It would be nice if the article actually substantiated any of the claims made. As it is, it looks more like an advertisement for 1 psychologist's book. Particularly the title seems to be just a...
It would be nice if the article actually substantiated any of the claims made. As it is, it looks more like an advertisement for 1 psychologist's book. Particularly the title seems to be just a clickbait for what is discussed very little and is almost entirely lacking in any supporting evidence. Hating on dating apps is a very popular thing online, but they're almost entirely bound to the way the users use them. In the end, just like you need to dress a certain way to a fancy party, you need to present yourself a certain way on dating apps. It's just another space for people to meet with its own norms and traditions. This has little to do with evolution in my opinion, like the article states throughout.
I wonder how this was measured: "Women cull 95% of their pool from first impressions, making them almost twice as picky online as they would be in real life." How many percent do we "cull" in real...
It would be nice if the article actually substantiated any of the claims made.
I wonder how this was measured: "Women cull 95% of their pool from first impressions, making them almost twice as picky online as they would be in real life." How many percent do we "cull" in real life then? Out of what group exactly? In what circumstances? I mean, is this about saying no when someone asks you out and if it is, then it's not comparable to swiping left before you even know if they would be interested, while looking at a set of data points about them, some of which are probably dealbreakers.
...I went back to check the article and there's actually a reference to a study that compared short-term and long-term relationships. I can't access the study and I don't understand how the journalist drew this conclusion from it.
I think I found a PDF, if you're still interested. Google Scholar and Sci-Hub sometimes have paywalled articles. In a (very) quick look I'm not really seeing anything like the "online = twice as...
I can't access the study...
I think I found a PDF, if you're still interested. Google Scholar and Sci-Hub sometimes have paywalled articles.
In a (very) quick look I'm not really seeing anything like the "online = twice as picky" claim or any focus on online behavior. Looks like MTurk surveys for some patterns in romantic interest over time (which is measured in events instead of days, which they acknowledge might be a bit skewed).
The closest might be table 6 for meeting context, the prevalence, and whether it led to affairs or long-term or short-term relationships?
Out of what group exactly?
Yeah, not sure what the pool of real life relationship candidates would be, or what culling would look like. Everyone you make two seconds of eye contact with? I was taught to never end a sentence with a proposition.
Thanks for the link! I took a fairly thorough look but there's absolutely nothing that I can see to inform such a claim as the article makes. Table six depicts past relationships and I guess it...
Thanks for the link! I took a fairly thorough look but there's absolutely nothing that I can see to inform such a claim as the article makes.
Table six depicts past relationships and I guess it could be used as a guideline for the outcomes attainable via different meeting contexts. (Except that the study cohort isn't large or diverse enough at all, and the other issue is that still ongoing relationships aren't included, but whatever.) But it tells us absolutely nothing about how "picky" women were when deciding whether or not to date someone.
In fact, this study looks at relationship development even before anyone picked anyone. They criticise other studies for not taking into account that some key events often occur before the parties have actually decided to form a relationship - for example, you may meet someone at work, think nothing in particular of them at the time, and four years later it develops into a relationship. This study observes and includes everything that happened during those four years.
The only plausible reference point that I can find is figure E on page 92, where it appears that close to 50% of the participants experienced "desire to carefully evaluate" their (potential) partner in the very beginning. Colloquially, it sounds similar to "being picky". Could the journalist's logic be so far fetched as to say "On the apps, women are being 95% picky and in this study, only about 48% picky, which is only half as picky"? I know it makes no sense but that's the only numerical piece of information I could find that represents half of 95%. XD
TL;DR / addendum: The article appears to profess the common but unhelpful dichotomy of chemistry vs. criteria-based partner selection, claiming that chemistry counts more and as it can't be...
TL;DR / addendum:
The article appears to profess the common but unhelpful dichotomy of chemistry vs. criteria-based partner selection, claiming that chemistry counts more and as it can't be measured via an app, the apps are useless. IMO, both approaches can be severely misguided. Chasing chemistry can land you in a toxic relationship and chasing the wrong criteria can land you in an endless loop of fruitless searching.
I believe these are both important facets of a happy relationship. I have found the apps very useful in finding someone that fits my criteria, and I find that my set of criteria does lead me to connections that are both happy and lasting (if it didn't, I would work on calibrating the set). The chemistry bit has almost always emerged over time when the rest of the criteria has been there. Sometimes quickly, other times less so, but only one time it didn't emerge at all and that was my first serious relationship with someone I wouldn't consider compatible if I met them now. So I'd say my criteria just weren't well enough calibrated yet.
__
I read about half of this article. I think it falls victim to the same mindset as the misguided dating folk it describes.
Yes, some people lose sight of what's really important when an app nudges them to pay attention to the wrong things, and/or emphasise the wrong things in their own profile (I believe this is intentional on the service provider side). But it's silly to go so far as to say "The apps prioritise good looks and gender stereotypes". The app is not a conscious entity. We users are still able to choose our priorities, choose what we communicate about ourselves, and ignore anything that doesn't fit what we want. If it's true that some people look for things that don't actually matter to them, I doubt that they'll change the tune even if they got off the apps. It goes deeper than that I'm afraid.
The author makes unhelpful sweeping generalisations:
While men swipe right on about 50% of their prospects, women cull 95% of their pool from first impressions, making them almost twice as picky online as they would be in real life.
I spent most of last year on the apps, and every serious relationship in my past also started on an app or a dating site. I like less than 1% of the profiles I see. But I don't even look at the photos - I swipe based on text. And in real life, I'm a great deal more picky!
The reason I like the apps: someone who knows who they are and how to accurately convey that so that the message registers more or less correctly in another human being's brain (or maybe just my brain, as someone compatible with them) saves me a ton of time getting through the initial boring stages of getting to know them. There aren't many of these people around, but every now and then one comes along. After that it's just a matter of confirming compatibility - the very thing the author claims can't be gauged via the apps. While that is true to some extent, it is absolutely possible to find people whose likelihood of being compatible is a lot higher than perhaps anyone you could meet in real life. That has at least been the case for me. Especially when I've already weeded out the easily detectable dealbreakers like kids, age bracket, politics, geography, religion, etc. This would be tedious as hell to do in real life but happens in an instant on the apps.
I agree with the claim that friendship-based relationships are where real happiness lies. But there's no reason why you can't find this on the apps. The first thing I always pay attention to is whether I can become good friends (over time) with the person. Admittedly, not many people on the apps are willing to take things slow enough to really get a good idea, but that's just one more compatibility factor to consider. Not many people my age are child free either. Or possess many of the other (mental) qualities I really need in a partner to be happy. That doesn't matter because I'm not trying to form a relationship with a large number of people. All it takes is ONE single individual person who is compatible enough.
I live in a small enough place and spend my days in such environments that I wouldn't have met any of the significant people in my life if it wasn't for the apps. You have to be mindful about how you use them, and have patience. It also helps to realise the apps are not that different from the real world: after all, the same people are on the apps and in the world (by and large - of course the selection differs somewhat because some people dislike the apps enough to not be on them). An app is simply a way to encounter more single people more efficiently. ALL kinds of people: as the number of compatible people in your "stack" increases, so does the number of incompatible people!
In my opinion, when the user is able to filter and focus appropriately and communicate their personality realistically, the apps still yield good results. (Disclaimer: after a few more rounds of enshittification, this may change.)
Thanks for sharing, quite interesting and consice article. It kind of confirms my feeling that list of desired traits/properties on dating sites doesn’t intersects with who we choose as partner.
Thanks for sharing, quite interesting and consice article.
It kind of confirms my feeling that list of desired traits/properties on dating sites doesn’t intersects with who we choose as partner.
It would be nice if the article actually substantiated any of the claims made. As it is, it looks more like an advertisement for 1 psychologist's book. Particularly the title seems to be just a clickbait for what is discussed very little and is almost entirely lacking in any supporting evidence. Hating on dating apps is a very popular thing online, but they're almost entirely bound to the way the users use them. In the end, just like you need to dress a certain way to a fancy party, you need to present yourself a certain way on dating apps. It's just another space for people to meet with its own norms and traditions. This has little to do with evolution in my opinion, like the article states throughout.
I wonder how this was measured: "Women cull 95% of their pool from first impressions, making them almost twice as picky online as they would be in real life." How many percent do we "cull" in real life then? Out of what group exactly? In what circumstances? I mean, is this about saying no when someone asks you out and if it is, then it's not comparable to swiping left before you even know if they would be interested, while looking at a set of data points about them, some of which are probably dealbreakers.
...I went back to check the article and there's actually a reference to a study that compared short-term and long-term relationships. I can't access the study and I don't understand how the journalist drew this conclusion from it.
I think I found a PDF, if you're still interested. Google Scholar and Sci-Hub sometimes have paywalled articles.
In a (very) quick look I'm not really seeing anything like the "online = twice as picky" claim or any focus on online behavior. Looks like MTurk surveys for some patterns in romantic interest over time (which is measured in events instead of days, which they acknowledge might be a bit skewed).
The closest might be table 6 for meeting context, the prevalence, and whether it led to affairs or long-term or short-term relationships?
Yeah, not sure what the pool of real life relationship candidates would be, or what culling would look like. Everyone you make two seconds of eye contact with? I was taught to never end a sentence with a proposition.
Thanks for the link! I took a fairly thorough look but there's absolutely nothing that I can see to inform such a claim as the article makes.
Table six depicts past relationships and I guess it could be used as a guideline for the outcomes attainable via different meeting contexts. (Except that the study cohort isn't large or diverse enough at all, and the other issue is that still ongoing relationships aren't included, but whatever.) But it tells us absolutely nothing about how "picky" women were when deciding whether or not to date someone.
In fact, this study looks at relationship development even before anyone picked anyone. They criticise other studies for not taking into account that some key events often occur before the parties have actually decided to form a relationship - for example, you may meet someone at work, think nothing in particular of them at the time, and four years later it develops into a relationship. This study observes and includes everything that happened during those four years.
The only plausible reference point that I can find is figure E on page 92, where it appears that close to 50% of the participants experienced "desire to carefully evaluate" their (potential) partner in the very beginning. Colloquially, it sounds similar to "being picky". Could the journalist's logic be so far fetched as to say "On the apps, women are being 95% picky and in this study, only about 48% picky, which is only half as picky"? I know it makes no sense but that's the only numerical piece of information I could find that represents half of 95%. XD
TL;DR / addendum:
The article appears to profess the common but unhelpful dichotomy of chemistry vs. criteria-based partner selection, claiming that chemistry counts more and as it can't be measured via an app, the apps are useless. IMO, both approaches can be severely misguided. Chasing chemistry can land you in a toxic relationship and chasing the wrong criteria can land you in an endless loop of fruitless searching.
I believe these are both important facets of a happy relationship. I have found the apps very useful in finding someone that fits my criteria, and I find that my set of criteria does lead me to connections that are both happy and lasting (if it didn't, I would work on calibrating the set). The chemistry bit has almost always emerged over time when the rest of the criteria has been there. Sometimes quickly, other times less so, but only one time it didn't emerge at all and that was my first serious relationship with someone I wouldn't consider compatible if I met them now. So I'd say my criteria just weren't well enough calibrated yet.
__
I read about half of this article. I think it falls victim to the same mindset as the misguided dating folk it describes.
Yes, some people lose sight of what's really important when an app nudges them to pay attention to the wrong things, and/or emphasise the wrong things in their own profile (I believe this is intentional on the service provider side). But it's silly to go so far as to say "The apps prioritise good looks and gender stereotypes". The app is not a conscious entity. We users are still able to choose our priorities, choose what we communicate about ourselves, and ignore anything that doesn't fit what we want. If it's true that some people look for things that don't actually matter to them, I doubt that they'll change the tune even if they got off the apps. It goes deeper than that I'm afraid.
The author makes unhelpful sweeping generalisations:
I spent most of last year on the apps, and every serious relationship in my past also started on an app or a dating site. I like less than 1% of the profiles I see. But I don't even look at the photos - I swipe based on text. And in real life, I'm a great deal more picky!
The reason I like the apps: someone who knows who they are and how to accurately convey that so that the message registers more or less correctly in another human being's brain (or maybe just my brain, as someone compatible with them) saves me a ton of time getting through the initial boring stages of getting to know them. There aren't many of these people around, but every now and then one comes along. After that it's just a matter of confirming compatibility - the very thing the author claims can't be gauged via the apps. While that is true to some extent, it is absolutely possible to find people whose likelihood of being compatible is a lot higher than perhaps anyone you could meet in real life. That has at least been the case for me. Especially when I've already weeded out the easily detectable dealbreakers like kids, age bracket, politics, geography, religion, etc. This would be tedious as hell to do in real life but happens in an instant on the apps.
I agree with the claim that friendship-based relationships are where real happiness lies. But there's no reason why you can't find this on the apps. The first thing I always pay attention to is whether I can become good friends (over time) with the person. Admittedly, not many people on the apps are willing to take things slow enough to really get a good idea, but that's just one more compatibility factor to consider. Not many people my age are child free either. Or possess many of the other (mental) qualities I really need in a partner to be happy. That doesn't matter because I'm not trying to form a relationship with a large number of people. All it takes is ONE single individual person who is compatible enough.
I live in a small enough place and spend my days in such environments that I wouldn't have met any of the significant people in my life if it wasn't for the apps. You have to be mindful about how you use them, and have patience. It also helps to realise the apps are not that different from the real world: after all, the same people are on the apps and in the world (by and large - of course the selection differs somewhat because some people dislike the apps enough to not be on them). An app is simply a way to encounter more single people more efficiently. ALL kinds of people: as the number of compatible people in your "stack" increases, so does the number of incompatible people!
In my opinion, when the user is able to filter and focus appropriately and communicate their personality realistically, the apps still yield good results. (Disclaimer: after a few more rounds of enshittification, this may change.)
Thanks for sharing, quite interesting and consice article.
It kind of confirms my feeling that list of desired traits/properties on dating sites doesn’t intersects with who we choose as partner.