My personal experience may be relevant: I literally did not date until I was in my early 40's. In my case this was due to a traumatic childhood event; Apparently the school nerd was NOT supposed to chat up a member of the cheer leading squad; The penalty was immediate and physical, and induced a pretty severe social phobia. Jr high could be a rough place in the 70's. Having Asperger's didn't help, of course.
Online dating got me past this, as my social phobia didn't kick in unless I was face to face with a woman, and by the time the online relationship had progressed to us meeting, I'd relaxed a bit. I really can't recommend it too much, it didn't just get me a date, it got me married.
Here's some serious advice: Try foreign dating sites, if you're really looking for a wife, not just some fun. The US has become somewhat matriarchal, and when a guy from a semi-matriarchal society meets a girl from a still somewhat patriarchal society, you get a very beneficial culture clash: You both end up exceeding the other's expectations by simply doing the minimum your own culture demands.
As well, the economic principle of comparative advantage kicks in. You may be nothing special by local standards, and still a superb catch to some girl in a 2nd world country, which means your bidding power is higher than you might think. I certainly didn't end up married to this cutie by being a movie star...
As well, the international sites specialize in women who ARE looking for a husband, not a one night stand. Tinder might be a good place to go if you don't like eating out alone, but is it a good place to look for a wife?
You can look for free, you need to pay to actually contact (Or be contacted by! My wife made the first move, I'd thought she was out of my league.) any of the women.
Funny story: My supervisor at the time paid for me to attend a session of the Landmark forum. I knew it was a secular Scientology spinoff, but turning him down seemed like a bad career move, so I spent the weekend sleep deprived and shrugging off efforts to persuade me that I desperately needed to rip off my friends and family to pay for further sessions.
But one thing they said struck me as sensible: Decide what you really want, figure out what you need to do to get it, and then DO IT. Or expect to live unhappy.
I couldn't dispute the truth of that, even if I didn't think Landmark forum sessions were what I really wanted. So I buckled down, decided what I really wanted in a mate, and did some serious research on STD rates, education, divorce rates, which ethnicity subjectively struck me as the cutest. Then signed up with the site for the Philippines. For you it might be another country...
My first impulse when hearing about international dating is the cached stereotype (trying to detail my thought process, not be rude, but apologies in advance) of mail-order brides looking for a visa. Then I think--putting aside the degree to which the stereotype is false--is there actually anything wrong with that as long as everyone involved is clear about what is and isn't being transacted?
*begin digression*
Because I tend to think of love as committing to a contract, not an emotion. To be clear, this doesn't have to be a lifelong, monogamous contract, nor romantic, nor even particularly onerous. But to me, love declares a stake in the other's well-being, implying some amount of sacrifice you're willing to make for them. Thus, you can love someone even if you're not infatuated with them, though it's certainly hard to love someone if you have no positive feelings for them--in that case, it's probably time to use the exit clause.
*end digression*
That aside, I'm sure that one can find conventionally good relationships (I presume yours is since you were willing to post about it) on these sites, but now I'm wondering whether the effort/reward ratio is actually better than conventional dating sites, or whether it's just perceived as such so that some of the people avoiding the latter are willing to try the former.
Far as "Decide what you really want, figure out what you need to do to get it, and then DO IT. Or expect to live unhappy." I absolutely agree. I just usually get stuck thinking too much about what I really want and whether I'm sure I really want it. And then get stuck between "DO IT" and "expect to live unhappy" because in my imagination doing things feels like it'll be more aversive than it usually turns out in practice (somehow knowing this logically doesn't convince me to actually do things).
Thanks for the recommendation! You have clearly put more thought into it than I have, but I think I will sign up - I have never met a Filipina that i didn't like.
Three thoughts, from having been on the dating app market for the first time ever this year:
1. The fact that many folks don't want to really succeed, they want to just "have a match happen" cannot be overstated, at every level. You'd be amazed how many people don't want to spend $30 a month for a dating app membership, even though they'd value finding a partner at $X thousands of dollars a month. You'd be amazed how many people don't follow up with those they text. Etc.
2. As a result, you cannot _possibly_ imagine how not-in-it-for-the-long-term the average guy on these apps are. Functionally every woman has a story about a real jerk, and often defensive comments on their profile accordingly. Being even moderately decent has above-average returns.
3. The incel movement is a detailed UX complaint about Tinder, as far as I can tell. Other apps vary quite a lot! Sometimes switching to a new app and keeping the same strategy has outsized returns.
I shouldn't comment, because I haven't read the original post and comments from August. But I'm going to anyway.
Re: body count, can't you just say "None of your beeswax"? Since when do you have to reply to such a nosy question? "I can't remember anything that happened before I met you, darling" is an obvious lie but has worked surprisingly well for me.
What about singles groups that revolve around an interest? One of my male friends who was pretty unsuccessful romantically in high school (I was there, I watched him be unsuccessful) eventually joined hiking groups that were aimed at singles. He had some long-term relationships and is now married. There's an online group for single fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and all its various descendants. I am a dork who really likes MST3K and if I were single, I'd hang out there.
You've probably written about this, Zvi, but how did you lose weight?
I think the trouble with the flat rejection of the body count question is that it will be interpreted as "I know that if I tell you, you will reject me, because it is that high." I think in older days, or at least a few decades back when I was in college, the numbers didn't vary hugely, such that deflecting might mean "7" or "5", maybe 10 on the outside for people under 30. Nowadays, it seems like "I have averaged 4-5 partners a year since I was 16" is a possible answer, which to even younger me would be a huge red flag in terms of stability. At the same time the average number has been creeping up the acceptability of larger numbers has as well, so refusing to answer starts to signal an ever increasing number, and the underlying personality traits that go with that.
You're correct, Mariana; I think doctor hammer is taking the odd view. As a single twentysomething, I would not ask a girl about her number of previous partners at all (because there isn't much benefit to me in knowing), but back when I was younger I only asked when we were already in a committed relationship.
I agree, and would myself only ask when it started to become clear that I might get my name added to the tally, as it were, and the relationship was pretty serious. However, and this is a pretty important however, it seems that recently there is a large subset of people for whom sex is on the table for the first date, regardless of the seriousness of the relationship. So even if the rule is "I only ask about sexual partners right before I decide whether or not to be one with this person" that might happen really early. Presumably if one is dating the kind of person for whom the number of partners might be really off putting that makes it more likely. I don't know, for me that wasn't an issue, but seeing the number of people now who have more sexual partners than they have had birthdays and don't seem to think there is any problem with that, well I can kind of understand why people who date in or around that pool might be really keen to find out. I suspect that when having sex becomes extremely casual, asking about how many sexual partners becomes equally casual.
I am glad I don't have to deal with that nonsense myself, though.
Depends on the kind of relationship you want. If you don't want the kind of relationship where you have spheres of privacy around things that level of intimacy, it can be a problem (ymmv whether you want that, of course).
Matches my experience very well. Most of the people I know that wanted to date ... even when they seemed hopeless ... managed to eventually find a partner and get married.
But the group of people that don't want to date never seem to ask for advice ... or even care that much that they are single. I find that perspective very hard to understand. I know multiple friends that seem to have zero interest in dating or having a partner. Is there a category for "You're Single Because You Want To Be"?
It doesn't seem like these posts really focus on that category because "you're single because you want to be" isn't a problem. These posts only focus on problems in the dating space - that is, people who wan't to date but aren't because of one of the listed reasons. I think there's some wording in the August post on this matter.
If people actively prefer to be single for whatever reason, I think that most such people are making a large mistake but people get to have preferences.
I guess I'm wondering if those people are corrupting any of the data. Like obviously if you're fine being single you aren't going to approach anyone, or be on a dating site.
I kinda wish there was a standardized breakdown of singles in the same way the BLS breaks down unemployment numbers.
I do think in many cases the real problem is best modeled as "not actually wanting to be in a relationship, and some combination of honest error and deception about one's own preferences." In fact, I seem to remember a comment about this on a previous Zvi dating post. (It's here: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/dating-roundup-1-this-is-why-youre/comment/39240792. The first part rings quite true, though as soon as he starts talking about reading it goes off the rails.).
While "...error and deception about one's own preferences" works as description, I think a thorough explanation is given by the concept of modularity from evolutionary psychology (though originating elsewhere, I first learned about it reading "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite" by Robert Kurzban).
Basically (any errors are probably mine and not Kurzban's), the brain is made up of different parts (not referring to neurons and axons, but how they're organized) specialized for processing different things. When receiving cues that correspond to a given thing (or would have in the ancestral environment), then more relevant parts become more active (anyone who hasn't heard this before may want to pause and register predictions).
Now, consider selection pressures with regards to various aspects of language processing. There's the base level of understanding and ability to reproduce language necessary for communication. But what to say? There's incentive for truth, due to the benefits of cooperation, and because obvious liars can be shunned, which is especially impactful in small, isolated communities. But once we've moved out of the readily observable, into interpreting the motives of ourselves and others, it seems like there's some benefit to be gained by representing ourselves more charitably than we do said others. Not implausibly so (at least for in-group comparisons), but enough to benefit ourselves in status games. Hence, rationalization.
Now apply that sort of reasoning to every other part of the brain, realize that the existence of this distinction means that the part of your brain that decides what to say may not even have access (conscious or otherwise) to the "actual" reasoning behind why you did a thing and is functioning effectively as a press secretary. There's some interesting experiments that I believe support the conclusion, but I've rambled enough already. Though...
In retrospect, think I was equivocating between selection on the level of evolution and more immediate selection due to reward processing in the brain. Though evolution ultimately produced both, making the distinction allows me to contrast two hypotheses: 1. Some tendency to dishonesty is "built" into the structure of our brain 2. We learn to be dishonest after observing that we can be rewarded for twisting the truth a bit.
My anecdotal observations of toddlers makes me believe the first is more true, but maybe at that age they've already seen and comprehended adults lying.
I came of age in a different era. Any advice I give would probably sound like, “Why can’t you folks work your way through college like I did?” Omitting the fact that tuition was a tenth of what it was now.
I’ll just throw an observation out there though. After I got married and started sporting a wedding band, it seemed like women were much more comfortable making casual conversation with me. It could just be I myself wasn’t thinking of any attractive woman as a potential seduction target and I became more relaxed I suppose.
But a somewhat cynical ploy might be wearing something that looks like a wedding ring or even a cheap real one could lower the barriers to first contact. Breaking the ice is a critical step in any relationship. You’d have to come up with some plausible excuse for doing it though. I’ll have to think a bit more to come up with an answer to that.
If I were in the market I'd try this. And if anyone asked I'd answer them honestly. This works on several levels and I want someone to try it and report back.
I've wondered about the impacts on dating and relationships of widespread hormonal contraceptive use by girls and women that may be for non-sex-related reasons (smoothing out cycles, to accommodate anti-acne medication). I believe the effects of the pill and hormonal IUDs on libido and personality are hugely underrated--no one wants to admit that, for many people, they completely kill your interest in sex. At what scale does this affect the general societal picture?
- I have no cats on my regular profile but have a couple on my date me doc (although specifically none are mine, which may help). My impression from chatter of other people with them is that my date me doc has done significantly better than the median doc, although no more information on the effect of having cats there.
- in ~3 years of dating in New York (as a high income person who went to nice places)I think I went on one single first date that hit three figures (plus a few times with someone I was in a semi-strady relationship who wanted to check out an especially fancy place; it's possible she's more like the median woman, but I don't think so)
- I think the aella comment is correct, but also interesting to contrast that with aella's actual behavior in dating (she probably is just genuinely unusual in her preferences, I'm just amused by the contrast).
Re aella's point about being "reactive to them" - yes, but only if you can do this convincingly sincerely. Insincere-feeling reactions are a massive turn off.
> No word yet from anyone on how the service went for any user, for better or for worse.
I was in their database for 6 weeks last summer, an early 30s man in NYC. I've received 0 proposed matches from them and ended up deleting my account after I met my current GF. They've refunded my $100 sign-up fee, so no harmed feelings on my end.
For reference, during that same period I had a couple hundred matches on apps and 4 proposed dates from Tawkify (another matchmaking service), so it wasn't a matter of me being extremely unattractive or unappealing to female audiences of matchmaking services. I suspect they're facing the same issue as any other social networking website, combined with the problem of users constantly leaving their database when they find a match elsewhere.
The presumption is that 'find someone who matches all criteria in both directions' plus smaller network would do that, yeah. Refund seems like a fine result in that case. About how stringent did you feel your requirements were? Did your matches on other places meet them?
I think my requirements were reasonable and I was eventually able to meet someone who matched them via Hinge. Tawkify was also able to offer me one good match (out of the 4 potential candidates), things just didn't work out between us after the first date.
But of course I might've inadvertently filtered out too many matches via the Keeper screening form, I'm not sure.
Would you recommend tawkify as worth the effort (should the four total matches there be compared to the hundred+ from other apps or to a subset that was unusually successful?)
"My first thought is that this question does not come up all that often, in my experience, and when it does it is mostly out of curiosity. So the first strategy is to try and make the question not get asked or to deflect it casually. Notice what leads men to think to ask, avoid those paths."
I think this is rock-solid advice. I'd also specifically add:
You know this question might come up, and you know what you want to signal, so your answer should signal the intended signal. This could be something from "I'm not happy about it now, but I had a more adventurous youth before [X] and settled down a few years ago" to "It's pretty high, but I don't think the # is as important as the person."
So long as your answer matches for your strategy and what you're trying to filter for, I think it's fine (and assuming you give a reasonable answer). If you're really offended by the person asking I think you want to let them know at least to some extent you're the kind of person who is deeply offended by this question, but make sure you let them know if you're offended by the question, the timing in the relationship or something else AND if you're ok moving on past this faux pas.
I'm pretty much a dinosaur on this, but I can report anecdotally that when high # women friends dated lower # guys it basically required at least some amount of a hard conversation about "I won't be bored with you because of my greater practical experience." I think this fear (fear that girl will be bored/put off by lower skilled/practiced guy) is the root of a lot of the ask, and addressing this directly could also work as a dodge/non-answer. It lets you get to what might be the key issue, without getting into a discussion about the #/how appropriate is it to ask.
Thanks for this. I find such posts especially high-value and high-ROI.
With the "expect a relationship to Just Happen" attitude...sometimes I wonder what direction the causality is for popular fictional depictions of such. Even outside of extremes like harem animes, in many stories the relationships Just Happen without *either* party investing much active effort. Obviously there's some discount for narrative purposes - if it's not a romcom or something, no reason to shoehorn in a boring dating-hijinks arc - but fiction reflects both the existing society that creates it and a vision of how that society could be.
As to the no-drama dictate (which I'm not sure is necessarily a young people thing, increasing numbers of olds also seem to be adopting a separate-magisteria view of dating)...I think it's probably a manifestation of the larger meta-shift away from antifragility, more than anything specific to dating. Which is unfortunate, because such high-risk rewards are a big part of what makes life worth living and motivates continued pro-human striving. "Morale problems" apply at a societal level too. Subsidize supply, not demand, etc....
I wonder how much of the resistance to things like Tinder Select isn't so much about the actual price (since it's so easily demonstrated they're "worth it", conditional on success), but about the...mercenary nature of love-finding? Not so much that there's some idealized rosy past where people never had to invest in dating, whether with money or any other resource. But more a sense of Is Nothing Sacred Anymore, that it's somehow grubby or just plain cheating to brazenly put a price tag on finding a partner. Cf. that really high % of men claiming they're single due to not being rich enough. Copium?
Even if the, uh, inflation-adjusted all-in expense of mate-finding isn't actually that much higher than it used to be pre-dating apps (I'd totally read a deep dive attempting to quantify such costs!), there's something about commodifying/making legible markets for a good that used to be "priceless" that I think rubs many folks the wrong way. Even ones who've otherwise internalized that money is fungible.
I have a team that is fairly close to an MVP of an OkCupid-like product and I'd like to chat. Alyssa Vance recommended connecting with you as well and I'd just put it off for some reason. Going to DM you on Twitter now but also def email me if that's the channel you prefer (shreedashreeda at gmail dot com)
My favorite dating site (which is now dead) was 'How About We?' where everyone would post a brief profile AND suggest places-to-go/things-to-do on a first date. It seemed to work even better than OkCupid (which was close to its peak back then).
I say the following while also sticking to my comment that you linked.
I do think that the advice of "suck it up and take a risk" for guys is easier said than done, especially if the risks are your job, professional reputation, or something else permanent and very costly.
I agree that being nice and not a dick in life in general probably mitigates the risks of asking out a woman significantly, but not entirely. I think the question requires more in-depth research, how many people who didn't deserve it at all got caught in the risks of approaching a woman in the wrong way? It would be hard to do this research though but so worthwhile.
Maybe a survey of women asking their knowledge of men reported for sexual misconduct, along with for their own willingness and history of reporting, judgment of that male's character, and controlled for other characteristics (marital status, politics, taste for beer)
Re "suck it up and take a risk", at least for me the better advice was "suck it up and take a risk *badly*". It helped me get over it to have a sexually agressive flirty guy in my social cohort and see how he actually approached women - turns out real playboys are actually pretty awkward most of the time, the bar is just not as high as you think.
Good things come to those who date
Interesting essay.
My personal experience may be relevant: I literally did not date until I was in my early 40's. In my case this was due to a traumatic childhood event; Apparently the school nerd was NOT supposed to chat up a member of the cheer leading squad; The penalty was immediate and physical, and induced a pretty severe social phobia. Jr high could be a rough place in the 70's. Having Asperger's didn't help, of course.
Online dating got me past this, as my social phobia didn't kick in unless I was face to face with a woman, and by the time the online relationship had progressed to us meeting, I'd relaxed a bit. I really can't recommend it too much, it didn't just get me a date, it got me married.
Here's some serious advice: Try foreign dating sites, if you're really looking for a wife, not just some fun. The US has become somewhat matriarchal, and when a guy from a semi-matriarchal society meets a girl from a still somewhat patriarchal society, you get a very beneficial culture clash: You both end up exceeding the other's expectations by simply doing the minimum your own culture demands.
As well, the economic principle of comparative advantage kicks in. You may be nothing special by local standards, and still a superb catch to some girl in a 2nd world country, which means your bidding power is higher than you might think. I certainly didn't end up married to this cutie by being a movie star...
As well, the international sites specialize in women who ARE looking for a husband, not a one night stand. Tinder might be a good place to go if you don't like eating out alone, but is it a good place to look for a wife?
Anyway, that's my experience.
What are the foreign dating sites?
This is the one I found my wife at, but there are a whole series of allied sites they run for different countries.
https://www.filipina-hearts.com/
You can look for free, you need to pay to actually contact (Or be contacted by! My wife made the first move, I'd thought she was out of my league.) any of the women.
Funny story: My supervisor at the time paid for me to attend a session of the Landmark forum. I knew it was a secular Scientology spinoff, but turning him down seemed like a bad career move, so I spent the weekend sleep deprived and shrugging off efforts to persuade me that I desperately needed to rip off my friends and family to pay for further sessions.
But one thing they said struck me as sensible: Decide what you really want, figure out what you need to do to get it, and then DO IT. Or expect to live unhappy.
I couldn't dispute the truth of that, even if I didn't think Landmark forum sessions were what I really wanted. So I buckled down, decided what I really wanted in a mate, and did some serious research on STD rates, education, divorce rates, which ethnicity subjectively struck me as the cutest. Then signed up with the site for the Philippines. For you it might be another country...
My first impulse when hearing about international dating is the cached stereotype (trying to detail my thought process, not be rude, but apologies in advance) of mail-order brides looking for a visa. Then I think--putting aside the degree to which the stereotype is false--is there actually anything wrong with that as long as everyone involved is clear about what is and isn't being transacted?
*begin digression*
Because I tend to think of love as committing to a contract, not an emotion. To be clear, this doesn't have to be a lifelong, monogamous contract, nor romantic, nor even particularly onerous. But to me, love declares a stake in the other's well-being, implying some amount of sacrifice you're willing to make for them. Thus, you can love someone even if you're not infatuated with them, though it's certainly hard to love someone if you have no positive feelings for them--in that case, it's probably time to use the exit clause.
*end digression*
That aside, I'm sure that one can find conventionally good relationships (I presume yours is since you were willing to post about it) on these sites, but now I'm wondering whether the effort/reward ratio is actually better than conventional dating sites, or whether it's just perceived as such so that some of the people avoiding the latter are willing to try the former.
Far as "Decide what you really want, figure out what you need to do to get it, and then DO IT. Or expect to live unhappy." I absolutely agree. I just usually get stuck thinking too much about what I really want and whether I'm sure I really want it. And then get stuck between "DO IT" and "expect to live unhappy" because in my imagination doing things feels like it'll be more aversive than it usually turns out in practice (somehow knowing this logically doesn't convince me to actually do things).
Thanks for the recommendation! You have clearly put more thought into it than I have, but I think I will sign up - I have never met a Filipina that i didn't like.
Three thoughts, from having been on the dating app market for the first time ever this year:
1. The fact that many folks don't want to really succeed, they want to just "have a match happen" cannot be overstated, at every level. You'd be amazed how many people don't want to spend $30 a month for a dating app membership, even though they'd value finding a partner at $X thousands of dollars a month. You'd be amazed how many people don't follow up with those they text. Etc.
2. As a result, you cannot _possibly_ imagine how not-in-it-for-the-long-term the average guy on these apps are. Functionally every woman has a story about a real jerk, and often defensive comments on their profile accordingly. Being even moderately decent has above-average returns.
3. The incel movement is a detailed UX complaint about Tinder, as far as I can tell. Other apps vary quite a lot! Sometimes switching to a new app and keeping the same strategy has outsized returns.
I shouldn't comment, because I haven't read the original post and comments from August. But I'm going to anyway.
Re: body count, can't you just say "None of your beeswax"? Since when do you have to reply to such a nosy question? "I can't remember anything that happened before I met you, darling" is an obvious lie but has worked surprisingly well for me.
What about singles groups that revolve around an interest? One of my male friends who was pretty unsuccessful romantically in high school (I was there, I watched him be unsuccessful) eventually joined hiking groups that were aimed at singles. He had some long-term relationships and is now married. There's an online group for single fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and all its various descendants. I am a dork who really likes MST3K and if I were single, I'd hang out there.
You've probably written about this, Zvi, but how did you lose weight?
I think the trouble with the flat rejection of the body count question is that it will be interpreted as "I know that if I tell you, you will reject me, because it is that high." I think in older days, or at least a few decades back when I was in college, the numbers didn't vary hugely, such that deflecting might mean "7" or "5", maybe 10 on the outside for people under 30. Nowadays, it seems like "I have averaged 4-5 partners a year since I was 16" is a possible answer, which to even younger me would be a huge red flag in terms of stability. At the same time the average number has been creeping up the acceptability of larger numbers has as well, so refusing to answer starts to signal an ever increasing number, and the underlying personality traits that go with that.
Well, maybe so. I'm old, so I'm sure I'm out of touch with The Kids Today. I still think potential dates shouldn't ask such nosy questions.
You're correct, Mariana; I think doctor hammer is taking the odd view. As a single twentysomething, I would not ask a girl about her number of previous partners at all (because there isn't much benefit to me in knowing), but back when I was younger I only asked when we were already in a committed relationship.
I agree, and would myself only ask when it started to become clear that I might get my name added to the tally, as it were, and the relationship was pretty serious. However, and this is a pretty important however, it seems that recently there is a large subset of people for whom sex is on the table for the first date, regardless of the seriousness of the relationship. So even if the rule is "I only ask about sexual partners right before I decide whether or not to be one with this person" that might happen really early. Presumably if one is dating the kind of person for whom the number of partners might be really off putting that makes it more likely. I don't know, for me that wasn't an issue, but seeing the number of people now who have more sexual partners than they have had birthdays and don't seem to think there is any problem with that, well I can kind of understand why people who date in or around that pool might be really keen to find out. I suspect that when having sex becomes extremely casual, asking about how many sexual partners becomes equally casual.
I am glad I don't have to deal with that nonsense myself, though.
Depends on the kind of relationship you want. If you don't want the kind of relationship where you have spheres of privacy around things that level of intimacy, it can be a problem (ymmv whether you want that, of course).
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/scwoBEju75C45W5n3/how-i-lost-100-pounds-using-tdt for how I lost weight.
"You’re Single Because You’re Not Even Trying"
Matches my experience very well. Most of the people I know that wanted to date ... even when they seemed hopeless ... managed to eventually find a partner and get married.
But the group of people that don't want to date never seem to ask for advice ... or even care that much that they are single. I find that perspective very hard to understand. I know multiple friends that seem to have zero interest in dating or having a partner. Is there a category for "You're Single Because You Want To Be"?
Yes, but those people are not reading thousands of words of dating advice
It doesn't seem like these posts really focus on that category because "you're single because you want to be" isn't a problem. These posts only focus on problems in the dating space - that is, people who wan't to date but aren't because of one of the listed reasons. I think there's some wording in the August post on this matter.
If people actively prefer to be single for whatever reason, I think that most such people are making a large mistake but people get to have preferences.
I guess I'm wondering if those people are corrupting any of the data. Like obviously if you're fine being single you aren't going to approach anyone, or be on a dating site.
I kinda wish there was a standardized breakdown of singles in the same way the BLS breaks down unemployment numbers.
I do think in many cases the real problem is best modeled as "not actually wanting to be in a relationship, and some combination of honest error and deception about one's own preferences." In fact, I seem to remember a comment about this on a previous Zvi dating post. (It's here: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/dating-roundup-1-this-is-why-youre/comment/39240792. The first part rings quite true, though as soon as he starts talking about reading it goes off the rails.).
While "...error and deception about one's own preferences" works as description, I think a thorough explanation is given by the concept of modularity from evolutionary psychology (though originating elsewhere, I first learned about it reading "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite" by Robert Kurzban).
Basically (any errors are probably mine and not Kurzban's), the brain is made up of different parts (not referring to neurons and axons, but how they're organized) specialized for processing different things. When receiving cues that correspond to a given thing (or would have in the ancestral environment), then more relevant parts become more active (anyone who hasn't heard this before may want to pause and register predictions).
Now, consider selection pressures with regards to various aspects of language processing. There's the base level of understanding and ability to reproduce language necessary for communication. But what to say? There's incentive for truth, due to the benefits of cooperation, and because obvious liars can be shunned, which is especially impactful in small, isolated communities. But once we've moved out of the readily observable, into interpreting the motives of ourselves and others, it seems like there's some benefit to be gained by representing ourselves more charitably than we do said others. Not implausibly so (at least for in-group comparisons), but enough to benefit ourselves in status games. Hence, rationalization.
Now apply that sort of reasoning to every other part of the brain, realize that the existence of this distinction means that the part of your brain that decides what to say may not even have access (conscious or otherwise) to the "actual" reasoning behind why you did a thing and is functioning effectively as a press secretary. There's some interesting experiments that I believe support the conclusion, but I've rambled enough already. Though...
In retrospect, think I was equivocating between selection on the level of evolution and more immediate selection due to reward processing in the brain. Though evolution ultimately produced both, making the distinction allows me to contrast two hypotheses: 1. Some tendency to dishonesty is "built" into the structure of our brain 2. We learn to be dishonest after observing that we can be rewarded for twisting the truth a bit.
My anecdotal observations of toddlers makes me believe the first is more true, but maybe at that age they've already seen and comprehended adults lying.
I came of age in a different era. Any advice I give would probably sound like, “Why can’t you folks work your way through college like I did?” Omitting the fact that tuition was a tenth of what it was now.
I’ll just throw an observation out there though. After I got married and started sporting a wedding band, it seemed like women were much more comfortable making casual conversation with me. It could just be I myself wasn’t thinking of any attractive woman as a potential seduction target and I became more relaxed I suppose.
But a somewhat cynical ploy might be wearing something that looks like a wedding ring or even a cheap real one could lower the barriers to first contact. Breaking the ice is a critical step in any relationship. You’d have to come up with some plausible excuse for doing it though. I’ll have to think a bit more to come up with an answer to that.
If I were in the market I'd try this. And if anyone asked I'd answer them honestly. This works on several levels and I want someone to try it and report back.
I've wondered about the impacts on dating and relationships of widespread hormonal contraceptive use by girls and women that may be for non-sex-related reasons (smoothing out cycles, to accommodate anti-acne medication). I believe the effects of the pill and hormonal IUDs on libido and personality are hugely underrated--no one wants to admit that, for many people, they completely kill your interest in sex. At what scale does this affect the general societal picture?
Well the hormonal bc might *be* the acne or period cramps pain control medication, for what it's worth.
I wouldn't be surprised if effect in libido is under focused on.
But I think it's generally known that the pill impacts what women find attractive.
Wrote this in another comment, but I have a similar hypothesis about males and porn.
Why even bother quoting Carl Benjamin? Just for irony's sake?
Comments as I go (sorry for the spam:
- I have no cats on my regular profile but have a couple on my date me doc (although specifically none are mine, which may help). My impression from chatter of other people with them is that my date me doc has done significantly better than the median doc, although no more information on the effect of having cats there.
- in ~3 years of dating in New York (as a high income person who went to nice places)I think I went on one single first date that hit three figures (plus a few times with someone I was in a semi-strady relationship who wanted to check out an especially fancy place; it's possible she's more like the median woman, but I don't think so)
- I think the aella comment is correct, but also interesting to contrast that with aella's actual behavior in dating (she probably is just genuinely unusual in her preferences, I'm just amused by the contrast).
Re aella's point about being "reactive to them" - yes, but only if you can do this convincingly sincerely. Insincere-feeling reactions are a massive turn off.
I got plenty of matches on Tinder by emphasising what I offered rather than what I was looking for. That one weird trick makes you stand out.
I have now added "I can fix your furniture" to my tinder bio.
I can confirm "btw I'm good at DYI" works well
> No word yet from anyone on how the service went for any user, for better or for worse.
I was in their database for 6 weeks last summer, an early 30s man in NYC. I've received 0 proposed matches from them and ended up deleting my account after I met my current GF. They've refunded my $100 sign-up fee, so no harmed feelings on my end.
For reference, during that same period I had a couple hundred matches on apps and 4 proposed dates from Tawkify (another matchmaking service), so it wasn't a matter of me being extremely unattractive or unappealing to female audiences of matchmaking services. I suspect they're facing the same issue as any other social networking website, combined with the problem of users constantly leaving their database when they find a match elsewhere.
The presumption is that 'find someone who matches all criteria in both directions' plus smaller network would do that, yeah. Refund seems like a fine result in that case. About how stringent did you feel your requirements were? Did your matches on other places meet them?
I think my requirements were reasonable and I was eventually able to meet someone who matched them via Hinge. Tawkify was also able to offer me one good match (out of the 4 potential candidates), things just didn't work out between us after the first date.
But of course I might've inadvertently filtered out too many matches via the Keeper screening form, I'm not sure.
It's 2-way everything, so the math is not kind. Still, their base likely is not so large even counting free matches.
Would you recommend tawkify as worth the effort (should the four total matches there be compared to the hundred+ from other apps or to a subset that was unusually successful?)
I’d recommend being in their database and putting in the effort into making a good profile. This is free and wouldn’t take up much time.
I can’t comment on their paid options as I haven’t tried those myself.
"My first thought is that this question does not come up all that often, in my experience, and when it does it is mostly out of curiosity. So the first strategy is to try and make the question not get asked or to deflect it casually. Notice what leads men to think to ask, avoid those paths."
I think this is rock-solid advice. I'd also specifically add:
You know this question might come up, and you know what you want to signal, so your answer should signal the intended signal. This could be something from "I'm not happy about it now, but I had a more adventurous youth before [X] and settled down a few years ago" to "It's pretty high, but I don't think the # is as important as the person."
So long as your answer matches for your strategy and what you're trying to filter for, I think it's fine (and assuming you give a reasonable answer). If you're really offended by the person asking I think you want to let them know at least to some extent you're the kind of person who is deeply offended by this question, but make sure you let them know if you're offended by the question, the timing in the relationship or something else AND if you're ok moving on past this faux pas.
I'm pretty much a dinosaur on this, but I can report anecdotally that when high # women friends dated lower # guys it basically required at least some amount of a hard conversation about "I won't be bored with you because of my greater practical experience." I think this fear (fear that girl will be bored/put off by lower skilled/practiced guy) is the root of a lot of the ask, and addressing this directly could also work as a dodge/non-answer. It lets you get to what might be the key issue, without getting into a discussion about the #/how appropriate is it to ask.
Thanks for this. I find such posts especially high-value and high-ROI.
With the "expect a relationship to Just Happen" attitude...sometimes I wonder what direction the causality is for popular fictional depictions of such. Even outside of extremes like harem animes, in many stories the relationships Just Happen without *either* party investing much active effort. Obviously there's some discount for narrative purposes - if it's not a romcom or something, no reason to shoehorn in a boring dating-hijinks arc - but fiction reflects both the existing society that creates it and a vision of how that society could be.
As to the no-drama dictate (which I'm not sure is necessarily a young people thing, increasing numbers of olds also seem to be adopting a separate-magisteria view of dating)...I think it's probably a manifestation of the larger meta-shift away from antifragility, more than anything specific to dating. Which is unfortunate, because such high-risk rewards are a big part of what makes life worth living and motivates continued pro-human striving. "Morale problems" apply at a societal level too. Subsidize supply, not demand, etc....
I wonder how much of the resistance to things like Tinder Select isn't so much about the actual price (since it's so easily demonstrated they're "worth it", conditional on success), but about the...mercenary nature of love-finding? Not so much that there's some idealized rosy past where people never had to invest in dating, whether with money or any other resource. But more a sense of Is Nothing Sacred Anymore, that it's somehow grubby or just plain cheating to brazenly put a price tag on finding a partner. Cf. that really high % of men claiming they're single due to not being rich enough. Copium?
Even if the, uh, inflation-adjusted all-in expense of mate-finding isn't actually that much higher than it used to be pre-dating apps (I'd totally read a deep dive attempting to quantify such costs!), there's something about commodifying/making legible markets for a good that used to be "priceless" that I think rubs many folks the wrong way. Even ones who've otherwise internalized that money is fungible.
Hey Zvi!
I have a team that is fairly close to an MVP of an OkCupid-like product and I'd like to chat. Alyssa Vance recommended connecting with you as well and I'd just put it off for some reason. Going to DM you on Twitter now but also def email me if that's the channel you prefer (shreedashreeda at gmail dot com)
future product updates will go out on meetmeoffline.substack.com
My favorite dating site (which is now dead) was 'How About We?' where everyone would post a brief profile AND suggest places-to-go/things-to-do on a first date. It seemed to work even better than OkCupid (which was close to its peak back then).
Thanks for the shout-out!
And thanks for the round-up.
I say the following while also sticking to my comment that you linked.
I do think that the advice of "suck it up and take a risk" for guys is easier said than done, especially if the risks are your job, professional reputation, or something else permanent and very costly.
I agree that being nice and not a dick in life in general probably mitigates the risks of asking out a woman significantly, but not entirely. I think the question requires more in-depth research, how many people who didn't deserve it at all got caught in the risks of approaching a woman in the wrong way? It would be hard to do this research though but so worthwhile.
Maybe a survey of women asking their knowledge of men reported for sexual misconduct, along with for their own willingness and history of reporting, judgment of that male's character, and controlled for other characteristics (marital status, politics, taste for beer)
Re "suck it up and take a risk", at least for me the better advice was "suck it up and take a risk *badly*". It helped me get over it to have a sexually agressive flirty guy in my social cohort and see how he actually approached women - turns out real playboys are actually pretty awkward most of the time, the bar is just not as high as you think.