Previously: #1, #2, #3. As time goes by, the fundamental things in life are still the same, and yet they change quite a lot with the times. But they don’t yet change so fast that the previous three editions of this are invalid. AI isn’t transforming the world that quickly, not yet. In the meantime, there’s always more to say, and I both find it enjoyable and am hopeful that it might help some of you out there, so here we are once again. Meanwhile, I am sorry to report that many of you are still single. I spent sufficiently long between updates and got sufficient material that this one is being split into conceptual sections. This one will focus in particular on the awfulness that are dating apps, and directly related considerations.

You’re Single Because Dating Apps (Still) Suck

Hinge puts a limit on number of open conversations, Shoshana Weissmann praises the incentive design because it pushes you to unmatch rather than ghost, or unmatch if you are being ghosted. This makes sense. I wonder what the right limit would be? Bumble apologized for ads it ran saying that celibacy wasn’t the answer. They did penance by donating to the Domestic Violence Hotline and similar organizations. I agree this might not have been the most diplomatic approach. Yet the details of the reaction were bizarre to me. They were accused of ‘undermining daters’ freedom of choice?’ What? If they won’t say it, I will: With notably rare exceptions, if you are an adult and are not asexual, celibacy is not the answer. Match says number of paying users on Tinder has dropped for six straight quarters. The dating app business is… not going well. It could be high time for a rival that does it better, but one must still solve the matching and coordination problems, and the desire of many of the most desirable users to sit there and swipe. People do not want to pay for good matchmaking, either with money or with actual effort and attention, in this or in other fronts. You might be having trouble on dating sites, but do not underestimate the value of ‘not being a lunatic’ if you can get past the first few seconds of filter. Or how many people seem determined to fail in those few seconds.

Shoshana Weissmann: Opened my Hinge likes after the hike. Here’s a guy who photoshopped a cartoon orgy around him in the bath. Yesterday an ENM couple tried to match me and the guy was in a Pikachu costume. I literally say monogamy twice on my profile because nobody respects me about it. Pikachu I don’t choose you. Rich Braun: I’m a couple decades older than you, but when I was single and on the apps a few years ago I was amazed how many out-of-my-league women were willing to give me a shot. Your tweets have helped me understand that simply not being a lunatic put me in the top tier.

Rob Henderson warns that at least one popular dating app is known to use ‘seeding’ meaning when a man first signs up you match with bot profiles of hot women who then ghost you, to get you started. That seems like the kind of thing the FTC should be investigating, if it is true, and indeed in the past they have done some investigation, but such claims have mostly not been substantiated. It also raises the question, would that work? On the one hand, yes, Hot Women Near You and all that. On the other hand, being ghosted sucks even worse than not matching. The hope is presumably that you think it was something you said so it’s your fault. Business Insider’s alternative suggestion is a government app like in Tokyo, and oh no. Except perhaps being the government solves some trust issues, allowing the site to verify information and thus be a better product?

In Tokyo, the city government is even releasing its own dating app, part of a campaign called Tokyo Futari Story (“futari” means couple). The service, which the city has budgeted several million dollars to develop and promote, will require users to verify their income, prove they’re unmarried, sit for an interview with the app’s staff, and sign a statement saying they’re intent on getting married.

Anyone who would suggest our government should be writing such software really needs to talk to someone such as Patrick McKenzie first, and learn some of the many reasons why we will absolutely be unwilling to attempt to do that. But also the talk about ‘equality’ and ‘eugenics’ should help explain why no one would dare touch it, even in worlds where they would ever try to make any software at all. Update: Shreeda launches the latest attempt, ‘Offline,’ to reinvent the upside of the old OkCupid. Everyone says they want it, but no one so far has overcome the allure of the easy swipe. Info is here, in particular here. I continue to presume that it is relatively easy to build something ten times better if you can solve the cold start and ‘easier to just swipe’ issues to get enough scale, but that no one has a good idea how to do that part. One danger of dating apps is that it raises the false implication that one should not date outside of the apps. Of course one should do so when possible, and use the apps only as supplements and last resorts.

Mark Travers (2021): 68 percent of romantic relationships start from friendship…romances where partners start as friends are more likely to be the rule than the exception…On average, friends-first partners were friends for almost 2 years before becoming romantic partners. Tim Carney: This is important, and I wonder if dating apps have convinced people that one ought not date friends.

There is a list of preferences in the linked post on ways to find relationships, which corresponds to how social and friend-based techniques are, with blind dates and dating apps at the very bottom. Dating apps are a place where you go explicitly to find dates, and some young’uns get convinced that romantic interests should ONLY be pursued in such settings. Charlie Gowans-Eglinton takes a decade on the apps, becomes disillusioned by the horror shows, sees them now as ‘a way to seem proactive’ rather than a solution to finding someone, as all the men are so terrible and the pickings so slim, due to adverse selection, the need for a thousand bad dates. I still don’t understand how the numbers could fail so utterly to add up? Yes, we hear so many stories like the next two sections about lack of basic skills and generally being terrible, but… if all the good guys were really snapped up quickly then we’d observe a very different world.

You’re Single Because Your Friends Are Insufficiently Supportive

Yes, there are obvious downsides.

Jonathan Deer: Would rather not get a gift then someone think I’m down bad enough to get me a tinder gift card #disrespectful #buttless

Pierre Pumpernickel: If somebody gave me this for Christmas I would drive to an Applebees and kill myself in the parking lot. Alison: That’s beyond calling you bitchless. That’s calling you bitchless, broke, and so bitchless that you need to pay to win. Brits With Knees: if anyone wants to get me this lmk

This is actually great and super thoughtful gift. It is something the person needs, but would never ever buy for themselves. This person clearly would never, ever pay, on principle. But I have little doubt the value is there, if only to find out if the value is there.

You’re Single Because You Do Not Seek a Mentor for Basic App Skills

Brooke suggests that good dating app game is easy to identify when you care about it, so find someone who does to help you learn what to work on, and then try even a little.

Aaron Bergman: I took one good picture with a good haircut, and now I have probably three times the number of Hinge matches. What the heck? Brooke Bowman: It’s probably worth scrolling through a dating app from the account of a friend who is interested in your gender. The rarer, nicer photos of men stand out so much. The vast majority are blurry selfies or just bad photos in general, and they all kind of blend together. Ram Vasuthevan: Like, look; are they taken professionally? Brooke Bowman: Some are, yes, but it doesn’t take that much to stand out from the crowd! A nice haircut, decent clothes, and being in focus can help. Ask a friend to take some, or take selfies in different parts of the house to see what the lighting looks like.

Seems like good advice if you’re not getting good initial conversions. Yes, you should also be paying up, every boost helps, but don’t forget the basics.

You’re Single Because Other People Lack Very Basic Skills

It is a weird one, because in a matching market this should go the other way?

Shoshana Weissmann: NY dating apps are an insane place.

Rob Bernard: “I’m a man with physical man needs..” This is either an alien trying to convince us it is human, or it’s Matt Berry’s Laszlo on What We Do in the Shadows. The Gentleman Sausage: I enjoy long walks in the beach while listening to human music. Shoshana Weissmann: You’re joking but I saw this yesterday. Online dating is hell.

Coach Crash: You should see what is out there at my age. I understand if you’re a young widow but don’t include pics that look like they’re from the police investigation into his death. GirlKW77: lol. I just watched a segment on my local news station that was interviewing people who were knowingly having “intimate” relationships with online AI dating bots. Kid you not.

You’re Single Because Your Opens Aren’t Effortful

In an interview with a guy who goes on a lot of dates, the most interesting part is he gets there via effort texting and being selective, not via going scattershot. He only swipes right about three times a day, and ends up on four dates a week, an absurd conversion rate, so yes it can be done. Obviously there’s the mystery of how you get that many right swaps in the first place, but past that this does match my experiences too – if you put in the effort, conversation rates to first dates can actually be remarkably high. If you don’t have a good text game, well, you’re reading giant walls of text or you wouldn’t be here, text should be your friend. He also has a 70% rate on getting second dates. That’s actually way too high if you’re meeting multiple new people each week, you need to cut your losses when it isn’t a great match. A 70% rate only makes sense if you have ‘first date scarcity,’ if a promising first date is time consuming to get you want to not give up so easily.

You’re Single Because Dating Apps Are Out of Balance

In particular, this chart and similar statistics have cool bonus implications.

1. Men like 53% of the profiles they view.
2. Yet even so, women only match 36% of the time when they like a man.
3. Men only match 2% of the time when they like a woman.
4. Women like 5% of profiles they view according to that chart, but 14% according to Zippia. That’s a huge gap, although the main points hold either way.

A lot of the explanation is that ~75% of Tinder users are men, which is actually a better ratio than many other apps. So even if you never showed a woman a profile of a man who would actively say no to her, about half the male likes never even get seen. There are also selection effects. The more people want to match with you, the less of them you want to match with in return, because you know you have options. Tinder, like all such apps, does do the first order obvious thing of putting those who already matched with you early into your queue, in addition to attempting to otherwise make predictions including using things like Elo. Despite that, the majority of women’s swipes still fail to get them matched. Which tells me quite a lot of women want to be swiping well beyond the set of people who pre-matched with them.

You’re Single Because Look at the Odds

The symmetry here is remarkable, the way this is worded doesn’t require it at all and this rules out theories that there are guys who sleep with lots of women per year on the first date as they would have skewed the numbers. 5% is rather grim given how many young people start that year single. Similarly:

Nuance Enjoyer: Moreover, 3/4ths of the gap in the Pew survey was driven by disparities in cohabitation and marriage, leaving little room for the popular ‘de facto polygynous soft harems’ explanation.

Over the course of an entire year, a majority of 18-34 year olds have sex with exactly one opposite-sex person, and a majority of the rest don’t have sex at all. Unfortunately, sexlessness is going up over time for people in their 20s, by a substantial amount, odd that these two graphs look different.

You’re Single Because You Won’t Even Pay For Super Likes

Also, the linked Vox article reminded me of the ‘super like’ feature, where your like is visible to them while swiping, you show up faster, and the match is instant if they return interest. They have to be purchased. Costly signals are great, and so super likes reportedly triple your chances. Of course, you also get the reactions that say super likes are cringe or creepy, how dare you actually express real interest, but the statistics say it works, and I’m guessing that there is positive selection in driving away people who dislike clear communication. You probably also do worse on people who think they’re better than everyone, which plausibly includes some people you’d want quite a lot (since they are sometimes in fact better!) but also isn’t a feature I’d want to seek out. You don’t have to pay $500/month for Tinder Select and go straight to their inbox. But if you’re not paying for a small number of super likes, that seems like a huge mistake, given you can buy in bulk for $1.50 or get them free with your subscription package. Yes, $75 per additional match might sound steep, but is it for the ones you want most, in a world where matching is rare? If you’re doing reasonably well, it seems basically impossible for it to be worth being on the app at all, and also not being worth super liking when you see someone you do in fact super like. I’d apply a similar principle to other paid options, for any app you would already be using on a regular basis. If you’re paying your time, you need to also pay your money. The big advantages of paying are the (often under the hood) ways to increase your chances of success. Thus consider: The average American dating app user spends 51 minutes a day on the apps? What? Note that this is very different from ‘51 minutes swiping’ which would be fully nuts. Whereas if a lot of that time is spent chatting with or thinking about existing matches, that is a lot less insane. Still, it’s a lot, and I don’t really believe it. But if you’re spending an hour a day and still running the no-pays, you’re making a very serious mistake. (If you’re spending that hour mostly chatting with matches, why haven’t you moved to regular texting or other messaging apps with most of them yet?) The other claim is that the apps are increasingly hard to use without paying. I would respond that the users spend 51 minutes a day on them. If you are spending 51 minutes a day, and yet refuse to pay a modest amount of real money, then the problem is you. Your time is valuable. The claim is this is not ‘equitable’ when money is charged, but seriously, what? Of course the post then goes on to call Singapore’s attempt to help college students date ‘eugenic’ so there you have it. How dare they.

You’re Single Because of Dating App Game Theory

This is a clear laying out of the standard argument which is essentially:

1. Frictionless dating apps create male haves versus have nots.
2. The men with little female interest don’t get to date or commit at all.
3. The men with lots of interest have multiple women interested in them and can always find more, so they see no reason to commit.
4. Thus, you get a bunch of these situationships, where the man won’t commit.
5. The men who both can get dates and want to commit get snapped up quickly.
6. Which means the men mostly say ‘why won’t women date us at all?’ and the women mostly say ‘why won’t the men commit to us?’
7. Even if you’re not on the apps yourself, the incentives are there anyway.

This is largely a Levels of Friction problem, where the selection process has low marginal costs and starts with superficial attributes, which makes it easier to steer towards going after high-value targets and creating divergence.

You’re Single Because DateMe Docs Don’t Scale

A great asset of OKCupid was scale. You answered the questions once, created a profile once, and you could check for lots of matches in detail, as could others. Getting that scale back is the key barrier. Or you could do it without the scale, since that’s what everyone used to do anyway. The date-me doc does this as one-to-many even if there aren’t that many, but exposes your info and puts the filtering job on them (even if they don’t have to answer a bunch of specific questions). What about the date-me survey? They have to answer the questions but you have to design and execute all the filters.

Aella: Reminder I have a survey to date me! I’ve found partners via this method before; if you think we might be compatible, feel free to fill it out <3 Kepe: wow, I haven’t seen a single reply supporting her. I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, this is absolutely an amazing idea and anyone saying it isn’t is exactly who should be filtered out.

One reply warned about a woman influencer and model who rejected all but 3 of 5,000 boyfriend applications after making them fill out a 15 question form. The headline is misleading, she did find three that were suitable and went on dates with them, even though they didn’t work out. Is that even so bad? I mean, yes, on average that’s 25,000 questions per date with a model influencer you know you’re into. I say that depends on the questions. And lo and behold, we’ve got them.

1. What’s your astrological sign?
2. Number of ex-girlfriends, the number that are ‘crazy’, and exes you still text/talk to (drink ones count)
3. Do you have kids?
4. Do you want them?
5. Are you married/dating someone now?
6. Do you have a full time job?
7. If you were picking three adjectives to describe yourself would one of them be douchey?
8. Do you live with your parents?
9. Do you own a working car?
10. Do you have Twitter?
11. Do you currently have a booty call?
12. If we lived together would I get the walk in closet?
13. Is it acceptable to hit on my friends?
14. Do you like watching Avatar (ATLA)?
15. Who is the best artist: The Weeknd, Future, Drake or Travis Scott?

These are not exactly the hardest questions. I presume I know the right answers for nine of them, and so do you: #3, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #11, #12 and #13. Mostly that seems entirely fair, especially if the car is a proxy. That leaves six ‘real’ questions, one of which also has a clear right answer?

Most of the applicants were also based in Texas and had the star sign of Aquarius.

Not a wise filter, in either direction, and expensive with a 92% failure rate, but sure. Five to go. One of them is the most important question: Do you want kids? We don’t know which answer she wants but you should 100% be asking. The last two questions are taste questions, you’re allowed two, sure. Are you supposed to have or not have Twitter? Unknown, I can see it either way. The final question is about ex-girlfriends, and we can all guess what answers she is looking for here and why this is a reasonable question to ask if you have the leverage. So why did only 3 of 5,000 applications make it through? That seems like… not a lot, especially given most of them got the astrological sign correct, and if you’re going to fail the gimme questions you can decide not to turn in the survey. This must mean not a lot of men got the gimme questions right, and didn’t understand? Or alternatively she was looking for at least one very counterintuitive answer.

You’re Single For Lack of Very Basic Dating Strategy

As in things like: Most dating profiles are insanely boring. Say interesting things. Similarly, we have other basic principles in the stories below, that anyone should be able to handle: Show up on time. Be able to plan a date. Treat all people like people. Answer questions honestly and be able to handle honest answers. Be actually single and not married. Don’t be weirdly super intense. That doesn’t mean this is easy, but don’t make life a little tougher than it is. Perhaps the biggest divide is between three groups:

1. Those who think that ‘being a decent normal person’ works fine.
2. Those who feel like they’re being decent normal people and failing.
3. Those who the first group points to as no being decent normal people.

Jeff: I need some stories about bad dates to cleanse my palate. Shoshana Weissman: I am messaging a man right now who showed a lot of interest initially, and now he is not responding—acting standoffish. He asked why I don’t drink, out of curiosity, and I explained that it is because I have several autoimmune diseases. I manage fine, but my body does not like alcohol. He basically replied that that was too much information. So, don’t ask? When is the answer to that question ever simple? Kevin Baum: Tip for single men: You can do remarkably well with online dating if you are remotely normal instead of being like this man. Christopher Eichhorn: Absolutely correct—I got many replies (and a wife!) on dating apps and was off the market within a couple of weeks of joining. I am not suave or stylish. I do not have “game,” and I have never read pickup artist material. I simply treated women like normal human beings. T.K.: I feel like any single men just need to follow the examples of good dating experiences and avoid that behavior. Show up on time, be able to plan a date, be able to handle an honest answer to a question you ask, and do not be “kind of” divorced. All simple things.

She also offers us this message log of a man reporting he deserves the flames of hell. I definitely buy that lots of men, especially on dating apps but also everywhere, are doing quite a lot of shooting themselves in the foot in a ‘why can’t you just be normal and a decent human being’ ways. If you can avoid doing that, it’s a huge edge. The problem is that this is often a negative selection game, with complex rules. Whatever the basic principle is that you missed, that’s the one that gets put into a story like this, and it’s often not easy to learn which one you are messing up. Debugging is hard, and you don’t have good tools. And yes, you also need opportunity to ‘treat women like human beings’ in the first place, or the ability to do so won’t do anyone any good.

You’re Single Because You Have an Android Phone

Here’s yet another viral thread saying Android phones give many women ‘slight ick.’

Blaine Anderson (dating couch and matchmaker, responding to another 1m+ view claim that’s even stronger): Dating fun fact: Android gives many women slight ick! If a woman likes you, Android won’t make her STOP liking you. But iOS girlies 100% feel pangs of disappointment when your first text is green. For single men using Android: This is NOT a recommendation you switch to iOS. This is just an informed opinion from someone who speaks with single women for a living Especially if you use Android, and find this thread moronic… Stick to Android to distance yourself from judgmental iOS women

Don’t kid yourself. That’s a recommendation to switch to iOS. I use a Pixel 9 Fold, which very much costs more than an iPhone. I think it is a substantially better phone. There is very little financial cost in getting an iPhone these days, most carriers will basically give you one with a contract, and you can get used ones a few years old for very little money if you don’t want Apple Intelligence. The question is, should you let this matter, or even preference falsify here? You are combining two effects:

1. Negative reactions from a large percentage of women. How big is this effect? It is hard to tell. Every little bit helps and this is something you can control. If you are going to want to date in the judgmental-iOS pool, it matters.
2. Positive selection effects. If she’s looking down on you for not having an iPhone, none of the reasons for this speak well of her – it’s presumably either she has taste you disagree with and thinks your taste is actively bad, she has attachment to a blue bubble or what her friends will think, or she’s thinking you must be poor.

At minimum, the more ick there is here, the worse the sign. Whereas the women who will be vaguely disappointed that you have an iPhone? That’s a great sign. I might like to think I wouldn’t be one to switch to iPhone simply for the dating advantages despite the selection issue. We spend a lot of time on our phones, the experience matters. But also I know myself, and I know that’s actually kind of dumb. So yeah, if I was single I’d probably at least try out using an iPhone again.

You’re Single and I’m Here to Help

A young lady who is single has reached out to me, and during our email exchange she asked if perhaps I would be willing to give her a shoutout in the hopes I could help her find someone. I decided to follow the Maxis ‘red card rule’: She was the first person to ask, so the answer was yes (but people I don’t know who ask again would by default get a no so this doesn’t get out of hand). Asking rocks. So here’s the description she sent me.

About Me: I studied at MIT and started a health company which I sold a few years ago. I don’t need to work-work again, so I’m focused on passion projects related to writing, art, learning languages, executive coaching, volunteering, etc. I love rock climbing, hiking, cycling, cooking, being with friends, babies, and love :) (I have eggs frozen and definitely want kids). I’ve mostly fallen for/dated mechanical or aerospace engineers who love to be active outside, and are super smart, kind, and passionate about their work. If you know anyone in their 30s or early 40s who fits that description, I’d love to hear more about them. I live in the Bay Area but am open to moving for the right person and am working on dual EU citizenship. Photo below. Thank you so much!

You can reach out to her at anitsirhc491 at gmail.com. Good luck! I was planning on including one more, but they’re not ready yet. So they’ll be in #5. To be explicit: On the SS version of this post you can share your own dating doc, but if you’re going to do it, do it there. And here’s Nadia’s dating survey, she’s in LA.