[eropple]

I dunno, from where I stand what you are defining as the problems of "lower ranked men" are symptoms of living in a late-capitalist society problems. It's not the app's fault that people respond to incentives; the way out, if "out" is to be defined as to find people who want to interact with you, to "not settle" or whatever, is to improve oneself. It can both suck and be the only option. Fortunately, it's a lot easier to be interesting than it is to be rich.

[csee]

That is the only way out on a local, personal level, since that's all we have much control over. But how is it not the app's fault? When Twitter and Facebook create social dynamics that encourage outrage and division, I blame them (or at least I blame the incentives and systems that cause them to do this). Ditto for the impact that these dating apps are having.

[eropple]

> But how is it not the app's fault?

How is it? Like, okay, what's the alternative? I genuinely don't understand the criticism beyond "well, self-described low-status men are getting passed over because people have options." Should they not be getting passed over? Should people be taking one for the team for these self-described low-status men and dating them despite themselves? There have always been lonely people, and some so for good reasons and some for not. I am not sure that there's a way to substantiate that there are proportionally more of the latter group now or that dating apps etc. are accentuating it for this population.

These apps do suck, don't get me wrong--they're gacha games, and they're structured like it--but the mode of criticism matters. As near as I can tell, the It's A Wonderful Life of this is "nothing", not "something theoretically better for self-described low-status men". It's not like people would be going to church to meet and then obligatorily marry Goody Marshall's cousin's son were it not for Tinder.

[csee]

The alternative is the way things were 15 years ago, where people found mates via their physical networks, work, family, hobbies, religion, and day to day life.

The criticism is similar in nature to the criticism of Twitter and Facebook. These apps play to and encourage the worst side of humans in the way that their social dynamics are designed, which distorts relations between people for the worse.

In the case of dating apps, it's because the "first meeting" is viewing someone's curated digital profile instead of getting to know their full self in the real world, they strongly encourage selection based on trivialities like height, hip to waist ratio, income and other signals. You also encourage the same narcissistic performance games that Instagram encourages. It's also the sheer deluge of profiles. Like, our dopamine system isn't designed for that, and nor is it a fully free choice when the app has exploited that evolved system to hook users. And what's going to be the impact of designing a system that makes it easy for people to self select into opposing political tribes?

Of course most of this stuff happened to an extent 15 years ago too. But as with Facebook and their tendency to stoke outrage and division, the problem is how the app has turbocharged our worse tendencies while also creating dilemma like incentives that make it tricky to opt out from.

My point about low status men is that they often aren't bad mates. They're low status through the prism of hyper gamified dating apps that magnify the importance of trivialities. There's no question that there's people who've had it worse in this regard in the pre-dating app era (various low-caste/untouchables types in different societies), my point isn't that we are at rock bottom, just that dating apps are a pretty large step in the wrong direction.

[eropple]

I think I notionally agree with a lot of what you're saying. Where I think we disagree--and this is me maybe not being the most optimistic person in the universe--is in the alternative. I think the fracturing we are seeing right now doesn't mean the alternative is "find mates at work and through other physical networks". I think it's "don't find anybody."

To that end, I think these are awful, but perhaps not the darkest timeline.

[KptMarchewa]

>I genuinely don't understand the criticism beyond "well, self-described low-status men are getting passed over because people have options." Should they not be getting passed over?

You seem to miss that outcomes are not only getting worse for men.

[brewdad]

You can be the most interesting person in the world but that's cold comfort in a world of dating apps if you aren't physically "attractive".

[eropple]

I don't think that that's true. I'm not particularly attractive. I'm not tall. I'm not fit. And yet I do all right. I do have a great dog, but I don't think that makes up for it. But I do think that people can detect a shitty vibe pretty quickly even through a couple photos and a bio, and Not Being That is a significant step up.

[nnoitra]

As a matter of fact due to the halo effect attractive people are just considered to have better personalities and no women don't have supernatural abilities to detect "shitty vibes" it's basically just about looks.

[alphabettsy]

> But I do think that people can detect a shitty vibe pretty quickly even through a couple photos and a bio, and Not Being That is a significant step up.

Very much this.

[bradlys]

I think you’re just bad at describing yourself here and your outcomes. It’s also locale dependent.

Where I am in SF - it’s purgatory. Even when I change to NYC - it’s incredibly difficult. The main reason? So much choice for the women. Why date sideways or down when it seems like you could always date up? There’s endless options available - whether they’ll stick around… not likely.