|
|
|
|
|
|
by stared
2206 days ago
|
|
|
Right now the match % is close to useless, see: https://twitter.com/pmigdal/status/1268959822378082304 It used to be much more informative, especially as the answers are weighted. Of course, a much more informative approach would be to use update weights from data. Also, when it comes to your example: - I know people with a deep believer and a lukewarm one (I don't take for granted that it is a more important question than if someone enjoys horror movies), - for important matters (e.g. whole conservative-religious-right-traditional) it is not a single answer but many, many. Also, usually, there are much fewer deal-breakers than one initially states (vide https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_datin...). Again, looking at data (vs assuming what is important) would be a big deal. |
|
|
And as you point out, that makes the notion of a dealbreaker a fairly nuanced one - e.g. I might tell myself that I would never date someone who doesn't want kids because I do want kids, so why would I waste my time? On a website that shows these preferences, I will likely not engage with profiles who mention that they don't want kids, and ignore their messages.
But of course when the new guy shows up at work and he turns out to be really cute and interesting, I may be interested in him/we may start a romantic relationship before these preferences become apparent.
Which can then go in any number of directions - the relationship might fizzle out really fast. Or it may engender personal change for the partners. Or it might lead to many decades of bitter resentment. Who knows! This could make the rational argument that one should accept to chat with anyone on a dating profile regardless of their displayed preferences, but of course that's not how humans tend to reason.