faceh
5hr ago
The lack of ANY kind of reputation system built into the apps... and the ad hoc attempts to create one anyway (remember the Tea app?) gives away problem, yeah.
The app companies don't want to spend money to build up the whole system that would be required to litigate whether someone who didn't show up for a date had a valid excuse or whether this guy was stringing multiple women along with no intent to commit.
And they probably correctly presume that such a system would, itself, get gamed by certain parties to gain advantages in the app. But they do not admit that people are already gaming the hell out of the existing structure of the apps to everyone's detriment.
faceh
5hr ago
Yep.
I optimized for a world where you generally had pre-selection of the people you dated because you knew them via your own social circles already.
Then I adjusted for the world where, okay, you don't know them, but you can at least consciously target your efforts towards people you expect you'd get along with and ignore the rest.
But the current world there's no way to optimize when all the information/feedback you'd need to actually adjust your approach is locked in the black box of the app, and you absolutely CANNOT trust women to accurately explain what appeals to them.
faceh
5hr ago
The fact is that almost every matchmaker I can find with a public-facing profile isn't trumpeting their success rate from the rooftops. And that is a strong signal. Or anti-signal.
If you were able to get even 50% of your clients married within a year of working with you, that would be FANTASTIC. I'd write a check for $10k on the spot.
There's no possible excuse for:
A) not tracking that stat
B) Not disclosing it (it certainly isn't hurting your clients' interests)
Strangely, they never respond when I point out this lack of transparency.
the girl essentially broke it off saying that this was their last rodeo before they finally went monogamous with a guy they'd been seeing for 2-3 months and that situation is unnavigable without somebody getting blindsided.
Relatively recently I hit it off with a girl I met in person. Got her number, exchanged texts, had a good rapport going which included her sending 'good morning' messages. Which I personally thought was a little forward, but I could roll with it.
Just shy of three weeks into the conversation, on Valentines Day, she just drops, out of nowhere, that she has a boyfriend who was taking her out and had got her flowers, the whole shebang. Not a word of this breathed beforehand.
This is the sort of thing that would have spun me for a massive loop a few years ago. Now, as you say, its sort of unsurprising to find out that you were being held in the back pocket while some other player was being auditioned. Even so, this one felt very '0 to 100 in 5 seconds' in terms of reveals. I can't compete effectively if I don't have any idea what the competition even is.
People using others as instruments for their own emotional fulfillment whilst knowing there's no intent to proceed further is hands-down the worst behavior one encounters regularly out there these days.
As of about two weeks ago they broke up and she's giving off signs of spiraling.
Not too sure what to make of that.
faceh
8hr ago
Several of my good friends have recently landed LTRs via friend-of-friends or, in one case, a former co-worker.
But it is indeed a risk that can blow up the larger friend group.
There's still the salient issue of actually catching one of these people when they're actually single, the window is still rather small.
And that guy who hangs around the friend group, pining after one of the other members, lying in wait for her current relationship to fail is kind of a wretched state of being.
faceh
8hr ago
Add on that these guys get the most practice at identifying the women who are vulnerable to this approach and thus the most skill at correctly timing and exploiting the opening.
They become adept at hunting a particularized type of prey, and as long as that prey is around in sufficient numbers, will find regular success, even if they'd strike out with 90% of other women 99% of the time.
faceh
8hr ago
It'd be trivially easy to provide some links so we can make an objective comparison over some directly comparable figures for the 'corruption' that has occurred 'in our lifetime.'
I bet an LLM could put together the data in <5 minutes.
Is there a reason you don't even do that sort of effort when you seemingly have such a passionate belief in the claim?
Just wondering.
There are First Amendment issues, but they are GREATLY reduced in the Business sphere.
If banning the apps is off the table, my proposal would be to force every app to disclose their 'success rates.' In bold print. Every time you click into the app.
"Here's the % of our male users who get matches. Here's the % who actually get dates. Here's the % who ended up in relationships with people they met on the app."
This should really be a basic consumer protection practice. If you're paying for some special membership or feature that is alleged to increase your chances, you should be entitled to know what your baseline chances are.
I laugh every time I read Hinge saying "Sending a rose is 2x more likely to result in a date!"
TWO TIMES WHAT? 2 x 1% is not a good deal. You are denying me relevant information in order to fool me into parting with my money.
With Casino games, there's at least the requirement that the games be 'fair' and post their objective odds so players can know what they're getting into.
If you're gamifying the dating game, posting odds seems like the least you can do.
faceh
22hr ago
I'm sorry to hear that you're struggling. Dating is genuinely hard these days, and I'm not denying that -- I just think that the imputation of active malice to women is factually incorrect.
hahaha I don't impute malice, honestly.
But it seems objectively undeniable that women are not great at selecting for men who will commit to them long term, and many of them are ignorant of their own role in their repeated failures to secure commitment (e.g. fleeing the moment a guy seems to be willing to commit).
The whole thing about anxious, avoidant, dismissive, its usually based in some psychological issues that have gone uncorrected. By and large I sympathize with women who are struggling due to these mental illnesses after we've torn down the framework that might have guided them to either get the help they need or at least manage to find a man who can tolerate their eccentricity and encourage healing.
I think the average woman really needs some external pressure to actually pick and 'settle' on a guy and someone who can help her effectively vet and filter the guys.
Normally this would be her family, esp. her father.
The apps usurped this role... while not actually fulfilling the aforementioned requirement. They do NOT pressure women to settle (the opposite: "your next swipe might reveal prince charming! keep trying!") and they do a horrendous job filtering, and honestly give more advantages to the sociopathic males than the normal ones.
I happily and squarely blame those who maintain these apps for the conditions we find ourselves in, but I do point out that our unwillingness to do anything that might upset or displease women as a class as to why we're stuck here.
faceh
1d ago
I mean, I had a significant LTR with a woman, met her through OKCupid, built quite a bit of a life with her.
That ended badly for reasons that I came to realize were related to her deep, unaddressed anxieties. But for a couple years there it felt like it was going great. I know what it feels like to fall asleep beside someone and wake up next to them hundreds and hundreds of times.
That part of my psychology means I can't find real fulfillment in casual flings or just using someone for sex. The deeper intimacy is missing. I'm aware of how nice it is to be with someone who feels compatible and expresses affection and in theory wants you to be happy too, and now I can't accept less.
And I'm agonized by how hard it is to find and secure that nowadays. It took me about six months on the market, including the dating apps, to meet that one. A few more months to commit my trust to the relationship.
Now, its been years of trying for a new thing, and I've encountered just about every other failure mode and false start you could imagine. And that's why its so odd, if women don't want to be on dating apps like you say, that they also don't like to behave in the ways that would actually lock down a partner, but instead make the process painful for both themselves and the men they encounter, for no apparent gain.
faceh
1d ago
do literally the exact opposite of everything you have been doing. Roll out the red carpet for him, make his life easy and eschew the attention you receive from other men;
That's the big one.
Most guys are aware that a woman will have a dozen other prospects in their phone at any given time. You CAN'T get attached to that person, b/c her cost of swapping you out for another is minimal. You become aloof because that's what the game theory says you have to do. She can defect at any time, and she can't be punished for doing so, don't be the chump who cooperates too early.
Costly shows of effort and interest that demonstrate she's not entertaining other men is how you'd actually know she's serious and not as likely to leave on a whim (alas, it takes 5 minutes for her to set up a dating profile, so you're never truly safe).
And no, that doesn't count just sleeping with him, since there's no direct cost to THAT anymore. Be pleasant, show appreciation, make him feel like he is important to you, and he's already yours.
What's interesting is I think women know (or ought to know) that this is a male desire/fantasy, you can find certain genres of softcore porn that emphasize the woman being pleasant and affectionate and doting and caring for a guy with sexual desire as an undertone. The blackpill is that you can easily get a woman to act this way if you pay for it directly in hour-long increments. Which tells you both that many women don't want to act this way for a man, naturally, and perhaps worse many are able to convincingly fake it anyway.
faceh
1d ago
I simply do not believe that most matchmakers are actually good at their jobs (especially given the larger culture they're working in) to give them money I could spend on either improving my status or actually taking out a woman I was interested in.
I stop short of calling them scams (they surely DO provide matches) but they're not solving the issue of women believing they have infinite optionality, which is simply a symptom of having access to dating apps at all.
faceh
1d ago
The 'nearest' prospect that showed up with the maximum range was across the state.
30 miles, for me, encompasses my town and the 3 nearest towns, any further than that and its a real commitment to drive out to meet someone.
faceh
1d ago
Took me five minute to sign up and there are absolutely zero people meeting my criteria in a 30 miles radius.
faceh
1d ago
Be braced for misery my guy.
No point in sugar coating it. Just realize its not really a 'you' thing.
It sucks because you rarely ever learn any useful lessons out of it either, because there's no reason for things ending other than "brain said to run so I ran."
You don't learn to be a better partner, you just get left wondering if you were inadequate.
What helped me a lot was keeping tabs on these women for long enough that I could see that it wasn't me, they did this to every guy. I actually had an interesting realization that of all the women I dated seriously... only one of them has managed to get into a stable relationship, so realistically I probably couldn't have made any of those situations work on my own efforts.
But also means I've been pretty bad at selecting good partners.
And finally, the thing I really hate is when I meet a girl whose personality is a really close match to my ideal and is physically attractive, but I immediately clock her as anxious or avoidant and I ultimately learn that she had a bad experience with a controlling, abusive, or promiscuous/sociopathic dude who has basically ruined her pair-bonding capability. And I agonize over the "what ifs" I had met her earlier before the damage was done.
faceh
1d ago
Well yes and no.
If ALL you had to go on was physical appearance, then yeah you zero in on the pure 'hottest' and drop from there.
But OKCupid in its prime let you get granular and find someone who was 'hot' in the way you actually prefer, and would have enough preferences in common that you could actually expect a positive interaction.
And of course it let you identify various dealbreakers easily so you didn't waste time.
These days I basically can only snap judge someone based on whether they have a nose ring or they have aggressively liberal politics mentioned on their profile.
That is essentially both OKC, Hinge, and hundreds of other matchmaking services pitch too.
Nah I think that's the hilarious thing. The sales pitch of swipe apps is "we'll connect you with so many people! The possibilities are (theoretically) endless!" and they never explicitly promise those connections are likely to go anywhere.
The bait is the theoretical ability to find that perfect match amongst the detritus... whilst denying you the tools necessary to do so.
They avoid any, call it 'liability' for providing 'bad' matches because hey, you're the one swiping on these people, we're just putting them profile in front of you. But if it DOES work out somehow be sure to thank us because but for us that connection wouldn't have happened!
faceh
1d ago
Yep.
I've become ACUTELY prescient at noticing when someone is anxious-avoidant or worse, just straight up dismissive. Me, I'm mildly anxious (have gotten a lot better) and very secure once basic trust is established. It takes a lot of effort to maintain that, since one scary thing is that secure-attachment people can be shifted over to avoidant and anxious if they have enough bad experiences with the other types.
So the secure types become a rarer and rarer type to find because they're either pairing off or getting ruined by having a handful of bad relationships that failed on them.
I'm semi-comfortable with the anxious types, I don't mind giving reassurances to them that the relationship is strong... but there's always going to be some incident that 'confirms' their fears and causes them to cut it off when they think that things are about to go south.
The ones where the avoidant person is trying to withdraw and the other party is trying to chase and secure their commitment is maybe the worst dynamic on a meta level, because it can remain stable for quite a while but its burning out both parties as it continues. I remember straight up telling one girl "look, its one thing to want men to chase you... but you have to be willing to be caught and its clear you are not."
And the pernicious one is the avoidant who is mostly aware they're avoidant, and keeps trying to establish relationships with people then withdrawing suddenly, closing off all contact as if the connection never existed, and move on relatively quickly. That one hurts.
This is apparently a pattern with some women. Fire up a dating app, stick around long enough to find a nice enough dude, delete the app, date for a bit, freak out and break it off, stay single and get lonely after a bit, then repeat.
“Once I hit the age of 40, I’m not taking any new calls… No, I don’t want to know you, I don’t want to meet you, no; I don’t care about you; leave me alone…” That was about the age he just wanted to officially stop everything, consolidate his gains and what he’s made for himself in life, call it quits and live out the rest of his days in peace.
Can't lie, I'm contemplating that deadline myself, in my late 30's.
Every failed connection or relationship that goes nowhere unfortunately makes me bayesian update towards the likelihood that I'll just never find someone that I can make it work with.
Thing is my drive isn't dwinding yet. I'm not feeling 'old' by any means yet. I still feel vital and effective and the misery is coming from trying to encounter someone whose interests and values align when most of those interests and values are selected against by the default overculture.
There's an odd disconnect these days. I'm able to attract women... but I'm less interested in playing the games and I'm better able to perceive the immediate disqualifying factors. The women I have available are not bad people but I don't expect that anything I initiate between us would last... so why toy around with each other?
I can sustain my current life routine indefinitely (until AI disruption finally hits) and every foray I make into the dating market gives me yet more reasons to stay out of it.
faceh
1d ago
Yes, there legitimately should be no need for the 'matchmaker' role at all, if they let you search with the precision that I'd like.
Imagine if Google, instead of returning an array of results that are mostly responsive to your query, it showed you a snapshot of some webpage that sort of matches your general interests, and then makes you swipe through each one individually. A large enough database with a powerful enough search function shouldn't need a middleman I have to pay to find and access the result I want.
I think the appeal of Keeper is the promise of basically "one and done" being a real possibility rather than a whole process, so if you're really to in the mood for going through the process for months on end, they give you a shortcut.
faceh
1d ago
As stated by @orthoxerox, OkCupid was very close.
You answered a bunch of interesting questions, and you'd search for people who answered those questions in ways that indicated they would be compatible, then winnow from there.
There was a lengthy profile sections so people could put quite a bit of info about themselves if they wished.
And, the killer function, you could actually search and filter from the pool in a given area to zero in on ones that seemed most promising. It was more like spearfishing rather than sticking your bait out there and seeing who nibbled.
It was FAR from perfect in terms of actually generating dates, but I know multiple people who met spouses there.
I myself met the Ex that I almost married on there. Granted, it was because we both happened to be online at 2 a.m., me because I had gotten stood up by a different date. Timing/luck was a huge factor.
When I came back to it years later after my breakup, it had already been converted to a Tinder-style swipe app... as has EVERY OTHER APP.
The visible parts of the dating market are promiscuous women and women with low sex drive. In the past the concepts of "putting out", "marital duty" obscured this dynamic, but modern women have been brought up knowing they don't owe anyone sex and don't have to hide their (dis)interest.
Generalize that further.
The people who are visible on the dating market are often 'broken' in some way that makes their ability to maintain long-term relationships much more stunted (especially under modern conditions).
The ones who are capable of stable pair-bonding and are generally normal in terms of attractiveness, life-put-togetherness, from happy families, are by sheer definition, the ones most likely to get locked in to a stable relationship early and not leave. The pool, at any given time, is mostly inhabited by the broken and you have to get lucky to chance onto a viable partner in their brief period of availability.
It creates a double-sided Market for Lemons as people learn to expect the worst from each given encounter and thus are ever less willing to extend commitment or effort to the next person.
So don't limit it just to promiscuity and libido, include emotional stability and familial instincts and generally being 'sane' enough to envision a committed relationship with that person. If the person is aware that they're broken, they even have an incentive to hide that from potential matches, so there's already a layer of suspicion going in.
In terms of promiscuous women, I think that they get the focus because sexual availability is one of the few things that's relatively easy to sus out in short order, and if you've decided you're unlikely to find a life partner anytime soon, getting sex in the meantime is a consolation prize of sorts. Or a self-esteem booster.
This is an issue that the dating apps not only haven't solved, they've exacerbated.
They give you less up front information than you'd need to make a solid judgment, they disallow searching out specific characteristics and they show you people at seemingly random that you know almost nothing about other than they, too, have been unable to secure commitment.
It enrages me. I know with precision the qualities I'm looking for. I know what qualities I want to avoid. I'm acutely aware how rare these positive qualities are, DOUBLY so among those who are still single. So I want to be given tools to zero in on these people more directly, and not absorb the waste of time and additional risk of figuring out if this person who deigned to match with me is sane or not, whilst operating on the assumption they are not. When the person I'm searching for is so unique, the search tools need to be powerful. And search is, on the technology side, a solved problem, I should be able to pluck my potential partners out of the ether with ease.
But this is simply not a thing you are allowed to do in the current era.
I think it is at least fair to define "corruption" as something that explicitly involves using one's political authority, which the people 'entrusted' to you, for personal enrichment in a way that is actively detrimental to your constituency. Which differentiates it from 'merely' "shady business practices" that one would find in the private sector.
I don't think anyone can truly level 'corruption' charges at politicians or government officials who publish tell-all books. But there are clearly ways to use that as an avenue for corruption.
And when it comes to the insider trading, I'm not sure I'd call it 'corrupt' to make trades on your own investment account when you know legislation has passed that will likely cause market movements in a certain direction. I WOULD call it corrupt to influence the passage of legislation specifically to improve your own portfolio.
Maybe we can't disentangle those enough to matter.
Now, I'm less tolerant of the practice of "hey donate X million dollars to my family's non-profit org and I'll make some solid efforts to get that favorable bill passed."
Trump sort of skirts this definition at times because he clearly has his personal/business identity... which is 'separate' from his political identity. But he certainly borrows the aura from his political authority as a means of boosting his business interests.
Here's a few actions of his that I could consider corrupt:
(But I remember Biden's pardon and commutation spree in his last weeks in office, so there's some broader context to consider)
Directing government contracts to Friends or family members in a way that explicitly skips the normal process and/or inflates the costs.
Using Governmental agencies to prosecute business rivals or silence otherwise lawful critics.
What's kind of funny is that Trump does like to initiate lawfare against his opponents, but he more often just sues them like any private citizen would instead of getting some random gov't agency to go after the targets of his ire.
What sort of actions has he taken that might fit well with such a list?
More options
Context Copy link