[O__________O]

I have done dating startups few times, even went on 1+ dates a day for six months and on each actively tried to understand how people date; in my experience, people are highly random, rarely reach anywhere near a significant sample, and tend to focus of characteristics of an individual instead of characteristics related to relationships.

If I was to do another social platform that supports dating, it would be one that’s friendly first, dating second. Reason being that in my experience people don’t understand that they wrongly focus on attributes of individual when looking for a relationship instead of looking at the individual’s relationship attributes.

Individuals attributes are things like: attractiveness, age, hobbies, finances, religion, race, profession, etc.

Relationship attributes are things like: communication, engagement, supportiveness, helpfulness, honesty, trustworthiness, kindness, empathy, compassion, availability, reliability, consistency, mindfulness, openness, receptiveness, contribution, etc.

The relationship attributes apply platonic and non-platonic relationships — but are much better predictors of non-platonic relationship success long term than the individual attributes.

[safety1st]

I'll take the hardest pass ever on a "dating startup" that tells me I shouldn't care about the attractiveness, age, or finances of a potential partner.

[O__________O]

It’s not that they don’t matter, but that they’re significantly less important than if a person is actually has strong relationship attributes — all of which are measurable via platonic relationships. Most dating platforms as is are extremely hostile to their customers actually finding real relationships, since as soon as they do, by definition, they’re no longer customers; for a friend’s first platform, they would not be the case.

[hungryforcodes]

You're not wrong that dating platforms are like that (Tinder, I think being the most obvious) -- and you seem to have direct experience with this -- but suggesting that people start platonically is very ... Sunday church style.

I guess everyone is different, but for me relationships that start out platonically...end up platonic. If nothing happens in the first 3-5 dates...nothing ever will really. I realize that's part of "dating" culture too -- but there is also something behind it -- if I'm REALLY attracted to someone, I'll put the moves on earlier (or they will etc).

What I have had good success in -- and there is something to this I believe -- is meeting romantic partners in similar interest social circles that appeal to both (or however many there are now) genders. You meetup with others of similar interest for a couple of hours once a week, natural attraction forms, if both are interested the independent romantic meeting will happen naturally. The dating nature of it is all -- hidden (and in fact I didn't go into these meetings planning to date anyways).

It's hard to bottle that up exactly into an app though.

[O__________O]

Actually, I don’t agree with the whole date friends of friends or joining an existing social group is a good approach, or at the very least, it has pros and cons. When dating from a pool of like that, people tend to act significantly different and if short term relationship fails to become long term relationship, it generally has a negative impact on one of the individuals and/or group.

[est31]

> When dating from a pool of like that, people tend to act significantly different

Can you expand on this? Because the only thing I have in mind is that it's actually beneficial to meet people from such groups, compared to apps, or clubs/bars/parties. I had way better experiences in those friends groups than in the other places, even when it's just the types of rejections you receive.

I agree with the second statement, that it is more awkward in a friends group when a short relationship is over, compared to not meeting someone any more you only know from an app.

[O__________O]

Sure, happy to clarify anything, including why I see engaging an existing social group with the intention of finding a long term relationship as problematic.

In my experience, way people act in a relationship long term is frequently is more comparable to how people act around strangers than within an existing social group. Common example of this would be if you’re on a date with a stranger and they just randomly leave, are mean to waiting staff, etc — though they would not likely exhibit that same negative behavior the date was from a existing social group because of the negative blow back.

[hungryforcodes]

I agree with you, but read what I said again and understand I'm not suggesting dating friends of friends or known social circles.

You need to date kind of "anonymously" (to avoid exactly what you are talking about), but with people that have similar interests. So in short form I'm talking about meeting up with people of similar hobbies or interests (rock climbing, board gaming, going to raves, whatever)

[O__________O]

You’re right, so jaded by whole dating within an existing social group that I responded just based on that.

Also, I agree, the whole love at first sight is for sure a very real pattern, and uncommon for friendships to develop into something more. That said, in truly long term relationships, vast majority of those types of feelings significantly fade after the “honeymoon” phase of a relationship. Further, if someone is with you for example financial reasons, it’s much less likely they’ll stick around if financial hardships are experienced or they find someone else with significantly more financial resources.

My thesis is not so much to grow friendships into non-platonic relationships, but that relationship attributes are predictable among platonic and non-platonic relationships and that by requiring someone build a “relationship reputation” first, then when engaging other users in the context of going on a date, there’s a much higher chance that they’ll actually have relationships skills.

Whole shared interests aspect is also a frequently sighted as a desirable aspect of a relationship, though rarely good predictor of relationships skills.

[safety1st]

They're not less important, they're table stakes. Is there wiggle room, sure. Maybe sometimes people are capable of being a little more flexible on these things than they realize.

But for example, I think this is true of just about everyone: there's an age range that they're willing to date within, and outside of that range, everyone is a hard pass.

I wouldn't date someone who was twice my age, no matter how great their personality was, it's an absolute no.

Similarly if we use BMI as a proxy for attractiveness. This one may be a little more controversial but I suspect just about everyone has a BMI range they are comfortable with, and if someone is far enough outside of that range, there is no chance, no matter what anyone says, that you are going to date them.

I agree that most dating platforms are hostile to their customers but I think the issues there run much deeper. They all have incentives to _keep you engaged with their platform for as long as possible_, that is how they make the most money. They don't make money by finding you a partner. They are really just social media that can charge a monthly membership fee.

[Scandiravian]

I don't see OP arguing against people having those preferences, only that focusing on those attributes will lead to a lower likelihood of successfully finding a relationship

A relationship where one or more participants are unempathetic and uncommunicative is at higher risk of ending than one on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of how attractive each of the partners are

[O__________O]

Agree, though it’s not just that focusing that having relationship skills is a predictor of long term success in relationships, but that people that focus first on non-relationship skills tend to also have poor relationship skills.

Beyond that, main thesis is that relationships skills are largely shared between platonic and non-platonic relationships and that if there was a social network where 50% or more of relationships were based on platonic relationships, that there “relationship score” would be baked into evaluation for potential dates; basically, unless you had significant non-platonic relationship score, you would not be able to unlock dating on the platform and as result, it would be a friends first network; though to be clear, once dating was unlocked as result of achieving a meaningful “relationship score” users would be able to just go on dates.

[O__________O]

What I don’t hear you acknowledging is that partners without relationships skills are significantly less likely to last — or for that matter, that you even value relationships skills. If you don’t, that’s fine, but you to me are both missing my core point and also in my opinion much less likely to actually end up in a meaningful relationship.

[safety1st]

You aren't hearing me acknowledge those things because I have not agreed to enter into a relationship with you where you coach me, or frankly one where you have any involvement in my personal life whatsoever. I am not interested in having that with you, so please do not presume.

This is a forum for hackers and entrepreneurs. You are an entrepreneur who has run a string of dating startups. I am informing you about the preferences which exist in this market. You believe these preferences to be wrong. I think there may be business advantage for you in recognizing that those preferences are real and not wrong.

[O__________O]

Acknowledging alternative perspectives has nothing to do with agreeing with them or for that matter, partaking in them.

Also, obviously aware that significant percentage of people focus on attributes that are a poor predictor of long term success in a relationship and have zero desire to engage that market; not to mention you falsely assume that your definition of an entrepreneur is same as mine.

Lastly, happy to be proven wrong, but majority of HN is neither a hacker or entrepreneur, but just people that are curious people interested in being around other curious people.

[newsclues]

When you buy a car, what is your first filter to narrow the market?

What is a pretty car? Or, do I need an SUV, truck or car? Do you want ICE or EV or Hybrid?

Or do you start by picking all the red cars that you think are pretty and then find one that suits your needs?

Sorry for comparing dating to buying a car.

[ihatepython]

> When you buy a car, what is your first filter to narrow the market?

Price

[sh4rks]

So you'd rather drive a cheap, old, ugly car than an moderately priced decent looking car?

[ihatepython]

Yes. As long as it works. Insurance should be cheaper as well. And if something happens to it, I won't feel too bad about it.