>"I became an online dating magician who knew how to optimize a profile — A/B testing pictures and message. If I changed my profile picture and got more “likes” as a result, that meant it was better. I was tracking data, which made it easy to see what performed best.
>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).
> 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?
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.
I know what your saying, but unless I misinterpreted, the author was lamenting how most of his 150 first dates were a waste of his time.
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.
Ah good point. My expectation is that (unfortunately) he would probably get 0 dates. The online dating world is MUCH too competitive, to the point of absurdity.
> 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.
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.
I 100% agree with being oneself but there are some unfortunate human pitfalls which prevents human beings from communicating their true value to others quickly and in an attractive manner. e.g. A guy may be kinda sorta balding, but he might turn out to be the best dad in the world. How is he supposed to convey that value to his potential mates?
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.
You can't find "the one" without having a good conversion rate from your audience. Also, some of dating is about finding your hidden biases and becoming better the next time about being honest about them.
You need a both a good conversion rate from the part of the audience where you stand a decent chance of success in the long run and a sufficiently large number of 'samples'.
"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.
Ehh... the issue is mostly that online dating doesn't go very well for the vast, vast majority of people. On the other hand, I know plenty of not-particularly-attractive people who've met partners through all sorts of weird and whacky situations.
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.
>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.
>online dating is one of the most nihilistic enterprises
>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.
That is true. But I think that part of secret is to find activity you genuinely like on itself and then not hit every girl that talks to you. Instead, just socialise, do activity, observe people and ask a girl that looks like long term material based on previous non dating non hitting interactions.
Basically, do selection before you date them - that is what meeting girl "naturally" is. Most girls are not good long term match for most dudes - hitting at random is bound to fail many times (unless you are super accommodating type able to adjust to anybody).
I'm going to echo what the other guy said: going into an activity like that just to pick up chicks is not both insulting to the women there (they didn't go there just to get hit on by single men), and not really that helpful for you: you're essentially lying, by claiming this is an activity you also enjoy, when you really don't and you're just there to meet women. (If you really did enjoy it, you'd already be doing it.)
> Online dating is good for people who simply have NO other avenue to meet people
Like everything, in moderation it works great. I'm a male software engineer and can relate to your feelings of not being able to meet single women naturally. But relying exclusively on online dating is kinda... uncreative. You mentioned bars. But also: coffee shops. Art shows. Music festivals. When used in conjunction, Online dating is great, because now you can invite the women you meet online to join you in the other fun activities going on in your life.
I've never really understood the entire Art Shows/Music Festival angle. I've been to a few and never really been in a situation to actually talk to people.
Of course I can't speak to your individual experience. But these are events where a lot of people are in close proximity and hence the chances of meeting others increase.
In music festivals, the last few women that I met were: sitting next to me watching music, in a line to get beer, dancing to my favorite band etc. It seems to me the social norm in the US for the guy to first initiate contact, so you've gotta be able to do that. Women generally have never initiated conversation, except the most extroverted ones.
I like Art Shows/Museums better because they tend to attract a little more educated/sophisticated crowd. I mean, to be fair, I don't go to these places with the explicit intent of meeting women, but the last time I was in MOMA in Houston and there was a group of ladies talking about Napoleon and I couldn't resist asking questions... it was a great conversation and sharing of minds!
I'd totally be down with a book club where the #1 rule was don't talk at book club. The club therefore consists of people willing to sit in the same place at the same time, and read their own books without ever ruining them by discussing them. Relationship interest would be telegraphed by slightly overlapping your cone of personal space onto someone else's, and hoping it doesn't make them panic and flee.
Nothing spoils a potential relationship quite like finding out the other person is a babbling idiot.
I've spent plenty of time in coffee shops. I've had a number of first dates there too. I have never seen anyone introduce themselves to someone in a coffee shop, unless it was obvious that they were planning to meet there. Instead, most people I see there are busy: they're either with a friend(s), or they're busy working on their computer. They're not there to get picked up. If I were a woman, I'd be annoyed if I couldn't go to a coffee shop and relax without a bunch of men hitting on me.
>Music festivals.
If you don't share the same taste in music, that's going to be a problem. The concerts I go to are filled with men. Besides, I've never been to a concert where people were walking around mingling and meeting each other; they were there to listen to the music, not socialize.
> If you don't share the same taste in music, that's going to be a problem. The concerts I go to are filled with men. Besides, I've never been to a concert where people were walking around mingling and meeting each other; they were there to listen to the music, not socialize.
I don't disagree. It can be hard to find activities which are popular with both sexes. I don't really know what to tell you, except that, I'm sorry you didn't luck out in being interested in any of those activities. I would suggest trying to develop a taste for other activities, but I don't think its in my place to ask you to do anything :). I am after all a stranger on the internet.
> I've spent plenty of time in coffee shops. I've had a number of first dates there too. I have never seen anyone introduce themselves to someone in a coffee shop, unless it was obvious that they were planning to meet there. Instead, most people I see there are busy: they're either with a friend(s), or they're busy working on their computer. They're not there to get picked up. If I were a woman, I'd be annoyed if I couldn't go to a coffee shop and relax without a bunch of men hitting on me.
I agree here as well. If you read my other comment, you will see that most of my interactions are incidental, not forced. Its hard to explain, but you have to develop a certain social awareness and curiosity.
Honestly, I've had people pick up conversation with me in a coffee shop on occasion - either they overhear me talking to whoever I'm there with about something they're super interested in, or they're honestly just bored and I happen to be nearby.
> 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???
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.
In my opinion going on a date is also too big of an investment to find out whether or not you 'match' with somebody. When you are at a party you can potentially speak to 10 (20 maybe even 30) women/men in one night, and probably find out that you do not match with 90% of them. If you are using apps like Tinder it will take you 10 nights to date 10 women/men, which is a significantly bigger time investment. Recently I was thinking about this figured out that this is probably the reason none of my friends, who actively use dating apps, have gained any significant relationships using them. This doesn't mean they are not good for anything. However people should be more aware of this and realise that though it seems easier to find meaningful relationships using these apps, it can also make it significantly harder.
I suppose it's a compromise. Using your example, a LOT of people simply don't enjoy going to parties with rooms full of people to try and talk to maybe 30 women/men in one night. Sometimes they find it boring, sometimes they get anxious, sometimes they find it intimidating and wouldn't know how to signal interest without being weird (parties can be confusing that way; most people aren't there to meet a date or hook up). Contrast it with Tinder and similar apps: while people sometimes pretend "a friend installed Tinder on my phone, I never use it!", everyone knows what everyone else is there for, and what they're signalling when they swipe right or start chatting with someone.
Huh, I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Getting in depth about politics, religion, attitudes towards rearing children, commitment to finding a partner, etc. doesn't tend to be appropriate at parties (since most people are there for a good time, not to find a partner), but they are perfectly appropriate online dating chats.
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.
Thinking about it some more, the scripted interactions didn't work because they seemed too much like begging, especially after the 2nd message, when a normal person would have simply stopped communication with a non-responder.
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.
Interesting article, but in the context of serious process and scientific methods, the rape statistics quoted in the article is the exact opposite. The "1 in 5 US women is estimated to be raped before age 25" comes from a single study where they did a voluntary survey in one US university campus. It reflecting of the set of students during that year on that campus that decided to answer that survey. The national average today could be 1 in 5, it could be much more or much less.
Not entirely true, from what I understand. The statistic has been replicated in polls and surveys across various college campuses. The OP's representation, and yours, is a little clunky but makes rational sense to me.
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
The Campus Climate Survey Validation Study has on page 18 a summery of the result for undergraduate females during 2014-2015 in the 9 schools:
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.
My stepdaughter went on 100 dates while in her teens (like, while aged 16-18), to get to know a variety of people (clean, usually double dates). She married ~#72 and they're doing very well, like, idyllic, after some years (she has blogs about raising their children). Anyway, while still a teen, she had an ebook published about why those 100 dates were a good idea, with 365 ideas for free or inexpensive dates:
A correction/ps, too late to edit: there is also apparently a kindle edition of the $3 "365 date ideas", so no niche app needed (though that's a nice app too, i have it):
From my friend group there are two types of individuals:
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.
That doesn't mimic my own experiences. The wajority of women that I have known well enough to observe have been willing to put up with a lot of nonsense. The majority of men that I have had the chance to observe, have had more partners.
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.
Not true. It's perfectly possible you have a scenario where for example the top 10% of men date 100s of women, the bottom 50% date 3 or fewer women and women have a much more even distribution and date an average much higher than 3. These numbers are just an example but in reality I think something a bit like this situation does actually exist.
Sorry, forgot about this post. It seems you are likely right... (my brain is feeling a bit foggy on this one right now). I can see what sort of asymmetric distribution you are talking about. This must have been studied at some point -- it would be interesting to see some hard numbers.
I don't understand. What's the relationship between one person's dating strategy and another person's dating strategy? What's about gays?
Also, I don't see why, for instance, there wouldn't be something like a population where everyone only tries to date as many people as possible. Are you assuming that people wouldn't ever date the same person again?
What about people who date few individuals (2-3), break up 1-2 times and their partners were neither closet racists nor violent nor anything that grave. That would describe majority of people I know.
well, the definition of a "fatal flaw" depends on the individual. even falling "out of love" with someone is obviously a fatal flaw which is probably the most common.
Falling out of love is big deal and reason to split, but hardly reflects badly on partners character the way racism and violence does.
If you are neat freak and she is systematically messy, than the relationship is bound to break or be lifelong hell. However, it is no violence and both partners can move to different successful long term relationship (this time being smarter and checking cleanness standards compatibility before first kiss).
>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.
There's a lot of iPhone users who fit this profile:
> I’m a fat, bald, short guy whose only quality is that he isn’t an ax murderer... But I’m bad at small talk, and I jump too fast to intellectual conversations, making it awkward.
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.
The attempt seems to lack any attempt to recognise the one or reflect what it is that he looks for in a girl. Whether the first meeting is fun and engaging and whether you two can be together long term are very different things.
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.
Here in Paris, many people in their thirties are single like me, and many are on dating sites. I had a lot of dates on a french site called adoptecunmec unlike Tinder. After manual experiences, I started a script which notified me when new girls registered on the website, so I could message them before their inbox would be full. A lot of them were closing their account because of the insane number of lame messages.
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.
Somewhere out there is a girl spamming the hell out of online dating services, looking for this dude. Let's hope when their bots meet, they're programmed to exchange numbers.
It's a nice example of looking for the keys under the light aka if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
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.
Not a bad strategy even if it didn't work, dating is often purely a numbers game.
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.
Having lived in the South long enough to mildly dislike it, I wouldn't say that Southerners are friendly. They are polite, and only when someone whose opinion they may care about is around. Midwesterners are more apt to be friendly, but with far less concern for politeness.
Southern conversation:
A: You know, B, we have been friends for a long time.
A: I think you ought to know: I'm homosexual.
B: Oh, bless your heart. Thank you for telling me.
B: I'm gonna pray for you, A.
B: [never speaks to A again]
Midwest conversation:
A: You know, B, we have been friends for a long time.
A: I think you ought to know: I'm homosexual.
B: No duh. When was the last time you looked at yourself?
B: Why do you think the rest of us call you "Mothball"?
B: Stays in the closet, and also stinks.
B: Guess we'll have to come up with something else now.
A: You're a great friend, Farticus.
Any automated process that depends on human interaction is going to fail, whether it is seeking a job, finding a date.
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.
Seems like the problem was that his bot didn't filter very well and ended up matching him with tons of people that he had to instantly reject on the date.
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.
> Going on 150 dates and not finding a single match tells me that you are shooting outside of your league.
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.
Yeah, either his "optimal" picture made him look a lot better than he looked in person, his personality was off, or he was really picky. 150 dates in a place like the bay area, where probably lots of his dates had something in common with him (blogging, tech, etc.) and not being satisfied with any that liked him back? That seems crazy to me.
I find this creepy and weird. How could you possibly tell the love of your life (if and when you found that person) that they were nothing more than a toy in your little data harvesting exercise.
"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.
Personally I think his approach here was really awful, but for this particular thing you could argue that the code is OK if used by one person, or a very tiny number of people, but if it were used by many people it'd be a big problem. There's a lot of things like that.
I think anyone who has been single long enough to experience the soul-draining tedious world of modern dating could understand and appreciate a way to optimize any part of matchmaking.
Also, I think "speed dating" is just a less geeky version of this.
Glad I'm not the only one... I mean I get the 'hacker' appeal of this, and why it's on HN, but at the same time it's so impersonal and weird to message that many people.
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.
Wow, the data point about rape is an interesting tangent. I guess with people like 45 and all the stories from Silicon Valley, it's not that surprising. But sad none the less.
Maybe we can follow the OP's lead and use technology to automate data collection around this and come up with better solutions.
"how did you meet that guy?" -Ow, he had a bot on tinder and I responded to it.
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.
From solely reading the headline I had no idea how far the author took this. Kudos for this very interesting piece of "research"!
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.
> Step 1, for success, is moving away from the west coast
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.
This is a depressing read. Here we have a "startup founder" (=relatively wealthy), who isn't that bad-looking, using a complicated script to massively increase his opportunities and he still can't get a date. Is there even hope for the rest of us?
Yes, there is hope. Don't work your life away, and actually get out and do things. Places I've met people: roleplaying groups, kink communities, hobby-related conferences and workshops, local events, completely random social IRC channels. It can take just one off-hand comment on a shared interest to lead to a conversation and a spark.
Also note that the sort of person who finds enjoyment in automating away social interaction is unlikely to be enjoyable to socially interact with.
It's like the programmer who applies to 150 jobs. The programmer cannot do the research on all 150 so the interviews lack the personal connection. Far better to focus on the 10 you really want do the research and put in the effort to really wow the interviewer.
I have and been successful but maybe things have changed in the last 10 years.
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.
Online dating has the wrinkle that focusing on the 10 you really want and putting in the effort to really wow the interviewer doesn't always produce a higher success rate. The rise of Tinder has accentuated this.
I don't think the comparison to applying to jobs works. When applying to jobs you have a pretty sizable knowledge of the companies. When online dating, you know very little about each person (the amount of data varies greatly depending on the service and person). You can't know if you're going to like someone until you meet them in person, but you can have a pretty good idea of whether or not you're going to like a company by researching online.
If the dating site allows publicly linking to social media profiles or if you have a real name/number you can do a little research. Identifying common interests or topics to avoid can be helpful.
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.
It's a stock photo, you're reading into it too much. I doubt the guy went on a date and then asked the gal to strike a pose: "I'm writing an article about how I'm dating 150 girls, can you please pose for a photograph?"
He did online dating, meaning all the girls had already published their photos in the internet before he met them. Just right click and "Save as" would do the trick, if he really wanted to include real photos in the article :)
I did not read the whole post yet but it could be a picture of his fiance. I could not quickly find the source of the image through google image search [0]. What are the odds?
Is it unethical to go out with someone that wants out of their marriage? A divorce is costly, takes a lot of time, and the relationship is usually dead long before the papers are finalized.
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?
It's easy to turn this question around: Are you saying that you should live your life beholden to someone else just because they're supporting you financially? Isn't that servitude?
You're beholden because you're married, not because you're a slave. You have a choice of divorce, nobody is stopping you from leaving, being financially dependent that doesn't justify cheating on your spouse.
Ten years is a long time, and people change significantly. Think drug abuse. If your SO is strung out all the time, and you have no ability to support yourself, what would you do?
Unfortunately this isn't a corner case. It's a sad but common story.
Even in that case, why wear the ring in the picture?
Edit: On second look, that picture looks to be a stock photo, not one of the dates the author went on.
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.
He was solving a wrong problem using a wrong set of tools. He clearly stated that what he wanted was a walking womb however what he offered in his profile was something else. No engineering optimization would make someone who wants a steak happy in a place offering omakase.
That reminded me of my wife's friend who wrote a book[1] about her experience of outsourcing dating. Being a woman she has the reverse problem of too many suitors. She outsourced the vetting process and initial conversation to the hired assistants (yes, plural), with mixed success.
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.
Modern dating is a mystery to me. What a laborious and painful way to sift through people when the most likable people come into your life when you least expect it.
> when the most likable people come into your life when you least expect it.
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.
It's doubly difficult for loners and introverts who do not necessarily enjoy meeting as many people as possible, yet would like a partner to share their lives with.
Go to south America.latin women are amazing. Feminine smile a lot good looking and full of flirt. Ofc you need to speak Spanish but it's easy to learn! 8)
That's an awful stereotype. Also, there is no "South America"; there are countries in South America, each with a different culture and dating strategies, some more traditional and conservative, some less. If you try dating in a conservative South American country (or city, because yes, it varies from city to city!), you'll find dating extremely difficult. Source: I'm from a country in South America.
>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.
[1] https://www.quora.com/What-does-happy-as-a-hippo-mean