OKCupid tried to algorithmically match people based on various qualities, and some people liked it a lot, but then it got bought by Match Group in 2011 (for $50 million, which isn’t very much money here) which changed it to be more like Tinder.
I do wonder if, at some point, the forces will align for some kind of government effort to ‘match’ people, or at least let people know where they really stand.
Imagine a one day event, every year. You get off work, you get shown a few dozen pairs of images depicting single people of your preferred orientation, and you pick the image from each pair that you like more. At the end of the day, an ELO ranking is computed, and everyone gets to know exactly what their “league” is, with example pictures provided by people who opted in to serving as examples in exchange for a small tax credit. I think people would be vastly happier and more secure if they knew the options that were realistic for them, and didn’t have to wonder whether they were aiming too high or too low. It would also create a strong emotional incentive for self-improvement, which has all sorts of nice externalities.
I feel like this is coming from quite a male perspective. Obviously looks play a huge role in attractiveness for both genders, but for the average straight man you wouldn’t be missing very much if you modeled their shallow/early-impressions attraction to women as 100% looks-based, whereas for the average straight woman that wouldn’t work as well. So your event might be quite informative for the straight women who participated, but potentially confusing for the straight men.
This feels like it would really reinforce focus on the easily accessible attribute of external appearance. For long term value/return/satisfaction in relationships I would expect attributes that matter more to include emotional and social skill level; compatible social schemas or ability to negotiate and agree across social schemas; lived lifestyle adjusted to remove base context determinants; or similarity in desire to introspect, express, and connect. Ignoring privacy related fears that tend to be strongest around centralized repositories, if we would invest systemically in pairing (or more generally, grouping), I would expect is to use a more effective process than the unimaginative and intentionally anti-effective tinder-like approach?
This feels like it would really reinforce focus on the easily accessible attribute of external appearance.
The core value add, here, is providing people with a sense of perspective related to where they stand. It’s okay if it’s not perfect, as long as it informs people, in a general sense, of whether they are trying to punch out of their weight class (and, likewise, whether their self-esteem is lower than it ought to be, if other people rank them more highly than they rank themselves).
Essentially just an informal sanity check on peoples’ assessments of their prospects, rectifying the two extreme failure states of someone looking to find love.
I appreciate that. I think it’s good to have better access to reality. What I’m saying is that I would suggest prioritizing enhanced awareness of other dimension of reality. Before establishing my monogamous marriage I’d have happily have dated someone considered ugly with deformities who nonetheless had high compatibility emotionally, intellectually, and socially. My happiness and smoothness in doing so would probably have served as one of the compatibility bars that they would have employed to evaluate my fitness. There is a large societal focus on attractiveness but I don’t expect it to be the best predictor of optimal relational outcomes. You already to want to privilege and protect focus on that attribute. Do I misunderstand?
I do wonder if, at some point, the forces will align for some kind of government effort to ‘match’ people, or at least let people know where they really stand.
Imagine a one day event, every year. You get off work, you get shown a few dozen pairs of images depicting single people of your preferred orientation, and you pick the image from each pair that you like more. At the end of the day, an ELO ranking is computed, and everyone gets to know exactly what their “league” is, with example pictures provided by people who opted in to serving as examples in exchange for a small tax credit. I think people would be vastly happier and more secure if they knew the options that were realistic for them, and didn’t have to wonder whether they were aiming too high or too low. It would also create a strong emotional incentive for self-improvement, which has all sorts of nice externalities.
I feel like this is coming from quite a male perspective. Obviously looks play a huge role in attractiveness for both genders, but for the average straight man you wouldn’t be missing very much if you modeled their shallow/early-impressions attraction to women as 100% looks-based, whereas for the average straight woman that wouldn’t work as well. So your event might be quite informative for the straight women who participated, but potentially confusing for the straight men.
This feels like it would really reinforce focus on the easily accessible attribute of external appearance. For long term value/return/satisfaction in relationships I would expect attributes that matter more to include emotional and social skill level; compatible social schemas or ability to negotiate and agree across social schemas; lived lifestyle adjusted to remove base context determinants; or similarity in desire to introspect, express, and connect. Ignoring privacy related fears that tend to be strongest around centralized repositories, if we would invest systemically in pairing (or more generally, grouping), I would expect is to use a more effective process than the unimaginative and intentionally anti-effective tinder-like approach?
The core value add, here, is providing people with a sense of perspective related to where they stand. It’s okay if it’s not perfect, as long as it informs people, in a general sense, of whether they are trying to punch out of their weight class (and, likewise, whether their self-esteem is lower than it ought to be, if other people rank them more highly than they rank themselves).
Essentially just an informal sanity check on peoples’ assessments of their prospects, rectifying the two extreme failure states of someone looking to find love.
I appreciate that. I think it’s good to have better access to reality. What I’m saying is that I would suggest prioritizing enhanced awareness of other dimension of reality. Before establishing my monogamous marriage I’d have happily have dated someone considered ugly with deformities who nonetheless had high compatibility emotionally, intellectually, and socially. My happiness and smoothness in doing so would probably have served as one of the compatibility bars that they would have employed to evaluate my fitness. There is a large societal focus on attractiveness but I don’t expect it to be the best predictor of optimal relational outcomes. You already to want to privilege and protect focus on that attribute. Do I misunderstand?