>This one worked, probably because it hides the bulging stomach and the balding head."
No, your A/B test doesn't mean it's 'better', unless you're counting only number of first dates.
But you keep talking about finding "The One".
So here's some unsolicited advice - you are optimising the wrong variable.
If you're really looking for "The One", instead optimise number of dates that remain interested in you after the first or later, not maximising the number of first dates.
And along this line - use a picture that is more representative of yourself? If you're worried about potential dates being turned off by the bald head and bulging stomach, won't they be turned off when they meet you in person?
At that point it becomes game theory, do you aim for more first bites with lower followup success, in hopes that your personality shines through?
Do you cast a wide net, as you're doing, and exert a LOT of effort with first dates hoping you don't risk losing a potential "the one"?
Or should you be yourself from the beginning, "happy to be a hippo" so to speak[1]. You'll probably get fewer first bites, but ones that get through have shown they don't care about your balding head and bulging stomach.
Though I haven't been on the dating scene in 16 yrs, so take my advice with a grain of salt.
I've done a lot of dating over the years, and have discovered that the most important thing is finding someone who likes me for who I am. At various points I went on so many dates that I worried that the right person wasn't out there, or that maybe I was meeting her and not knowing it.
The truth is that it's hard to find someone who is a good match, especially by the time you get into your 30s and have a fair bit of life experience. If you meet your partner at 30 vs 20, you have lived 50% longer and had a lot more experiences that have shaped your preferences.
But it definitely can be done. I've noticed that a fair number of people who were perpetually single eventually met the right person and settled down in their 30s or even 40s (I just went to the wedding of a friend who is in his mid-40s).
Depends on what they are looking for, really. You would be surprised at how many PEOPLE, both men and women, are lonely and looking for companionship. And its very easy to swipe but meeting in person you tend to notice other attractive qualities.
I agree it is misleading and a little deceptive though. Personally, I don't do it, but I'm trying to explain how it may not be the worst thing in the world to do it.
so that's where he has to decide.
150 dates with potentially little bite, or maybe 10 (or less?) dates where his worries are almost guaranteed not to be an issue. Of course zero first dates is not good either.
Given his interest in experimenting like this, I'd be curious to see if he did a follow up using the above strategy.
You're absolutely right! People should be filtering for quality over quantity! That said, is it possible you're running on the assumption that the people we're concerned with here can reasonably expect to believe they will find a result-set with such a strategy?
For a lot of people, the situation they're in is that they've been themselves for quite a long time now and are getting few-to-no bites. The suggestion that they should double down on this strategy is thus somewhat less than maximally appealing.
This is why I recommend at least paying lip service to notions of fashion and social behavior. One doesn't need to become an outgoing extrovert, only to be able to use the signals that society associates with attractive mates. For males, this is: confidence, good style and posture, hygiene etc.
I didn't have too much trouble getting to the second or third dates, and you are correct in that the goal of the least bad profile pic was to get myself in a position to have my humor work for me ("personality shine through").
Perhaps the most controversial part of the process was treating dating like a hiring process, kind of like picking a co-founder.
Glad you had many second or third dates. My impression from the article was that most were first-only dates.
I mentioned this in a comment below - given your scientific approach and A/B testing to data, I'd be quite curious to know how it would work out if you tried my suggestion.
Ie - a 'normal' photo of yourself, not intentionally or overly bad, but not a cherry-picked one that tries to hide the features you were worried about.
Someone who responded to me below thinks you wouldn't get any swipes. I have exactly zero Tinder experience, but in my naive opinion I think and hope you'd get at least a few.
And you could rest reasonably assured that those dates that do come through won't care much about those features.
And maybe the knowledge that they swiped anyway would put you more at ease on the date, to let your humour and personality shine through even brighter.
I think https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-do-... discusses somewhat the same problem in a different context. It concludes:
"Finally, this approach suggests an answer to the question in the title. Far-fetched tales of West African riches strike most as comical. Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to reduce false positives".
Difference here is that most people wouldn't get the false positive ratio that the typical scammer gets so you probably should try a bit harder to look good on a dating site. I think hiding your baldness goes too far, though.
I think those who have a large amount of false positives know this. If, say, you need a wheelchair to move around, almost everybody would know it doesn't make sense to hide that, if the goal is to get into a relationship.
Fact of the matter is that finding potential partners, like finding anyone, is about constantly growing the network of people you interact with. I meet new people nearly every week through various communities I'm part of and organise. Many of them stay that way, just "part of my community", some of them become great friends, and very few become partners. You're unlikely to manage that while working 80 hours a week, going to the bar once or twice a week, and otherwise not being involved in much.
Also, speaking personally... the sort of person who thinks it's fun to spend their time automating personal interaction is not the sort of person I want to date.
forgive me for waxing poetical but i've thought about this a lot - since i have tinder and okcupid accounts - online dating is one of the most nihilistic enterprises to come out of the digital revolution. take one of the most personally rewarding and edifying experiences and completely formalize one of the most exciting parts of it (if not the most). what becomes the point of your life???
i read a stupid platitude somewhere that you should do something that scares you every day and approaching people you're attracted to (not on the street you pua twats) is one of the few "scary" things still available to us as denizens of modernity (i'm not sailing over the ocean blue, summiting mt everest, hunting moby dick, etc.). why would you want to sidestep that.
>approaching people you're attracted to (not on the street you pua twats) is one of the few "scary" things still available to us as denizens of modernity
Online dating is good for people who simply have NO other avenue to meet people. If you're not supposed to try to pick up people on the street, then where would you apply this advice? Work? I don't know about you, but I'm a software engineer, so there's no single women at my workplace. School? I graduated quite some time ago, and work now. Church? Like many technologists, I'm irreligious (and I wouldn't want to date a religious woman anyway; been there, done that). Extracurricular activities? Sure, but the number of single women at these things tends to be pretty small, so it's a LOT of effort for very low odds of success. Any many of my interests just don't have very many single women participating anyway.
The simple fact is, online dating offers a way for people to meet who otherwise simply wouldn't. This problem isn't new either; ever hear of "singles mixers"? Those were around long before the WWW came about. Online dating just moves that kind of thing online, and gives you a way of screening people before taking your time to meet them in person so you can make sure you're at least a little compatible. The main problem I personally see with online dating is that there aren't enough people using it (esp. female, they're far more reluctant to use it and see it as a point of shame), and there's too many different competing services. Oh yeah, and all the liars too. But that's nothing new, men picking up women in bars have been lying about themselves forever too.
Yea, so the early part of dating may be the most "exciting", but that's not why I date. I find that love goggle time period to be a huge waste of time when 6 months to 1 year later you realize you're completely incompatible on core issues. God help the people who got married during that time period.
Online dating let's you pre-screen for basic compatibility before meeting (and confirming physical interest). It keeps you from making silly mistakes with people who can't make you happy long term.
I don't find it hard to find attractive, fun people who want to date me. I find it hard to find a partner; online dating it takes me usually 2-4 months. IRL it can be years.
This is a bit like living in NYC for both parties: there is so much volume that you can't get past the first minor disappointment.
I think the volume prevents you from focusing on one person to figure out what you want.
You might want to focus some kind of algo on the second part of the dating: selection.
Don't just go on your gut or how you felt after the date. You need multiple dates to figure that out.
There was no mystery or enigmatic friction created in his scripted messages. Nothing to raise the "buying temperature" or whatever you want to call it.
Also a head and shoulders shot with no context is as bland as can be. At least 1 shot should have been with an outside interest, like, with your dog (if you have one) or with friends showing you enjoying yourself. By adding such photos, I am willing to guess his responses would have been better.
His quote is "1 in 5 US women are estimated to be raped before the age of 25". This statistic is based on surveys conducted by the graduates of various colleges and universities. My understanding of the results are: of all the responding women, roughly 20% claim to have been raped. If the sample of women attending University and/or responding is representative of the population as a whole, then the original claim makes sense.
More to the point, refuting the single study, voluntary survey at one US university campus.
Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. "the poll surveyed a random national sample of 1,053 women and men ages 17 to 26 who were undergraduates at a four-year college — living on campus or nearby — or had been at some point since 2011. They attended more than 500 colleges and universities, public and private, large and small, elite and obscure, located in every state and the District of Columbia." [...] "5 percent of men and 20 percent of women said they had been sexually assaulted in college" http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2015/06/12/1-in-5-wom...
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study " Surveys were completed by more than 23,000 undergraduate students (approximately 15,000 females and 8,000 males). The average response rate across all nine schools was 54% for females and 40% for males" https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf
Estimated sexual assault: Averaged 10.3%, and ranged from 4.2% at School 2 to 20.0% at School 1.
Estimated sexual battery: Average 5.6% , and ranged from 1.7% at School 2 to 13.2% at School 1.
Estimated rape: Average 4.1%, and ranged from 2.2% at School 9 to 7.9% at School 5.
Across the nine participating schools, 4.3% of sexual battery incidents and 12.5% of rape incidents were reported by the victim to any official.
So according to it, the average rape on those 9 schools were 4.1%, but only 0.5% were reported. If we accept those numbers (54% response rate, common location and (likely) background, generational age), we have that out of 150 women that this article talk about, 6 women is estimated to have been raped, in contrast to the initial assertion of 30. The "1 in 5" study was a good signal that further studies was needed. The CCSVS can be seen as a good start of such further studies. The range difference of 400% between school 9 and 5 do say that we need to be careful and bigger studies/meta studies is needed to remove outlines and get averages and median value. In the mean time I suggest the nice and round number 5%, or if the assume that the above numbers are exclusive (uncertain if thats true), 20% that a undergraduate will be victim of some form of sexual misconduct.
Case in point, I've had a random person grab my junk at a gay bar. Technically that's sexual assault, but it's a pretty far cry from rape.
https://deseretbook.com/p/date-day-365-ideas-lds-teens-teen-...
~$3. For what it may be worth from a relative. (You have to install the publisher's free ebook app, to read it though.)
(edit: I found eHarmony's approach, though not really their IT department, to work really well for me.)
https://www.amazon.com/Date-Day-Ideas-Teens-Teen-ebook/dp/B0...
1. Individuals who date many people, breaking up if they find something non-optimal. These include minor things like, not cleaning up on occasion, or not liking something you do.
2. Someone who dates very few (1-3) individuals, sticking with them until a serious, fatal flaw appears, like being racist or physically harming others, etc.
If you define a successful dater as someone who has both longevity and quality in a single relationship then Group 2 has far more success in their relationships, in my experience.
At least in my experience.
Hell, I'm a nice guy and I'm not even sure why the missus puts up with me. (I try to get her to use at least one obscenity a day. Old ladies who swear crack me up.)
I do wonder if this a generational thing? I'm kinda old.
For each hetero man you know following strategy 2, by definition, there is a corresponding woman (his partner).
And vice versa with the women who are using strategy 1.
There's a lot of iPhone users who fit this profile:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/single-iphone-owners-dont-w...
One thing on my mind lately is how often people convert from one strategy to another, and how that's patterned and why.
None of the engineering addressed root causes. Solve the confidence first, and then hack your way to a better physique, and maybe pick up some interests that are universal and easy to chat about.
> ...hack your way to a better physique...
Got it. Buying an axe ASAP... ~
(previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6773841)
I also think that sending three messages in three days despite being ignored selects shared traits in the group. I mean, he said he is shy but acted super active sociable and needy online. So he might be selecting girls who look for needy dude or want dude who is highly sociable. Instead, shy introverted dude who need excell to figure out inappropriate thing to say appeared. That can't be match.
Cart before the horse. Also, smiley faces are kinda creepy in your first message.
>Dating is like enterprise sales. When your customer goes for a competing, more compelling product, you’re never told and you don’t get any feedback.
I didn't finish this script because I decided to stop all these dating sites and focused on street drag. After work, I visit Paris (which I still don't know well) and talk to girls, as many as I can.
It's successful. I don't have this disapppointment on dates like you have with online dating, people don't cheat with their pictures. Of course, you take rakes, you get phone numbers and girls won't respond to you, but at least they won't next you as fast as online dating people do. Some figures: I would go out for 2 hours and get 2-3 phone numbers, thanks to weeks of practice.
Please stop online dating and get out, you'll get a pleasant time and this will be much less time-consuming.
PS:
- advices on street drag https://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/top/
- this youtube guy helped me a lot https://youtu.be/DTDrnasfg_g?t=330
A bit more interesting analogy would be the Big Data craze. We do them because we can. Are the results produced by Big Data as relevant as the dating automation? Do we understand and handle them as effectively as 150 dates with zero involvement? And what do we miss instead? Whose time and place is taken by getting lost in superficial data oceans?
Actually, could be a nice quirky film - and profitable too. Romcoms are cheap to shoot. We're past peak American-romantic-comedy (I think) so the whole "ugh, not another one" factor might be actually pretty low in 2017. So yeah, could be pretty nice.
Meet as many people as possible, be as social as possible, create as many opportunities to meet new people as possible.
Also if you're a single male and you want to meet a female partner, I'd recommend moving away from the west coast. The south and midwest have far more women, and a generally friendlier culture which can make the entire meeting/dating process a bit easier.
The "friendlier culture" of the South thing is a myth. They're not that friendly to people who don't fit their preferred mold.
Source: grew up in the South. There's a reason so many young people move out of the South as soon as they can.
Heh... Ain't that the truth.
Completely anecdotally, I got a LOT more Tinder matches when I was in the West/East Coast than in my home state of Texas (I'm a Nonwhite Male).
The big flag here is, after 20 dates, defeat begets defeat. You can't automate success.
Plus, the profile picture sounds a bit like a lie. Anyone who's done online dating is familiar with the angels needed to hide body-type. Of course, no one is going to be happy to see someone who doesn't look like what the photo envisioned.
I wonder if there is a mentality problem here too. He had invested so little into each date that there was little incentive to put in the effort to pierce the surface and look for common interests.
Going on 150 dates and not finding a single match tells me that you are shooting outside of your league. Your perfect match could do better than you, and is already taken anyway.
Total nonsense attitude. You should never feel "outside of your league" for many reasons, particularly since you never know who you are compatible with. Don't be afraid to aim high in a partner.
"PS: I will not open-source the code since it could be used to hurt people, but I might share it if you ask nicely."
If you write code for fun (not commercially owned IP), and you are not willing to share it because 'it could hurt people', you might want to re-evaluate if you should write it in the first place.
Also, I think "speed dating" is just a less geeky version of this.
I can't see how almost all of the HUMAN BEINGS on the other end wouldn't find their treatment in this exercise at least a little bit disturbing.
Maybe we can follow the OP's lead and use technology to automate data collection around this and come up with better solutions.
http://www.doodlehistory.com/2012/valentine-s-day-2012-on-fe...
Not the most romantic guy, despite his date ideas. Approach a person in public with a tape recorder, so you can just wind it back and go to the next woman.
For the web, you use a headless browser. But what about automating interaction with mobile?
I am surprised by the horrible outcome, though, since meeting 150 women is quit a lot. I'd have expected to see at least a short-term relationship coming out of this. It's almost like those generic (but in no way bad) messages exclusively attract the "wrong" women.
Women are giving him a chance. He is simply not meeting their expectations of being fun / exciting / confident / funny / whatever.
FTFY.
I'm not joking either, for straight single men they will certainly have better odds in the midwest or south. Demographics plus minor cultural differences matter.
TBH I think his problem was that he didn't quality his leads well enough.
Also note that the sort of person who finds enjoyment in automating away social interaction is unlikely to be enjoyable to socially interact with.
Sounds like you haven't been on online dating before.
You never meet someone right away, first you instant message on the platform. At some point you move into a chat program offsite and in a month you started talking on the phone. 6 months later you meet. Over that half year you develop a friendship when you meet you have tons to talk about. The buildup adds excitement and unless you look nothing like your picture your looks are already accepted and seeing you in person increases that attraction.
If you try to rush the process you better have outstanding physical qualities or great style or money or luck because every relationship needs a base. You are better off going to a local minecraft meetup. Everyone attending will feel they have someone in common and you can build off of that.
Start by building a low risk relationship with daily contact points. That will create the base for a successful friendship which is what you need for a successful relationship.
In my experience you don't really know if you are going to like the new job until after you have been working for a period of time. Research can give you clues but sometimes judging what the position will be like by how it sounds or by what you think you want can backfire. Many times the job changes the moment you are hired or shortly after. The only constant I've found is if you don't have a phone on your desk you will have time to actually do the work which will generally make most people happier.
This is the correct link, if OP or admin can fix it https://medium.com/the-mission/looking-for-the-one-how-i-wen...
But yes, I also think that's a stock photo.
[0] http://www.google.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn-images-1.me...
If there's trickery involved, then sure. But it's not quite so clear-cut. Where it gets murky is if you don't have a job, you're stuck -- it's very difficult to leave your marriage without at least attempting to find someone else before a divorce. But the alternative is to be a slave to your partner's whims, if the marriage is sufficiently toxic and unsalvageable.
> Where it gets murky is if you don't have a job, you're stuck -- it's very difficult to leave your marriage without at least attempting to find someone else before a divorce.
Are you saying that you should continue to live off of the spouse's salary while shopping on the side?
Pragmatically, if she dates you while wearing that ring, chances are she will date another dude while wearing your ring.
If you need to stay on toxic relationship because of money, it is hard to leave, but not because you did not dated on the side. It is because you need to arrange living and job (or shelter). People in toxic relationships tend to be emotionally drained.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/ashley-madison-admits-...
In my experience any kind of scenario where friction is removed (never have been on tinder, but I would imagine it is even more pronounced than a crowded bar) leads to that kind of imbalance. One of tradeoffs that might work for some males is to put themselves into a kind of situations that puts them next to females for a prolonged amount of time. School, work, and neighbours are classic, but that also includes dance schools, sports, and frequent parties with mutual friends. Women are much more likely to spend time with you if they feel like they already know you a bit.
There is often truth to that, but you have to put yourself into scenarios where that is more likely to happen. Be social, meet as many people as possible, etc.
And kudos for charity donation! Good luck
/s
