This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's not the sexual market -- or well, it may be, but the crappiness of dating apps doesn't show it. The problem with dating apps as a category is the incentives are all wrong. To keep making money you want to keep people paying, not pair them up.
Wouldn’t this be like saying the incentives for a physical therapist is to keep you injured and thus coming back for treatment? Doesn’t make sense to me, and I think the incentives for online dating is to dominate the dating landscape to the point where it’s the de facto way people meet. Successfully pairing up couples who then speak highly of online dating lines up with that incentive.
This is a perennial accusation against chiropractors.
The difference is chiropractors can't cure you, so they can't produce evidence that they're trying to help.
Whereas real doctors generally do cure people when physically possible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It would also be like saying that the incentives for drug dealers is to keep you addicted and thus coming back for more, even if it's damaging you.
It's important to remember societal expectation (and a certain degree of legal heft). I think if definitive proof emerged that dating apps were deliberately trying to promote a kind of shallow hook up culture at the expense of longer lasting relationships, people would be far less bothered than if it turned out there was a conspiracy among a large body of physios to keep their patients injured.
More options
Context Copy link
If they could get away with that, some of them would. But there are incentives the other way, like the insurance company not paying them for long, or the injured person noticing and quitting.
With dating, that doesn't work. People know online dating apps are hellscapes, but the alternative is Netflix and no chill, so they use them anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is wrong and also cope. On some level, every company has incentive to sell a defective product so that people keep coming back for more. In the real world, people get wise quick and leave.
There is no shortage of “uncool” places that women avoid for fear of being hit on by low-status men, yet Tinder has been around for ten years. It is in fact the place where the hot singles in your area hang out.
An incentive to sell a product which wears out or becomes obsolete. And there are counter-incentives. But the counter-incentives are mostly absent for dating apps, for various reasons. The free-for-customers model basically can't be used for a "durable" dating app, because the normal way you make money off more durable goods is by charging more for them. But to charge more for a "durable" dating app, you need to convince customers you actually are "durable". And you actually have to DO it, unless you're running a short-term scam. But to do all that, you need to get people to sign up (because you can't match people unless you have people to match)... and why would they? Who would sign up for a paid dating app? Mostly those desperate and striking out on the free ones... which means you'll get a lot of desperate men and a few desperate women, all probably with "issues", and you can't run your business with that material.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, dating apps clearly capture a small subset of the sexual market. Firstly, user numbers aren’t ‘that’ high compared to truly universal apps like Instagram which a substantial proportion of non-elderly people have. Tinder reports 75m “active” users worldwide. Depending on source maybe 20-30% of those users are women. Many of those women (I say from personal experience with my friends and women I know) never meet anyone from the app, it’s purely an attention button when they’re single through the ‘likes’ / swipes feature. Other occasionally text someone but don’t meet up. Of the women I know who have used Tinder, I’d estimate maybe 20% have actually dated or fucked someone they met on the app.
So again the relevant grouping shrinks. The population of Tinder and Bumble and Hinge who are having sex with people from the apps are largely a small, promiscuous sub-group that is unrepresentative of much of wider society. Even in gay society, which is much more promiscuous and has fewer inhibitions about sex, daily Grindr users are a minority, just three or four million worldwide on by far the top platform for gay hookups, when it’s likely at least a hundred million gay men live in countries where Grindr is the main gay hookup app. And indeed comprehensive surveys of the gay community find substantial numbers of older gay men in largely settled relationships; the specific world of the urban gay scene, white parties, gay clubs, Grindr, drag race fandom etc is a subset of a more more heterogenous community. 70% or more of gay men in some surveys have downloaded Grindr, but the number regularly hooking up on it is a tiny fraction of that.
What is really the case is that hookup apps, as open meat markets, capture the imagination of people interested in sex and dating (which is many people, I’d say), both becuase they’re very public and because they’re interesting - and, of course, because they represent a source of a lot of data. A huge amount of modern research on the sexual marketplace is based on the OkCupid stats released like a decade ago, for example. Collecting data is the single biggest burden by far in psychological research, especially if you’re not just studying college students.
The emphasis on a tiny proportion of highly promiscuous urbanites therefore heavily screws up our understanding of the romantic marketplace; average people are much more boring by comparison and require much more work to study.
Well, why not?
It’s obvious from the statistical and anecdotal data points that there is a substantial fraction of young women who are voluntarily choosing to stay single. I think knowing why they are doing this is the key to understanding the problem and potentially finding a solution (if one exists). Given that they are on apps at all, they must be at least “interested in sex and dating” as you say.
If the answer is that these women are fucking turbochad on the reg, or are minor chad’s side piece, then the incels are right and the solution is to crack down on all forms of heterosexual nonmonogamy.
If the answer is that these women would love to be in a relationship with guys who really exist and who would mutually agree, but matchmaking is the rate-limiting step, then Scott and friends are right and the solution is for Elon Musk to buy Tinder.
If the answer is that these women straight up do not want to be involved romantically or sexually with the men who fell the same about them, and have better quality of life single, then the solution is probably to go all-in on VR AI waifus and rev up the industrial baby-making factories to continue the species.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link