Contradictions of online dating - Article

[LookAtThisPOst]

 

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.

 

That's become no one is ever good enough...for them. In fact, I've known women that had bemoaned an entire CITY lacking in men...that they would consider dating.

 

An entire CITY? They should relocate.

[Mccoy321]

That's become no one is ever good enough...for them. In fact, I've known women that had bemoaned an entire CITY lacking in men...that they would consider dating.

 

An entire CITY? They should relocate.

 

The simple fact is that nearly all the women online, from the hottest right down to the threes and fours are only interested in talking to the eights, nines and tens. If you're not one of these guys and you don't have an amazing career you might as well give up.

[ZA Dater]

The simple fact is that nearly all the women online, from the hottest right down to the threes and fours are only interested in talking to the eights, nines and tens. If you're not one of these guys and you don't have an amazing career you might as well give up.

 

Agree 100%.

[MissBee]

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*.

 

How did you arrive at that conclusion? They could have met many men and it still not work out, hence them being back.

 

In your year off you have no idea what happened in their dating lives between now and when you popped back up. That's like someone seeing me at the supermarket today and then they never go back there for a year and see me again when they go back and assume I'm still shopping for the same thing with no luck or never go to any other stores or that for the whole year this is what I've been doing.

 

In my online dating experience and what I go for: attraction and message count, with great message being more of selling point, as my last bf that I met that way, I didn't find him very cute online but loved his messages so gave him a shot and was pleasantly surprised that he was cuter in person. If you look good and your messages are dull or we're just not clicking, I won't proceed. But different women respond to different things. It's been said before but I'll say it again, it's strange to me when people think that just because on paper you have similar interests you can determine that you and a complete stranger are a good romantic match and get upset if they don't feel so....I don't understand that idea. I have many people I'm good with on paper but feel nothing for romantically. Just because we like the same food, shows, ice-cream flavor, is just a point of conversation online but says NOTHING about genuine compatibility and if when we're messaging things click. Yes, the dreaded chemistry that some people seem to despise hearing about, but it is a thing and determines why you are inexplicably attracted to some folks and not others, even when on paper it would seem you should/shouldn't be.

Edited March 27, 2016 by MissBee

[preraph]

Well, you can't trust what people write or whether they even wrote it, so their photos are about all you have to go by, and even then, it may not be them.

 

Taking it back to basics, in high school, you didn't pick a person to crush on based on if they were nice so much as their looks and accomplishments and their outward personality. You didn't dissect them before choosing. Dating is about finding out if you like someone, and all you should be doing is ruling out obvious dealbreakers.

[Philosopher]

It's been said before but I'll say it again, it's strange to me when people think that just because on paper you have similar interests you can determine that you and a complete stranger are a good romantic match and get upset if they don't feel so....I don't understand that idea. I have many people I'm good with on paper but feel nothing for romantically. Just because we like the same food, shows, ice-cream flavor, is just a point of conversation online but says NOTHING about genuine compatibility and if when we're messaging things click. Yes, the dreaded chemistry that some people seem to despise hearing about, but it is a thing and determines why you are inexplicably attracted to some folks and not others, even when on paper it would seem you should/shouldn't be.

 

This I think is the biggest problem with online dating, a profile and a few pictures does not predict whether there will be any of this mysterious chemistry between the two of you. You might be lucky and there is amazing chemistry when you meet and it feels like you met your long lost soulmate. More often that not, however, what on paper is a great match ends up in a rather dull date that you just want to get over and done with.

 

If meeting in real life however, you know pretty much right away whether you are attracted to them and after a few minutes conversation you can normally tell whether there is a connection between the two of you.

[LookAtThisPOst]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? They could have met many men and it still not work out, hence them being back.

 

In your year off you have no idea what happened in their dating lives between now and when you popped back up. That's like someone seeing me at the supermarket today and then they never go back there for a year and see me again when they go back and assume I'm still shopping for the same thing with no luck or never go to any other stores or that for the whole year this is what I've been doing.

 

.

 

Funny you mention that, because prior to that year...I had been active on dating sites for a few years, so every time I would log in, throughout that time, I'd see the women I've already emailed through the course of 2 to 3 years...still on the site.

 

It's like they have become permanent fixtures of the site. With "Online now" showing near their profile names.

[hasaquestion]

Well, you can't trust what people write or whether they even wrote it, so their photos are about all you have to go by, and even then, it may not be them.

 

Taking it back to basics, in high school, you didn't pick a person to crush on based on if they were nice so much as their looks and accomplishments and their outward personality. You didn't dissect them before choosing. Dating is about finding out if you like someone, and all you should be doing is ruling out obvious dealbreakers.

 

Something I've observed in person, is that people are more reliable appraisers of their own looks, than their own personality.

 

With looks, which are only skin deep, there are a lot of references. There's a very visual ruler available to compare yourself with. People are relatively aware of where they stand on the 1 to 10 scale. Height is the extreme end of this, 100% quantifiable.

 

But it seems like most people, regardless of gender, have an overinflated at worst and nonexistent at best sense of how their personal charm stacks up to their peers.

 

The cognitive biases here apply to more than just personal charm - its just the Dunning-Kruger effect except with the skill in question being how "nice" you are. As a species we do it.

 

Now people are certainly shallow. Well, at least I'm shallow, I can't speak for others.

 

But at the aggregate level, I'm sure some amount of the sentiment that people are shallow comes from people's fallacious self-assessments in areas that are not looks.

 

As a thought exercise, imagine 10 men and 10 women in a room, who are each hypothetically distributed from "1" to "10" looks-wise. The two groups are polled about their personality. If all the women rate themselves as "average" or better in the personality department, there's 55 "points" worth of looks in the room, 55 "points" worth of intrinsic personality in the room, and as few as 50 (if everyone reports themselves to be exactly average) and many as 100 (if everyone thinks they're a charmer) "points" worth of perceived personality in the room. Its mathematically impossible for them to pair up based on personality and feel that the process was fair.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Something I've observed in person, is that people are more reliable appraisers of their own looks, than their own personality.

 

With looks, which are only skin deep, there are a lot of references. There's a very visual ruler available to compare yourself with. People are relatively aware of where they stand on the 1 to 10 scale. Height is the extreme end of this, 100% quantifiable.

 

But it seems like most people, regardless of gender, have an overinflated at worst and nonexistent at best sense of how their personal charm stacks up to their peers.

 

The cognitive biases here apply to more than just personal charm - its just the Dunning-Kruger effect except with the skill in question being how "nice" you are. As a species we do it.

 

Now people are certainly shallow. Well, at least I'm shallow, I can't speak for others.

 

But at the aggregate level, I'm sure some amount of the sentiment that people are shallow comes from people's fallacious self-assessments in areas that are not looks.

 

As a thought exercise, imagine 10 men and 10 women in a room, who are each hypothetically distributed from "1" to "10" looks-wise. The two groups are polled about their personality. If all the women rate themselves as "average" or better in the personality department, there's 55 "points" worth of looks in the room, 55 "points" worth of intrinsic personality in the room, and as few as 50 (if everyone reports themselves to be exactly average) and many as 100 (if everyone thinks they're a charmer) "points" worth of perceived personality in the room. Its mathematically impossible for them to pair up based on personality and feel that the process was fair.

 

I recall an article about someone who made a living matchmaking. He found someone that he thought was a good match for an overly picky woman. Perfect to a T....

 

But, he was a couple of inches shorter than her required height, but called her into her office anyway.

 

He says all things about him in the meeting, how he's nicely matched in every fashion, but was a couple of inches shorter than her stringent height requirement, but ask that she give him a shot at a date anyway.

 

She would have none of it and walked out of his office immediately.

 

Even the experts can see how unbelievable unreasonable that their clients can be.

[hasaquestion]

I recall an article about someone who made a living matchmaking. He found someone that he thought was a good match for an overly picky woman. Perfect to a T....

 

But, he was a couple of inches shorter than her required height, but called her into her office anyway.

 

He says all things about him in the meeting, how he's nicely matched in every fashion, but was a couple of inches shorter than her stringent height requirement, but ask that she give him a shot at a date anyway.

 

She would have none of it and walked out of his office immediately.

 

Even the experts can see how unbelievable unreasonable that their clients can be.

 

I think you missed the point. I definitely think people are shallow in the classical sense. Like I said, I am so if nothing else it would make me feel better about myself.

 

My point was that given what we know about psychology, combined with what I've observed, I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that on the aggregate, people cannot pair up based on personality - because they have zero concept of it.

 

What is shallow? It is simply wanting the best. Well just like there are very few "9"s and "10"s from a "looks" standpoint, there are very few "9"s and "10"s in terms of being funny, or confident, or charming, or eloquent, or successful, or even kind. Until people as a whole get to the point where they don't perceive themselves as having more personality than looks, it is impossible for them not to fallaciously overestimate the significance of looks.

[HillValley]

This I think is the biggest problem with online dating, a profile and a few pictures does not predict whether there will be any of this mysterious chemistry between the two of you. You might be lucky and there is amazing chemistry when you meet and it feels like you met your long lost soulmate. More often that not, however, what on paper is a great match ends up in a rather dull date that you just want to get over and done with.

 

If meeting in real life however, you know pretty much right away whether you are attracted to them and after a few minutes conversation you can normally tell whether there is a connection between the two of you.

 

I think online dating suffers from the fact the internet is associated with gratification.

 

You want a new pair of boots? Log on and buy the exact color, brand, size, etc. all the time sitting in your pjs.

 

You want a pizza? Jump on line with your credit card and it'll be there in 30 mins.

 

Don't know who killed Abe Lincoln? Wikipedia it.

 

When people sign up for online dating the assumption is that the date they are looking for is online in the first place. One of a list of 40 people they just have to look through. I mean, just this person likes the same band doesn't actually amount to much. There may be a reason you haven't met this person that lives in a 20 mile radius of you.

[Empire87]

The simple fact is that nearly all the women online, from the hottest right down to the threes and fours are only interested in talking to the eights, nines and tens. If you're not one of these guys and you don't have an amazing career you might as well give up.

 

 

I have trouble understanding how it's always the guys who haven't had the best luck or succes with women, who are the ones that know, what not just one woman thinks or wants, but can definitively state what ALL women, whether they're ugly or a supermodel, are interested in and looking for.

 

Maybe I'm alone in this regard but I swear, I've seen at least 1 couple in my life where the girl was (let's say less than flawless) a 3 and yet she was holding hands and in a happy relationship with a guy who wasn't an 8,9 or 10. I've actually also known guys who had nothing attractive about them physically, and nothing more than a minimum wage job for a paycheck, attract, hook up with, date, and sleep with, girls who could be featured in sports illustrated a swimsuit edition.

 

There's also a reason why movies like "what women want" amongst others, are listed under Comedy. It's because no one freaking has the ability to define what A woman, let alone ALL women want or are interest in.

 

And when did it become a fault for someone to have the initial goal of going out with a handsome/beautiful person?

It's not a bad thing to sign up for OLD and when the first profile comes up and it's a 4'9 guy with a fo hawk and a tattoo of a rose on his face... To say to yourself "I think I can do better than that, let's keep scrolling" without being told that she's being unfair to the avg guy.

[Mccoy321]

I have trouble understanding how it's always the guys who haven't had the best luck or succes with women, who are the ones that know, what not just one woman thinks or wants, but can definitively state what ALL women, whether they're ugly or a supermodel, are interested in and looking for.

 

Maybe I'm alone in this regard but I swear, I've seen at least 1 couple in my life where the girl was (let's say less than flawless) a 3 and yet she was holding hands and in a happy relationship with a guy who wasn't an 8,9 or 10. I've actually also known guys who had nothing attractive about them physically, and nothing more than a minimum wage job for a paycheck, attract, hook up with, date, and sleep with, girls who could be featured in sports illustrated a swimsuit edition.

 

There's also a reason why movies like "what women want" amongst others, are listed under Comedy. It's because no one freaking has the ability to define what A woman, let alone ALL women want or are interest in.

 

And when did it become a fault for someone to have the initial goal of going out with a handsome/beautiful person?

It's not a bad thing to sign up for OLD and when the first profile comes up and it's a 4'9 guy with a fo hawk and a tattoo of a rose on his face... To say to yourself "I think I can do better than that, let's keep scrolling" without being told that she's being unfair to the avg guy.

 

I didn't say it was unfair, I said it was the reality. People need to wake up and forget the Hollywood rubbish. Dating sites of course need idiotic, average looking men to believe that if they pay a premium, they're profile will become so much more 'visible', and thus, attractive.

[Empire87]

I didn't say it was unfair, I said it was the reality. People need to wake up and forget the Hollywood rubbish. Dating sites of course need idiotic, average looking men to believe that if they pay a premium, they're profile will become so much more 'visible', and thus, attractive.

 

Maybe take a second look at the options available if that's your belief. The major sites for OLD or Apps are free. Could download tinder or badoo or whatever you want onto my phone now without paying a dime.

 

There's millions of users worldwide that use them as options. In fact, it's been shown that the majority of people in America use at least one form of online dating or socializing site in their day to day lives at least once.

 

You mention the theme of suckering the average joe to paying money in order to access higher quality women. Are you aware that women have to pay a fee to the sites that charge as well? There's no special circumstance that gives them membership for free which would disprove your accusation of baiting guys to open their wallets.

 

Being "more visible" doesn't make you more attractive. There are plenty of sites or apps where you're in control of who you connect with and where to look. It's common sense that if you don't put any effort or thought into your profile or presentation, or the wording used when messaging slmeone, that your chances will be diminished severely.

 

The only ones calling out OLD or saying people need to wake up and see what it really is are those who haven't seen it work for themselves.

I'd think that the evidence showing that it's a billion dollar industry, with millions of users across the world, and testimonials that can be read forever by those who found a partner or experienced success for the first time in their lives.. Would be enough to prove to you that the OLD approach is something that is a viable option no matter who you are, what you like, or where you're from.

 

Pointing fingers at the set up or reality of old is always easier than looking at yourself and figuring out what it might be in yourself that's preventing your progress . Just a suggestion

[lino]

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

You're assuming women place value on common interests, they don't.

 

That's a supplementary quality to the guy being hot and/or worth money, not a primary quality.

[Empire87]

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?

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?

 

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.

 

You're looking at it all wrong here with this statement. Your putting the logical match you can see based on your common interests or similarities, or how you connected when you spoke, etc as something that can't be argued with or questionable.

 

There's a whole side of dating and socializing that just has no rhyme or reason to it and doesn't make sense whatsoever. For example, you could be a great looking guy, who meets a great looking girl, both looking for a relationship, both enjoyed the conversation you bad with one another, but when it comes time to schedule a date, she doesn't commit. Why? Who the heck knows. Truth is, that people are allowed to not go out with you without a valid reason whatsoever.

 

You have no idea what's going on in their lives, what issues they have, what reservations they might feel about going out with someone they haven't met or barely know, etc. Life isn't based on what makes sense on paper. If it was, the pre season pick to win the Super Bowl would win every year and they wouldn't play out the season.

 

With girls like this where you see a connection and feel you'll get along well, that's when you can be a little more persistent or creative or revisit at a later date.

[insert_name]

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.

 

A study found that women can change their perception of a man's attractiveness based on his personality. Interestingly this is far less the case with men.

 

Numerous studies on speed dating data found that, on the basis of 3 minute dates, the most popular people were the most physically attractive. So add those two findings together and it seems that men moreso than women have a chance of compensating for less physically attractive features but it will take a lot longer than 3 minutes for this compensation to take effect.

 

Applied to the online dating realm where women don't have a lot to go on to make a decision about whether they are interested it suggests that yes, the physically attractive men are most likely to be successful, so if you aren't one of the lucky ones in that sense you are better off meeting women in real life where (for men at least) personality CAN make a difference.

[LookAtThisPOst]

A study found that women can change their perception of a man's attractiveness based on his personality. Interestingly this is far less the case with men.

 

Numerous studies on speed dating data found that, on the basis of 3 minute dates, the most popular people were the most physically attractive. So add those two findings together and it seems that men moreso than women have a chance of compensating for less physically attractive features but it will take a lot longer than 3 minutes for this compensation to take effect.

 

Applied to the online dating realm where women don't have a lot to go on to make a decision about whether they are interested it suggests that yes, the physically attractive men are most likely to be successful, so if you aren't one of the lucky ones in that sense you are better off meeting women in real life where (for men at least) personality CAN make a difference.

 

It's funny you mention this. I know of a woman that actually said in her profile "Not looking for pen-pals, looking to actually meet in person, face-to-face. "

 

Then she said, "You cannot find out if there's a connection, unless you meet in person!" She highly emphasized this, this was what actually caused me to contact her because I usually look for certain buzzwords or phrases like this that would trigger a response from me to contact them.

 

Chances are this was a reaction to probably having been catfished or something.

 

Anyhow, I sent her an email saying that it's great that we mirror each other in the whole "meeting in person/pen-pal" thing and her profile pretty much mirrored mine in morals and values, appreciation for family, etc.

 

She did respond with, "Sorry, but I don't think there's a connection, I wish you luck in your search."

 

I had to laugh, because this response contradicted her statement IN her profile, and I pointed that out, "But you said in your profile you can't tell of any kind of connection unless you meet in person."

 

Got no response from her on that. lol

 

It is true though, I had a handful of women like this that lived close and I KNEW that if we had me in person organically, I'd have no problem scoring a date with them.

 

Which reminds me of a POF story of a guy that was ignored by a woman he emailed online...but of course was ignored.

 

He saw her at a local fleamarket event...approached her, got to chatting and he got her #. A few dates into it, he fessed up, "You know, I emailed you on POF, but you didn't respond."

 

She was like, "OMG, if I had KNOWN it was YOU, I would have responded!"

[GemmaUK]

It's funny you mention this. I know of a woman that actually said in her profile "Not looking for pen-pals, looking to actually meet in person, face-to-face. "

 

Then she said, "You cannot find out if there's a connection, unless you meet in person!" She highly emphasized this, this was what actually caused me to contact her because I usually look for certain buzzwords or phrases like this that would trigger a response from me to contact them.

 

Chances are this was a reaction to probably having been catfished or something.

 

Anyhow, I sent her an email saying that it's great that we mirror each other in the whole "meeting in person/pen-pal" thing and her profile pretty much mirrored mine in morals and values, appreciation for family, etc.

 

She did respond with, "Sorry, but I don't think there's a connection, I wish you luck in your search."

 

I had to laugh, because this response contradicted her statement IN her profile,

 

Actually she didn't contradict her statement.

It would have been a contradiction if her statement in her profile had said:

 

 

'You cannot find out if there's a connection, unless you meet in person and I will arrange to meet anyone who contacts me regardless of whether I am interested or not in your photos and profile'

 

See the difference?

 

'Some' kind of attraction to photos and or profile is required for women just the same as it is for you OP.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Actually she didn't contradict her statement.

It would have been a contradiction if her statement in her profile had said:

 

 

'You cannot find out if there's a connection, unless you meet in person and I will arrange to meet anyone who contacts me regardless of whether I am interested or not in your photos and profile'

 

See the difference?

 

'Some' kind of attraction to photos and or profile is required for women just the same as it is for you OP.

 

You're just splitting hairs. It's a contradiction either way.

[GemmaUK]

You're just splitting hairs. It's a contradiction either way.

 

Attraction of some kind in dating is a given OP.

Everyone, men and women alike have the right to only meet or date someone they have an interest in.

Sometimes it comes across as if you think that women who you are interested in should date you just because you are interested. Is that how you think?

[normal person]

She did respond with, "Sorry, but I don't think there's a connection, I wish you luck in your search."

 

I had to laugh, because this response contradicted her statement IN her profile, and I pointed that out, "But you said in your profile you can't tell of any kind of connection unless you meet in person."

 

Got no response from her on that. lol

 

She didn't really contradict herself, though. She assumes there's no connection until she has reason to believe there is one, then she goes through the in person trial. Just because you thought "oh, wow, we think the same things about x, y, and z" doesn't mean you appealed to her enough warrant an in person meeting with her where she would then decide. And if she has something you want (like her time and/or attention), then she has the leverage and is the gatekeeper of the interaction, not you.

 

It's just like assigning a filter to eliminate people with the features you don't want. You can input height, weight, education, etc to eliminate those people from your search result. However the technology hasn't yet evolved to filter out people she just doesn't want to go out with for whatever indiscernible reason. She didn't contradict herself, you just still didn't meet her standards and she had to eliminate you from contention manually. That's just the way it is.

 

Another thing, peoples' emotions are irrational. As tempting as it might be, you can't win someone's heart via logic or argument.

[MissBee]

This I think is the biggest problem with online dating, a profile and a few pictures does not predict whether there will be any of this mysterious chemistry between the two of you. You might be lucky and there is amazing chemistry when you meet and it feels like you met your long lost soulmate. More often that not, however, what on paper is a great match ends up in a rather dull date that you just want to get over and done with.

 

If meeting in real life however, you know pretty much right away whether you are attracted to them and after a few minutes conversation you can normally tell whether there is a connection between the two of you.

 

Yes, that's one of the drawbacks with which you have to contend when OLD.

 

Of course, meeting in real life eliminates the whole am I attracted thing off the bat, as you have seen them in person. Depending on the context of meeting in person though, you still may not know if you have chemistry. If you've met briefly, it's hard to tell, whereas if you've interacted for a while or know them socially it's easier to gauge. I have met men briefly at parties or had a brief exchange, exchanged numbers, and the date was still blah.

 

But there isn't anything you can do about that online, so you go with your best best based on the conversation you have, pics, and when I OLD, I try to video chat or add other elements that will let me see the person in other ways.

[LookAtThisPOst]

She didn't really contradict herself, though. She assumes there's no connection until she has reason to believe there is one, then she goes through the in person trial. Just because you thought "oh, wow, we think the same things about x, y, and z" doesn't mean you appealed to her enough warrant an in person meeting with her where she would then decide. And if she has something you want (like her time and/or attention), then she has the leverage and is the gatekeeper of the interaction, not you.

 

It's just like assigning a filter to eliminate people with the features you don't want. You can input height, weight, education, etc to eliminate those people from your search result. However the technology hasn't yet evolved to filter out people she just doesn't want to go out with for whatever indiscernible reason. She didn't contradict herself, you just still didn't meet her standards and she had to eliminate you from contention manually. That's just the way it is.

.

 

So I see what you're saying there, there just things left unsaid.

 

Like some women will write in their profile, "If you're under 6 feet, don't contact me! Have bucked teeth, big nose, no hair" or something to that effect, where a lot of things are left unsaid, so they don't come off as shallow.

 

I've seen them, "Must have a full head of hair!" or "Clean shaven, no beards, goatees, etc" things like that.

 

Though some people have updated their profiles under duress maybe by actually making those additions.

[MidwestUSA]

You're just splitting hairs. It's a contradiction either way.

 

No, it's not. Bottom line is attraction. Recall the horse woman you were willing to drive for? Not only is she drop dead gorgeous, she has her act together, as many who have an intense passion like that do. Can you offer the same? If not, it shows, at least as far as she could tell.

 

Summary. No one is obligated to meet anyone, no matter how one INSISTS they are a match on paper. Peaches75? Same deal.

 

I have to ask. Are you shooting way out of your league, attraction wise?