Hacker News new | more | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
A Matchmaker Who Flirts on Dating Apps for You (2017) (thecut.com)
62 points by howard941 30 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 81 comments



Good for her finding a niche market like this however I pity the clients and the people on the other end.

Tinder and the likes are a numbers game, with everyone procuring their,"best self" in 6 photos and a witty bio. There is already so much artificiality in the interactions and this will just add more to it.

I was terrible and shy when I first used Tinder but I treated it like any other problem. I iterated and reviewed; improved my appearance and well being.

Then I started getting matches; at which point I couldn't think of anything funny to say. So I went with cliched or weird intros. After another bit of iteration and self reflection and lots of trial and error I was getting dates.

This whole evolution took place over a year or so and was a good benchmark for me.

Whether you are a woman or a man, if you are failing on Tinder/Bumble/Match/Dates etc. I suggest you do a bit of self reflection and try and change it up, I believe in you!

People who are trying to skip parts out are more likely to stumble at the next hurdle in my opinion.


Seems like every aspect of our lives is becoming like a big job hunt. Putting in all the right keywords regardless of whether they apply to you or not. Making yourself look better artificially at the cost of authenticity. smh.


My Tinder experience was exactly like a job hunt. Even complete with matches ghosting you after some promising convos (employers ignoring you despite promising to get in contact after good interviews).


You may chose to not live that life.

We tend to only see the superficial personalities on social media mostly because they're the most vocal imo.


"You’re always looking for a job, apartment or a boyfriend."[1] In the beginning, Craigslist was the online market for all three. Then the markets specialized and we got Monster.com, Match.com, and Zillow. Now we've moved on-demand with the "gig economy", AirBNB, and Tinder. Is the next shift consolidation? Book your apartment for the night, your date for the night, and a freelance gig to pay for it all in the same app?

[1] Yes I did just quote Sex and the City on HN.


A job hunt is just selling yourself and dating is selling yourself as a good partner.

Networking events and friendships are also selling yourself, since you can’t possibly give the same time and importance to everyone, so you need to pick and choose.


Don't know about you but i never had to "sell" myself to make friends. It's the mechanization of human experiences and emotions due to technology that scares me the most of all. It's putting numbers on unquantifiable things and convincing society that it is indeed quantifiable. What next? Some "visionary" comes up with a way to rate our all attributes on an n dimensional scale, and we all strive in our lives to make those numbers go up? "Introducing FB person ratings, where we rate things like dating desirability, job efficiency, intelligence, charm" Then tinder will hook into this system and suddenly we have people putting " >85 attractiveness, >70 charm" in their profiles as preferences. That kind of world, which i hope will never happen, will be a complete shit hole imo.


Even if you don’t think of it as selling, it is. The way you speak, the actions you do, the interests you have, the way you look are all being interpreted by others, and everyone is consciously or subconsciously determining whether or not someone is worth more of their time.


All these things do not matter if you have the cash to buy yourself out of these problems. Yes everyone "can" potentially learn to fix their cars and computers. But if they have jobs that pay better than the time it takes to do the job then that is straight up shitty investment of their time.

If someone earns so much money that they can pay 700 usd a month for this service, that basically means that they have figured life out and are successful and do not need to change.

People that make money understand that the better investment is to pay someone more competent to do the job.

Personality has also always been something the can be influenced by money. There is a reason why women would prefer rich "jerks" to poor nice guys.


> If someone earns so much money that they can pay 700 usd a month for this service, that basically means that they have figured life out and are successful and do not need to change.

No, that only means that they have enough disposable income to afford the service.

> Personality has also always been something the can be influenced by money. There is a reason why women would prefer rich "jerks" to poor nice guys.

The generalisation you make about women is really offensive, furthermore, you can not assume everyone favours income over personality in a partner.

In any case, dating, like a job hunt and many other aspects of our lives, comes down to weighting up your expectations against someone else's, if you're fine with attracting a partner because of your money, good for you.


Buying out of the problems will leave you with wholes in your self development which in the long run will cause more pain.


Pretty sure managing annoying garbage like OKCupid is not a part of "self development."

The fact that services like "Pay someone to get you a date on the internet" have a market and seem to be necessary says something pretty awful about our culture. Technology is supposed to make things easier, not be something that needs to be managed by experts.


It doesn't say anything about our culture. Getting a date via a dating app is trivial. You match, ask each other a couple questions, you meet. Don't ask or send nudes.

You have to be incredibly inept if you can't get at least one date by the end of the day. If it is a larger city, you could be booking them out through the weekend.

But hey, anyone that needs this service will probably be a long term customer.


If you don't see anything wrong with dating apps and what it has done to our culture, well, I hope you enjoy your trivial date getting while it lasts!

I, personally, do not like the dystopia tech has built. I don't like 20 spam calls a day, ubiquitous tracking, insane "social media" or the fact that nitwits conduct witch hunts on the internet based on "facecrime." It sucks. Drugging yourself to put up with it seems to be standard operating procedure.


It streamlined the process of meeting interesting and nice people. I don't see a problem in that. If you are treating them as trivial dates that might be the problem. It is a chance to see if you might be interested in seeing each other again, low pressure, no stupid pickup lines, just a nice conversation and go from there. I have made friends from a number of dates that didn't work out in that capacity.

I don't understand what your second paragraph has to do with anything I said, it's basically rambling. Maybe off topic rants isnt helping your dating life.

Tech definitely facilitates the ability to meet someone and have a drink or coffee. Someone you probably wouldn't have ever ran into otherwise. I see nothing wrong with that.


You're either very young (and therefore have the perspective of celery) or completely uninterested in family formation and societies which promote this. Either way: as I said; have fun while you can. I doubt as it will last long, but maybe you will one day be a happily atomized 60-something going out on coffee dates with fellow alienated weirdos you met on OKCupid.


You are incorrect on all fronts.


That is true. But if you are successful enough to afford such a service that means that you are a well developed and successful personality that basically dones't have time to treat every woman like a magical princess.

Clients have needs and are willing to pay for the services required.

Rich people also have drivers. That doesn't mean they can't drive.


> But if you are successful enough to afford such a service that means that you are a well developed and successful personality that basically dones't have time to treat every woman like a magical princess.

I wouldn't be so confident in the personal virtues of wealthy people if I were you.


Last time I talked to a driver they didn't lie to me and pretend to be their client.

The moral problem here, at least for me, is intentional deception, users of such a service actively pay somebody to lie to another person. That sounds like a great start for a solid relationship. The article makes is pretty clear that she hides her client's emotional baggage, which in principle is what most people do but how is she sure that transfers to the situation where the client actually meets the other person? Having a few thousand quids disposable might as well mean the client is desparate or simply inapt at social interactions, not sure why that would magically mean the exact opposite to be quiet honest. Being "nice" can hardly be considered a necessary prerequisite for making money.


The same can be said about make up, hi heels, botox, and other kind of plastic surgery. It is a service to assist in the cover up of a 'perceived' flaw. Can that also be called deception, regardless of how permanent the solution is ?


I mean, if you like. I find these equivalences weird, of course you try to make a good first impression but I see a pretty big difference between make up / outfits, etc. and hiring somebody to pretend to be the best side of a fake you. The latter is an intentional lie, while the former is socially accepted, pretty transparent and more importantly expected - it's not like we assume the other person wakes up in full makeup / a nice suit.

As for the permanent measures you bring forward, it's not like even modern and progressive societies aren't still split on purely esthetical beauty surgery. But then again that's an odd example because that's people's own choice and permanently changes their own looks so I do not really see how that really relates to the service debated here.


If you choose to take it in your hands, to manage it yourself, you gain more, a good circumstance for self reflection you won't meet too often.

If you see it as a service, sure, if you are very successful and don't have time that someone literally has to manage your dating, then more to you I guess...

On the other hand, for people who are bad and incorrigible at self reflection, a serious matchmaker who knows you well can do a good job in finding you a suitable partner. But somehow I distrust this kind of online service, and that's me. "Local" matchmaking seems to be working in smaller communities.


Yes I can fully agree with you. If a person is clearly struggling with attracting the opposite Sex, then it is certain that persinalised and tailored help will be more benificial, but in the case with this survice, I see like a luxoroise tool to pay yourself out of some of the more mundaine tasks in the current sexual market.


The real problem with reflection as a source of improvement is that you can't iterate without feedback relevant to your goal. If your goal is an external one and your source of feedback is an internal one, many people will have a great deal of difficulty getting past the first problem of getting people to pay attention to me.

Though in my case, I found out from one helpful person that tinder had my gender incorrect for the first 6-8 months I spent on it (back before that was user-controlled). So sometimes it's not you at all.


This is so true. It reminds me of the ad to landing page problem. If your ad copy says "world's greatest golf clubs, click here" and then your landing page says "book a holiday to Portugal!" -- your chance of conversion is a lot lower. Sure there are a bunch of great places to golf in Portugal, but the person has clicked looking for clubs.

It's the same here. She might drive the traffic to the landing page, but unless her clients match the messaging, they'll never convert...

"I left after drinks. (S)He was so much wittier on the app - we just didn't connect the same way in real life."


I like this. Self marketing skills can improve with honest self reflection and trial and error doesn't have to be painful, we first have to accept it is a numbers game


It seems inevitable that if AI algorithms help humans flirt, it means we'll eventually have a 2 people get married because John with help from Google's flirting AI interacted with Mary with help from her Facebook flirting AI.

Basically, it means it was the Google software engineers flirting with with the Facebook software programmers!

Seems ripe for a Hollywood romcom script. Two people hook up because of their respective dating AI apps told them what to say. If the movie was long enough, you could include them getting divorced and the husband & wife's attorneys each using legal AI software to optimize the best divorce settlement.


I think Douglas Adams was fairly prescient back in 1987: "The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe."

Replace the chirpy lady in this article with an algorithm, replace the potential matches with algorithms too, and we're there.


>If the movie was long enough, you could include them getting divorced and the husband & wife's attorneys each using legal AI software to optimize the best divorce settlement.

You're being too pessimistic. Instead, in light of the fact that humans typically married within extremely small communities (and so got along fine with far less matchmaking power than we have today), the couple could learn to live with each other's faults as they realize that even if they start out imperfect, each one can each grow in to what the other one needs.

The divorce rate in New York is pretty high and the matchmaking pool there is gigantic. In fact, divorces tend to be a little more common in dense urban areas. Maybe that's evidence that insufficient matchmaking is not the bottleneck of relationship happiness.


You are conflating remaining married with happiness. It is just as possible that seeing more people increases your odds of realizing you dobt have to "settle".

That said, I do believe that most people could be happy with one another with the right mindset. I just dont think the data you presented proves the cause of urban divorce rates.


I could see this as a Black Mirror script too


There is one, where AI copies of people's personalities are put into a weird dome world of sorts and spend (virtual) years in the (virtual) (and bizarre / forced) dating world until they find a match.


The "Hang the DJ" episode is sort of along those lines where your AI's pretend date in a virtual world and give a result back in an app.


I believe Stross had that as a background detail in Accelerondo too


can this be an adultswim or comedy central short or something. he only loses the case because his law-ai.biz subscription, lapsed.


The Hot Take is that this is computers breeding humans.


So, she's an agent! She should get 15%, the standard agent rate. What's 15% of a marriage? With a dozen clients at ~500/mo, she's not making enough to live in Manhattan right now.

This is terrible, but I read this and my mind switches back to nerd stuff: how great would it be if software developers could hire someone like this but to handle job outreach and negotiation? You: kick back, solve programming puzzles, go to the occasional tech-out interview. They: reach out to prospects, arrange your interviews, and do the salary negotiation.

They're really different skills, programming and job negotiation. They're not even correlated! I know so many excellent negotiators with excellent jobs who aren't even in the top 50% of programmers I've worked with, and vice versa.

I suppose it's probably similar with dating; being a good partner probably has little to do with being good at arranging dates.

Later

Heading off a bunch of replies right here:

Recruiters work for hiring firms. How you know this is, developers don't generally pay recruiters. The essence of an agent/principal relationship is that the agent works for, and is compensated by, the principal. Recruiters aren't talent agents for developers.


I'm an ex-PM that works as a talent agent (100% comped by candidate, no formal relationship with companies) for tech jobs, mainly PMs but some devs. It's a side business I'm trying to grow into full-time work. I take up to 4 clients at once since it's a lot of work per person and I don't have a lot of automation in place yet.

I'm amazed that professional help isn't standard, since your job determines so much of your happiness and future path, but most people rely on skills they dust off every few years to get one.

Much like the article's dating example, it's not clear to the employer that I as an agent exist, because employers often categorically don't want to hear from third parties early in the game. So in practice this involves a lot of ghostwriting on a new, shared email account, which the candidate reviews and submits. Interview coaching is also a big part of it.

Also, from a pure negotiation perspective, Josh Doody at FearlessSalaryNegotiation.com (I'm not affiliated) is very good and specializes in developers.


share email please, i have a question


coaching at unusuallydifficult dot com


  I'm amazed that professional help isn't standard
There's already a layer of "professional" "help" in the form of recruiters.

They've got a terrible reputation, because their incentives are all messed up.


Their incentives aren't messed up at all. They just don't do what you think they do. Recruiters work for firms. They're not a layer of professional help for candidates.


Employers somewhat dislike recruiters because recruiters are incentivised to (a) Tip employees off about the questions and answers to the company's tests, (b) solicit the employee to leave as soon as the recruiter gets paid for placing them, and (c) shop employees around between employers in profit order, so employers that try to reduce fees only get candidates other companies have passed on.

Candidates somewhat dislike recruiters because they're incentivised to (a) post false adverts to gather CVs, (b) cold call aggressively, (c) be careless with candidates' personal details, (d) misrepresent their willingness to negotiate well on the employees' behalf and their knowledge of pay ranges, (e) misrepresent candidates to employers, and (f) apply aggressive hard-sell tactics.

For both employers and candidates to dislike the results of recruiters' incentives is what I mean when I say the incentives are messed up. Firms may pay them, but it's not true to say firms are 100% happy with the deal they get.


In consulting this is quite common. Sales people have a pool of consultants they reach out to whenever an assignment pops up. You just jump on the ones you want for the pay you want. Standard cut is 10%


"... could hire someone like this but to handle job outreach and negotiation ..."

They're called recruiters.


Not really! There have been a couple recruiting plays in the past couple years that have tried to do "talent agent" positioning, but I think they're all just recruiters, not agents.

A talent agent is someone you, the developer, have a relationship with. They go out and apply to everything you're interested in for you. They're not working from a book of qualified openings trying to match developers to them. They'll do the negotiating lifting even at firms that won't pay their placement rate --- because you, the developer, are the one who pays them, not the company.


"... could hire someone like this but to handle job outreach and negotiation ..."

There are lawyers you can hire to do this sort of negotiation for you. A relative of mine is one such, and did a job offer negotiation for me.

Thing is, they usually work on very large deals. Their expense is enormous, so it’s not the sort of thing they usually hire out for.


Well recruiters are not expensive in the grand scheme of things. If your problem solving skills are so good that someone is willing to pay you enought you can tottaly afford an assistant or an agent.


>how great would it be if software developers could hire someone like this but to handle job outreach and negotiation?

How have you not heard of recruiters? I get spammed by them almost every day.


Everyone's heard of recruiters, but most recruiters just don't do most of the above.

Recruiters are often essentially human banner ads for job postings, and generally don't do most of the above. (Particularly since recruiters work for the company, not the applicant)


Ah, good old "outsource non-vital parts, so you have more time for yourself (sic)".

How much of your life can be outsourced, before it's no longer your life? How much of a man still makes a man?

Edgar Allan Poe had a funny little story about that and technology, all the way back in 1840:

https://www.eapoe.org/works/mabbott/tom2t032.htm


All of it, honestly, if that's what you want.

There's no hard and fast rules on what makes an experience worth living. If automating and outsourcing everything makes you happy, do it!

Life is short.


Look around your living space. Make a list of the things you do every day as part of your daily routine. Think about a person living in the middle ages, and how your routine differs from theirs. How many outsourcing relationships do you benefit from, compared to them? Do you have more or less agency than that other person?


Hidden in your questions is a presupposition of a well-defined "you", a human essence that decides/benefits as an indivisible whole.

As that EA Poe story skilfully anticipated, and as our modernity puts more and more into practice, "you" is just a chimera, a leaky abstraction. It appears the questions of tomorrow will be around "what's the entity exercising agency" more than "how much agency".

Surrogate matchmakers are but a taste of things to come.


(2014) https://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/

Video: https://datascience.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/tYeyAch76caSFrHDf...

This is about a guy who wrote a Python script to ... "set up 12 fake OkCupid accounts and wrote a Python script to manage them. The script would search his target demographic (heterosexual and bisexual women between the ages of 25 and 45), visit their pages, and scrape their profiles for every scrap of available information... After three weeks he'd harvested 6 million questions and answers from 20,000 women all over the country. "

Not. Creepy. At. All.



Cyrano As A Service? Totally outsourcing it seems a bit skeevy to me, but some on-demand-coaching would be nice.

"Don't tell her about your D&D group yet!" would've been some good advice in the past. For a friend of mine, of course.


Didn't Cyrano do the whole date? This person is just arranging meetings.


He wrote letters, and she's posing as her clients, so this seems roughly equivalent.

Which to me personally is a step to far. If you're getting tips or even literal phrases, you still have the option of not using or changing them. Not even participating in the courtship until the first date seems morally unsound.

The matchmakers of old would be the dating service itself. Or maybe their shoddy algorithms.


What coaching is necessary? You chit chat about interests and ask to meet. It's really that simple.


Woman here so I would guess my dating app experience is a bit different from most HN readers. Just reading the headline I was kind of disgusted. But then I read the article:

> When she messages potential matches, Golden typically comments on their photos: What a cute dog! Oh, your kids live in the city, how lucky are you? She types out full sentences, and she does not use emoji, and she certainly does not use innuendo. “I’m not gonna say like, ‘How big are your feet?’” she giggled.

Women are absolutely bombarded with so many messages on these apps that they can't possibly respond to most and have to narrow it down. At a very high level, the process of elimination for most women goes like this:

1. First, skip all of the creeps who fortunately make it super easy for you to spot (bathroom selfies & "Wanna sit on my face?" messages).

2. Then narrow it down by intelligence so anyone who seems to have trouble putting together a full sentence or spelling gets a pass.

3. Finally, narrow it down based on effort so 90% of the remaining messages are ignored because they're some variation of "hey" or "there she is!"

These filters suck. But they're the best we can do with an overwhelming amount of inputs and limited additional information. Occasionally creeps get past the filter and we don't find out until we meet in person. Conversely, are all men who take bathroom selfies or ask 'wut u doin' or who play the "numbers game" by sending 'hey' to 1000 women worthy of being skipped over? Probably not. I bet there are a lot of awesome guys who have done one or more of those things and get "filtered out" by women who would otherwise really enjoy their company. But, for now at least, women don't have a better way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

The messages Golden sends on behalf of her clients bypass all of these filters. My boyfriend is 13 years older than me, twice-divorced and has a 12 year old. We never would have met via a dating app because I would've filtered him out for a hundred different reasons. (And he's a numbers guy so he would absolutely be guilty of #3.)

Assuming Golden does some sort of creep-QC on her clients, if two people meet in person and really hit it off because Golden was able to get the right guy past the right girl's tinder filters, well I think that's great.

But also, someone needs to come up with a better way to deal with women's dating-app inboxes. Bumble tried to make an effort but there is a LOT of room for improvement.


Tinder already did that. I think I saw a screenshot once from the olden days of OK Cupid, where men could and were expected to send a message to any woman they found interesting. I think there were hundreds of messages per day or something.


Yes but I'm saying even with Tinder its unmanageable. Progress, yes. But not a solution. I'm Tinder loses a lot of users because their female users are overwhelmed and their male users are underwhelmed.


You should try the contemporary OK Cupid. It's really great. The match scores are awesome. It essentially means you'll never have a truly bad date.



I’ve used services like this - in addition to self improvement. Messaging women takes a lot of time and it’s a pain in the ass. I’d rather just meet them.


The problem is that the target (that seems like an appropriate word) finds the matchmaker interesting, not you. That may get you a date. It also may leave the other person rather disappointed when they meet you and find out that you aren't the same in person as they thought you were online.


It makes me think of how successful someone can be at getting a job interview if they use someone else's resume. Will they be ready for that next step, whether an interview or a date? I assume they won't, but I'm not sold on specific cases where someone is only bad at digital flirtation. To your point, they'll have to figure it out to keep the success (of more dates) moving forward.


We can solve this by going one step further and having the matchmaker follow along on dates to continue the conversation for you while you sit quietly and stare.


There was a Black Mirror episode sort of like this. The person on the date wore glasses with a camera and an earpiece so the "matchmaker" could tell them what to say and do.


This feels, quite frankly, extremely odd to me.

What's the long term? Do you tell your partner on your wedding day "hey, remember when we first got chatting? that wasn't me, it was hired help, oho!".

Unless you have a very transactional attitude to relationships (e.g. a sort of elite-dating style situation where you just want a partner that earns well and looks good at social occasions) I can't see this working out well. Your entire relationship is built on a lie.

Oh, then there's the limiting case. Two matchmakers end up pitted against each other. A prime candidate for automation!


>Unless you have a very transactional attitude to relationships (e.g. a sort of elite-dating style situation where you just want a partner that earns well and looks good at social occasions) I can't see this working out well. Your entire relationship is built on a lie.

I don't see it that way. Dating apps are a game. If you don't play the game "correctly" you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage. And if you're an average man you're already starting at a disadvantage. To succeed you need the "correct" photos and profile. You need the "correct" opening line. You need the "correct" witty responses. And that's all before you even meet someone in person! I can see the value in a service that bypasses the game to get right to a face to face meeting.


Seems like the next logical step in the instaface generation quest for total inauthenticity. Maybe we can use "AI" to create "influencer couples" who are well suited to pushing specific corporations' products.

Eventually we can even tune the algorithms to match couples who are most likely to give birth to "influencer babies".


Yes please, let's remove everything that makes life worth living so we have more time for work and media consumption. The trend of micro managing/optimising our lives is really getting out of control.

Dating apps are already dehumanising most of the dating process, let's see how bad we can make it. I wonder if people in the future will be able (or even know that it's possible) to start discussions with the opposite sex outside of dating apps.


Without commenting on the TFA, the thing is that dating is already a crapshoot.

Ever go out to try and meet women? I'm comfortable enough with it that I've gone to bars alone just to do it, yet I'd still call it uncomfortable at best. You're essentially cold-approaching strangers and don't know if they're single much less if they even find you attractive. Sometimes you hit it off like a romcom which is rewarding, but everything that's not that is a crapshoot. Certainly doesn't feel "humanizing".

Ideally you meet women through your social circle or your social events. I met my last girlfriend through a kayaking event on meetup.com in Guadalajara. But your social circle might not have anything to offer you. Or you find meetups just as impersonal or you don't have time or are still working up the courage to conquer your own anxieties or you're in a new city with no friends yet.

Dating already was a numbers game. Dating apps like Tinder have improved my quality of life here enormously. The ability to narrow down strangers to the ones who at least find you attractive (attraction isn't a choice) is an invaluable tool, and not having this tool in the physical world isn't any more humanizing. You just have to remember easy come, easy go. You can't fixate on one woman and you can't be outcome-dependent, but those were already things you shouldn't be doing in the physical world.

Besides, the point of dating apps is to quickly escalate to a face to face meetup. Something that can help you meet more humans face to face seems the opposite of dehumanizing.

My suspicion is that dating apps are so easy to hate because they bring to the surface what dating really is, and it was never all that pretty to begin with.


Yeah sure, if you see dating as an end it makes sense to use these apps. For me it's most about meeting people, talking, learning etc ... it's part of the thrill. "But you can do that on tinder too", nah, being face to face explicitly for a date changes everything, people are not themselves in these conditions.

I don't want to meet people I "matched" because we watch the same shows, listen to the same music, have the same hobbies. That's not bad per say but I'd much rather learn that organically, even if it ends up being a "waste of time". I feel like reading a tinder profile + the first convo is removing most of the fun of meeting someone.

> Ever go out to try and meet women?

I don't go out with the intent of finding a date but if something happens I'll go with the flow. I met my last 2 ltr like that and learned a lot from it / them. Sure if you compare that to having 3 dates a week on tinder my numbers look low, but I also avoid all the shit I don't want to put up with.

> You just have to remember easy come, easy go.

Yes, that's exactly what I don't like about these apps, you'll always have the occasional "I met my wife/husband on tinder" but it's mostly short term things. My personal theory is that the more people you date / the easier it is to find a mate, the less you'll engage and the faster you'll get disappointed / bored and go look somewhere else. It's always more exciting to start a new relationship than to face and overcome hardships in a newish one.

> My suspicion is that dating apps are so easy to hate because they bring to the surface what dating really is.

You could be right, I haven't dated many people so I'm probably extremely biased. All I can tell is that it saddens me to listen to the tinder stories of my friends and see them glued to their tinder app when I meet them in real life, it brings them way more issues than happiness.


>Ever go out to try and meet women? I'm comfortable enough with it that I've gone to bars alone just to do it, yet I'd still call it uncomfortable at best. You're essentially cold-approaching strangers and don't know if they're single much less if they even find you attractive. Sometimes you hit it off like a romcom which is rewarding, but everything that's not that is a crapshoot. Certainly doesn't feel "humanizing".

Pretty much any sort of sales job has this sort of learning curve. The part where you either hit it off or it's obvious that this is a waste of both your time reminds me a lot of selling used cars on the side. You usually know pretty quick whether your chances of making a sale are <10% or >90%.


Wow this is from early 2017, I’m falling behind the curve thinking this is clever for today!


This is really stupid. If you can't get a first date with a few messages back and forth of general chit chat, then asking to meet up you are doing something seriously wrong. Unless there is a schedule conflict that delays meeting, the conversation should be 4-20 messages tops.


I'm sure this woman's clients see lots of success, because I'm guessing she probably screens them based on whether they're actually dateable or not from a female point of view. (Similar to the way that if Eharmony thinks you're a sociopath they will straight up refuse your money.) If it works for them and they end up in good relationships, great. But I think for a majority of people who have trouble dating, it's not just "getting past the first few messages and onto a date." But if she helps people, more power to her.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: