Contradictions of online dating - Article

[LookAtThisPOst]

This is an interesting article. It cites OK Cupid's research into the online dating venue as how counter-intuitive limits peoples options by providing too many.

 

But rather stuck out was the fact how some women criticize men for the "copy/paste" messages because, "They can tell the difference" and yet doing so is JUST as effective an originally crafted message.

 

It shows how men do start off taking their time about things, carefully crafting responses and over time where they just start to put less and less effort to the initial contact. Can't say I blame them if the turn-around time is just as effective.

 

What's even more interesting people had become so frustrated with online dating in general that they deleted their profile and decided to do the real life social interaction thing where THAT originally was even thought to be exhausting.

 

They said a vast majority of users don't know what they want and tend to seek out people that aren't what they are looking for.

 

Then the conclusion:

 

Despite all of the intricate parameters that people set based on what they think they want, somewhere around 90% of decisions are made based on profile pictures.

 

Then it goes back to the contradictions that ensue:

 

Much of online dating is riddled with contradictory actions and results. The large number of participants has forced many to revert back to base level methods of choice such as attractiveness.

 

So now you can understand why that the effort to crafting messages that get no responses, these same people wind up just doing the cut and paste or very brief initial contacts.

 

It is understandable. Yes?

[central]

I agree. Short cut and paste messages work as well or better than longer, custom messages. In fact, I found that NOT sending messages worked even better - the interested women contacted me. A few good pictures and a witty profile (for those who read) were enough to attract attention.

 

 

IMO, women eventually tire of getting lots of messages from poorly matching (or disrespectful) men, and go looking for what they want. Prior to that, it's usually wasted effort to contact them, even if you seem to be a perfect match.

[LookAtThisPOst]

I agree. Short cut and paste messages work as well or better than longer, custom messages. In fact, I found that NOT sending messages worked even better - the interested women contacted me. A few good pictures and a witty profile (for those who read) were enough to attract attention.

 

If I waited for women to contact me, I'd never get a date, much less sending out messages. lol.

 

The ones that do contact me are Russian or Philippine mail-order bride scams. lol

 

And then..there...*Drumroll* The CATFISH

 

IMO, women eventually tire of getting lots of messages from poorly matching

 

 

What's sad is...I KNOW what's a proper match for me, in fact I've contacted some of these women and made not of even the most OBSCURE interests we both shared.

 

I recall seeing a woman who was at a local sci-fi convention...had her picture taken with some sci-fi celebs...I was like "COOL...someone I can relate to and she had a girl-next-door way about her"

 

I would even ask questions about the specifics of the recent convention she attended. The celebs she got autographs from...so in a sense, even SHE doesn't know what's a proper match for her...as she completely overlooked our common, shared interests and values. But she probably figured, simply, "Ew..he's bald" or "ew...too short!" and that was that.

 

No response.

Edited March 25, 2016 by LookAtThisPOst

[Erik30]

What's sad is...I KNOW what's a proper match for me, in fact I've contacted some of these women and made not of even the most OBSCURE interests we both shared.

 

I recall seeing a woman who was at a local sci-fi convention...had her picture taken with some sci-fi celebs...I was like "COOL...someone I can relate to and she had a girl-next-door way about her"

 

I would even ask questions about the specifics of the recent convention she attended. The celebs she got autographs from...so in a sense, even SHE doesn't know what's a proper match for her...as she completely overlooked our common, shared interests and values. But she probably figured, simply, "Ew..he's bald" or "ew...too short!" and that was that.

 

No response.

 

Yeah I've had similar experiences.

 

Since you can send messages to everyone, you're bound to contact people who are not attracted to you at all. (Physically) It doesn't matter how great you match up on paper, or how witty your message is.

They'll just look at your pictures to decide whether they want to start a conversation or not.

[SwordofFlame]

Then the conclusion:

 

Despite all of the intricate parameters that people set based on what they think they want, somewhere around 90% of decisions are made based on profile pictures.

 

Then it goes back to the contradictions that ensue:

 

Much of online dating is riddled with contradictory actions and results. The large number of participants has forced many to revert back to base level methods of choice such as attractiveness.

 

So now you can understand why that the effort to crafting messages that get no responses, these same people wind up just doing the cut and paste or very brief initial contacts.

 

It is understandable. Yes?

 

That's why these days it seems Tinder is a lot more popular than okcupid.

[salparadise]

I agree. Short cut and paste messages work as well or better than longer, custom messages. In fact, I found that NOT sending messages worked even better - the interested women contacted me. A few good pictures and a witty profile (for those who read) were enough to attract attention.

 

 

IMO, women eventually tire of getting lots of messages from poorly matching (or disrespectful) men, and go looking for what they want. Prior to that, it's usually wasted effort to contact them, even if you seem to be a perfect match.

 

That's the way I played it as well. I wrote original messages but wasn't getting a high enough response rate to make it worth the effort. Even a well-crafted message wasn't valued because the women were inundated... just one more horny guy hittin' her up. So I changed tactics and rewrote the profile, directed it at a specific type. I deleted all but the two best photos.

 

Then I browsed and if I was interested in someone I'd think in terms of getting her to message me by visiting a few times, appropriately spaced. The result was (assumption) that instead of thinking "one more horny guy hittin' me up," they'd wonder why I wasn't hittin'em up, and a good number would initiate.

 

But the real key was who would initiate––women with a higher actual interest level. The exchanges were more productive by an order of magnitude because they were the ones more invested. They were prescreened so to speak. Never had any trouble at all convincing them to meet.

 

It worked. I am now in a relationship (6 mos) with a lovely woman who initiated... I asked her out in my first message and she accepted. No negotiation or hesitation whatsoever. There is a lot of luck involved (I was lucky), of course, but also strategy in how you work the system. It's a rather mechanical system that interacts with human predilections in interesting ways.

 

I just ordered Christian Rudder's book Dataclism ($7 used). He is masterful at extracting meaningful conclusions out of the data generated by OKC over the years. There are also some interesting TED videos about people who used analytical methods. And one I've recommended many times - The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz.

Edited March 25, 2016 by salparadise

[GemmaUK]

The large number of participants has forced many to revert back to base level methods of choice such as attractiveness.

 

About 8 or 10 years ago (can't quite remember) I met someone from OLD who I was totally unattracted to physically. I wasn't in a good place at the time and due to that and that initially his personality appeared relaxed and laid back I dated him for a few weeks.. He was nothing of the sort though.

He was a very nosey, gossipy type who seemed to want to know everything about everyone and was very judgemental about everyone except his daughters.

 

I'd never do that again.

For one I was stupid thinking I might at some point enjoy kissing him or anything else...for that matter. I never did enjoy any of that.

 

Dating is and should be about attraction.

 

I am happy with a 'Hey, how are you?' which has been copied and pasted. A form 'letter' style copy and paste is what puts me off.

Having said that though, no, if I am not attracted to the pics then no way will I meet a guy, no matter what he writes in a first mail.

Second to the pics is his profile and I always read a profile.

 

I totally 'settled' that time above. I'll never do that again.

[Imajerk17]

LATP, serious question: If you keep on lacking success even w women whom you have so much in common with, then has it occurred to get feedback on *your* profile and first emails? That may be a reason why you aren't getting the responses from women that you are looking for.

[LookAtThisPOst]

LATP, serious question: If you keep on lacking success even w women whom you have so much in common with, then has it occurred to get feedback on *your* profile and first emails? That may be a reason why you aren't getting the responses from women that you are looking for.

 

I've already done the profile critique and took suggestions. Received feedback, even put up interactive photos and such (me doing something while in the outdoors, like hiking/kayaking, etc). Even clearer pics, too.

 

I actually had responses lately, from 3 women the past few months, so that's something, but they all cat fished or flaked on me. So sometimes it's the loose nut job on the other end as well.

 

So there's some partial success there. Getting a woman to actually come out of her hole to meet is another matter. Seems they want pen-pals.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Yeah I've had similar experiences.

 

Since you can send messages to everyone, you're bound to contact people who are not attracted to you at all. (Physically) It doesn't matter how great you match up on paper, or how witty your message is.

They'll just look at your pictures to decide whether they want to start a conversation or not.

 

Exactly. It's funny because I took a year off of online dating, came back and had seen the same faces of the women I had already emailed a year ago STILL on the site.

 

Apparently no man is good enough to even give a quick meet and greet. *shrug*.

[GemmaUK]

If they appear to want pen pals after you have asked for a date/meet after say a week then you drop talking with them.

 

Also, remember that just because it appears to you there are common interests that it doesn't mean that a woman should date you.

In your second post you implied that a lady was wrong because you were the right fit for her. You don't know her and have no idea what type of man she wants to date.

You two were having a chat about a mutual like - this happens often on OLD but it doesn't mean there is sexual/dating interest. It's just a chat.

[LookAtThisPOst]

I just ordered Christian Rudder's book Dataclism ($7 used). He is masterful at extracting meaningful conclusions out of the data generated by OKC over the years. There are also some interesting TED videos about people who used analytical methods. And one I've recommended many times - The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz.

 

I might have to check that one out. Also I hear "Bowling Alone" is a title that falls in the same wheel house as technology is keeping people more and more disconnected.

 

There's even recent complaints by Meetup Organizers about members becoming attached to 50+ Meetup groups, shotgun spraying RSVP's to events and then flaking.

 

Some use the RSVP's as placeholders in case something better comes along.

 

So it's not only happening in the dating world but the whole, "Bigger Better Deal" thing goes beyond dating, but to events, friendships, etc.

 

Kind of analogous to "Keeping up with the Joneses"

[LookAtThisPOst]

If they appear to want pen pals after you have asked for a date/meet after say a week then you drop talking with them.

 

Also, remember that just because it appears to you there are common interests that it doesn't mean that a woman should date you.

In your second post you implied that a lady was wrong because you were the right fit for her. You don't know her and have no idea what type of man she wants to date.

You two were having a chat about a mutual like - this happens often on OLD but it doesn't mean there is sexual/dating interest. It's just a chat.

 

Well, what I'm trying to say is, why not give it a quick Meet? What's wrong with that? I mean if it's obvious that we have a lot in common on paper, why not put it to the test in person?

 

You don't know her and have no idea what type of man she wants to date.

 

Like I said, why not find out face-to-face? A quick Meet and greet. Some of these women are quite local to me, like within 5 mins drive, why not?

 

If they appear to want pen pals after you have asked for a date/meet after say a week then you drop talking with them.

 

You're just stating the obvious....I was just saying the most success I ever had was with the women online lately who responded, then catfished.

[Philosopher]

That's why these days it seems Tinder is a lot more popular than okcupid.

 

I have found though that sites like okcupid and Match.com are becoming more and more like Tinder.

 

When I first started online dating a few years ago women would write quite lengthy profiles with a lot of detail so you would get a real insight into what they were like, their likes and dislikes. However today short profiles, usually one or two sentences seem to be the norm. Often they will fill out very little of their basic info and if on okcupid they will rarely answer more than 20 or 30 of the match questions. Sometimes there is no profile content at all.

 

Instead today, the profile pictures seem to dominate the profile. In short profiles are become very much like those you see on Tinder. Therefore often you have no real choice but to make the decision whether to message someone based on attractiveness as that is pretty much all there is to base the decision on.

 

The downside of all this is when you do meet up, you have little idea of whether you have anything in common, resulting in most dates not going anywhere. In the past this tended to be less of a problem.

[GemmaUK]

Well, what I'm trying to say is, why not give it a quick Meet? What's wrong with that? I mean if it's obvious that we have a lot in common on paper, why not put it to the test in person?

A lot in common on paper doesn't equal sexual attraction. It equals possible friendship and I would feel it unfair on a man if I met due to just friendship - that would be leading him on.

 

 

Like I said, why not find out face-to-face? A quick Meet and greet. Some of these women are quite local to me, like within 5 mins drive, why not?

See above.

 

You're just stating the obvious....I was just saying the most success I ever had was with the women online lately who responded, then catfished.

If they catfished they were not real/a guy/a grandma or whatever. Ask out sooner and if they have loads of excuses then you know they are not who they claim to be.

[central]

...

 

 

But the real key was who would initiate––women with a higher actual interest level. The exchanges were more productive by an order of magnitude because they were the ones more invested. They were prescreened so to speak. Never had any trouble at all convincing them to meet.

 

It worked. I am now in a relationship (6 mos) with a lovely woman who initiated... I asked her out in my first message and she accepted. No negotiation or hesitation whatsoever. There is a lot of luck involved (I was lucky), of course, but also strategy in how you work the system. It's a rather mechanical system that interacts with human predilections in interesting ways.

 

That was my experience. I had a number of great short relationships, before I was found by a wonderful woman who became my wife.

[hasaquestion]

That's the way I played it as well. I wrote original messages but wasn't getting a high enough response rate to make it worth the effort. Even a well-crafted message wasn't valued because the women were inundated... just one more horny guy hittin' her up. So I changed tactics and rewrote the profile, directed it at a specific type. I deleted all but the two best photos.

 

Then I browsed and if I was interested in someone I'd think in terms of getting her to message me by visiting a few times, appropriately spaced. The result was (assumption) that instead of thinking "one more horny guy hittin' me up," they'd wonder why I wasn't hittin'em up, and a good number would initiate.

 

But the real key was who would initiate––women with a higher actual interest level. The exchanges were more productive by an order of magnitude because they were the ones more invested. They were prescreened so to speak. Never had any trouble at all convincing them to meet.

 

Interesting post. Glad to hear that strategy worked for you.

 

I don't think its a contradiction that people on OK Cupid are attracted to people they are attracted to. Real life is the same way. Its just that real life interactions are dynamic.

 

Women "initiate" in social contexts by laughing, or lingering around you, or showing interest in you in all kinds of ways. Its not walking up to you and snogging you but it still takes an active showing of approval. Its just that in person interactions have room for more nuanced yes's and no's than a website does.

 

If you are male you SHOULD get rejected a lot more on OK Cupid than you would in real life. Because you don't have the same "pre-rejections" you do in every day life. In a social setting you're prescreened by who you know for starters. You'd never be in the same room as some people you see online. People reject you without having to "reject you".

[edgygirl]

I get dozens of messages per day and rarely reply... here's the two reasons when I do reply:

 

1. thoughtful message, even if one sentence, showing they "get" me and my personality. I am very clear about the type of personality I'm looking for, and if a guy doesn't "get it", it's because we are probably not going to get along.

 

[the hey how are you gorgeous messages irritate the hell out of me, even if the guy seems interesting. I might not answer if the first message seems dumb].

 

2. I can tell by the guy's profile that we will have mental and emotional connection... even if his first message was not witty.

[inthevalle]

I recall seeing a woman who was at a local sci-fi convention...had her picture taken with some sci-fi celebs...I was like "COOL...someone I can relate to and she had a girl-next-door way about her"

 

I would even ask questions about the specifics of the recent convention she attended. The celebs she got autographs from...so in a sense, even SHE doesn't know what's a proper match for her...as she completely overlooked our common, shared interests and values.

 

I find this to be fascinating, I admit. Especially the bolded part.

 

Is the assumption here that because YOU perceived her to be a good match and she did not reciprocate that the problem is that SHE does not know what is good for her...because if she did, she obviously would have chosen YOU?

 

I suspect the answer is yes, and I think this is the key to the jaded state that many men find themselves in.

 

What this formulaic approach to dating fails to take into account is the intangible qualities (or lack thereof) that cannot be quantified, along with the most intangible variable of all: chemistry.

 

The assumption that "I mathematically calculate to be a match, so if she doesn't agree there must be something flawed in HER" idea is, no doubt, comforting to a very significant and specific portion of men. However, it is fundamentally flawed.

 

A woman with common interests to yours may, in fact, NOT find you attractive and have nothing at all "wrong" with her.

 

She just doesn't like you that way.

 

That simple.

[ZA Dater]

OLD is a contradiction in many different ways.

 

Pictures are vital, the hotter you are the more likely you will get interest, the irony being hot people don't need to use OLD and that guys for men and women.

 

In terms of bio, you can almost put anything there but if the picture isn't great its rendered irrelevant. I maintain its far easier to be rejected on OLD than it is in person, primarily because in person the lady actually has to openly reject you and lets be honest how many will ever do that blatantly in public.

 

Perhaps a solution is to use an edited picture to make yourself appear better looking/richer than you really are.

[Mccoy321]

The problem the majority of men have with OLD is the discovery of how shallow women actually are. We're convinced by Hollywood and the ability to delude ourselves in real life encounters that women care primarily about personality, charm, humour and kindness. OLD presents a stark rebuke to those notions and it takes a long time to readjust.

[Empire87]

OLD is a contradiction in many different ways.

 

Pictures are vital, the hotter you are the more likely you will get interest, the irony being hot people don't need to use OLD and that guys for men and women.

 

In terms of bio, you can almost put anything there but if the picture isn't great its rendered irrelevant. I maintain its far easier to be rejected on OLD than it is in person, primarily because in person the lady actually has to openly reject you and lets be honest how many will ever do that blatantly in public.

 

Perhaps a solution is to use an edited picture to make yourself appear better looking/richer than you really are.

 

So you're saying that looks are important in dating? And that better looking people have better chances of garnering attraction? Hate to break it to you, but that's the way things have been since...... The beginning of time.

 

"Hot people don't need to use OLd because they csn get dates without it"

 

Well that's a pretty serious statement to make. That would mean that you're saying NO "attractive/hot" men or women utilize OLD. And in the rare chance that they do, they'll inevitably be matched with one another and pair off. Leaving all the ugly people with baggage remaining to scrape the bottom of the barrel... That sound accurate?

 

Let's try an experiment... I'll randomly plug in any town or city you can think of and plug it into a free dating app. I'll give you a city and you do the same. Then we go through 40 profiles and take note of how many "attractive" women there are based on looks alone. You're saying there will be 0. I'll counter that and present that they do in fact exist.

 

If you would like an easier and simpler way to verify then just google "how many people worldwide utilize online dating in one way or another?" You can even specific "how many 20-35yo's use OLD worldwide?"

 

I'm betting the answer will be in the MILLIONS. Everyone here knows basic math right? If there are Millions of people using something.... Is it physically possible, for every single one of them to fit into the categories you present as truth? Or..... Is that just impossible?

Edited March 28, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
quote formatting ~6

[ZA Dater]

OLD is a contradiction in many different ways.

 

Pictures are vital, the hotter you are the more likely you will get interest, the irony being hot people don't need to use OLD and that guys for men and women.

 

In terms of bio, you can almost put anything there but if the picture isn't great its rendered irrelevant. I maintain its far easier to be rejected on OLD than it is in person, primarily because in person the lady actually has to openly reject you and lets be honest how many will ever do that blatantly in public.

 

Perhaps a solution is to use an edited picture to make yourself appear better looking/richer than you really are.

 

So you're saying that looks are important in dating? And that better looking people have better chances of garnering attraction? Hate to break it to you, but that's the way things have been since...... The beginning of time.

 

"Hot people don't need to use OLd because they csn get dates without it"

 

Well that's a pretty serious statement to make. That would mean that you're saying NO "attractive/hot" men or women utilize OLD. And in the rare chance that they do, they'll inevitably be matched with one another and pair off. Leaving all the ugly people with baggage remaining to scrape the bottom of the barrel... That sound accurate?

 

Let's try an experiment... I'll randomly plug in any town or city you can think of and plug it into a free dating app. I'll give you a city and you do the same. Then we go through 40 profiles and take note of how many "attractive" women there are based on looks alone. You're saying there will be 0. I'll counter that and present that they do in fact exist.

 

If you would like an easier and simpler way to verify then just google "how many people worldwide utilize online dating in one way or another?" You can even specific "how many 20-35yo's use OLD worldwide?"

 

I'm betting the answer will be in the MILLIONS. Everyone here knows basic math right? If there are Millions of people using something.... Is it physically possible, for every single one of them to fit into the categories you present as truth? Or..... Is that just impossible?

 

Attractive generally get paired off with attractive. Walk down the street, count how many mismatches you see.

 

My point is attractive people don't need to place as much reliance on OLD.

Edited March 28, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
quote formatting ~6

[LookAtThisPOst]

OLD is a contradiction in many different ways.

 

Pictures are vital, the hotter you are the more likely you will get interest, the irony being hot people don't need to use OLD and that guys for men and women.

 

In terms of bio, you can almost put anything there but if the picture isn't great its rendered irrelevant. I maintain its far easier to be rejected on OLD than it is in person, primarily because in person the lady actually has to openly reject you and lets be honest how many will ever do that blatantly in public.

 

Perhaps a solution is to use an edited picture to make yourself appear better looking/richer than you really are.

 

So you're saying that looks are important in dating? And that better looking people have better chances of garnering attraction? Hate to break it to you, but that's the way things have been since...... The beginning of time.

 

"Hot people don't need to use OLd because they csn get dates without it"

 

Well that's a pretty serious statement to make. That would mean that you're saying NO "attractive/hot" men or women utilize OLD. And in the rare chance that they do, they'll inevitably be matched with one another and pair off. Leaving all the ugly people with baggage remaining to scrape the bottom of the barrel... That sound accurate?

 

Let's try an experiment... I'll randomly plug in any town or city you can think of and plug it into a free dating app. I'll give you a city and you do the same. Then we go through 40 profiles and take note of how many "attractive" women there are based on looks alone. You're saying there will be 0. I'll counter that and present that they do in fact exist.

 

If you would like an easier and simpler way to verify then just google "how many people worldwide utilize online dating in one way or another?" You can even specific "how many 20-35yo's use OLD worldwide?"

 

I'm betting the answer will be in the MILLIONS. Everyone here knows basic math right? If there are Millions of people using something.... Is it physically possible, for every single one of them to fit into the categories you present as truth? Or..... Is that just impossible?

 

The thing is, with online dating...let's say women tend to increase their expectations considerably to the point where it's unrealistic. They tend to not desire their equals in looks.

 

So let's say, you have an overweight woman that wants a man with a six-pack...sorry, not going to happen. (unless he's just looking for sex...maybe.)

 

It's funny when I took a break from online dating for a while, came back to check things out, only to see the same permanent fixtures of the women I had emailed in the past...still on the site.

 

Or...have another comparison to the "Man Store" where a woman goes from floor to floor in an elevator, thinking she'll find something better, but she never does. I think a lot of single women tend to think, "He's alright/cute, but I think I can do better."

 

And the cycle perpetuates itself.

Edited March 28, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
quote formatting ~6

[normal person]

 

Attractive generally get paired off with attractive. Walk down the street, count how many mismatches you see.

 

My point is attractive people don't need to place as much reliance on OLD.

 

Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

 

What percentage of the population would you consider attractive? I'd say 10% or less, in my observation (I'm about as picky as they come). That would make it less likely to meet someone else who's on the same level and make someone more prone to use OLD because your dating pool is 90% smaller. People use it because it's avenue they didn't have before. It's supplemental. It's a bar you can always be in. There's no reason not to.

 

You're not even considering the litany of circumstantial factors that might lead someone to use it: they work from home, they work with all women, they work unusual hours, they just moved to the city, etc.

 

I don't know where you get these ideas. There are dozens of very attractive, highly accomplished women using OLD where I live. Ones that I talk to usually bemoan the fact that they can't find the right match.