?

I met online but not through dating apps. Any place you talk to strangers is a chance to find someone. People have been known to meet through World of Warcraft. I met through Discord. Lots of LGBT activity on VRChat. All this chart is saying is more people talk to strangers online than offline, I guess. Is that shocking? It's a chance to find people outside your physical bubble.

So, I think this chart is missing important details that lead to bad conclusions. Like, you could even meet at hobby events.

Are you completely out if you don't like to date online?

Looking at the graph, 55% of "met online" means 45% met not online.

IMHO absolutely not, it just means that you value other things that you can't find in online dating. Don't get discouraged by graphs like this, because they approach the topic in a statistical way but you just need to meet _one_ person to form a couple!

The chart shows 45% of couples meeting outside of online dating...

I would have expected "Met in bar or restaurant" to be much higher in the 40s, and to have tracked with "Met in church" for longer.

I think it's super fascinating and unexpected to have passed "met through friends" which I would have guessed would still be a strong mechanism. I definitely find the relationships I've started with friends of friends were always stronger and lasted longer due to the social momentum and both having more "skin in the game" than ones I started with random people from online. The biggest problem is the friends of friends pool is far more fixed and people tend to be hesitant to introduce people at the risk of creating possible conflicts within friend groups. The online line shooting up is sad because I feel like my experience on the common dating apps has only gotten worse over time. That may also be attributable to me just getting older too confoundingly.

I seems especially puzzling that "met in a bar or restaurant" is the only other (non-online) response that trends upward post-2000. Why would that be the case? It almost makes me wonder whether "we met in a bar" is a common response from people who are embarrassed to say they met online...

I would guess bars and restaurants are (relative to young single incomes) much cheaper than they were in the 40s

The second bump in online dating, around 2012, was Tinder (I guess). But what caused the first one around 1995? IRC? Generic websites...?

Match.com was founded in 1993.

Looking at this I'm thinking we need a new hit sitcom like friends. Friends is hopelessly outdated.

Interesting that there's no "we met in a club option" while most of my teenage and twenties were spent, foolishly, in clubs trying to "mate" haha.

If you mean nightclubs, I assume they're covered by "bars and restaurants".

23% of couples are technically also correct but too embarrassed to say they met online. /s

Met in bar is up, but also the occurrence of large groups of friends going to bars/clubs together is also high, so there's gotta be some "met thru friends" still going on there to some degree

Reply on news.ycombinator.com