I had my first dating experiences in life online, and then I met a couple of girls "normally". (Relationships are few and far between for me, and I have to work at getting one and it takes a year or two and finding one is by far the hardest problem I've ever had to solve in my life).
I'm trying online again, and the contrast is extremely stark. There is nothing in any other experience in life that has made me think of myself as an unwanted commodity item quite so much as this. As a man in my thirties who is below average in height (5'8) I fight against about 25% to 75% numbers, and the women seem almost universally to be working extra carefully to exclude me and almost always come across as extremely entitled, both in written and in unwritten ways. And I can't blame them for it! They just understand the economics of scarcity, apparently. Despite being reasonably successful in life and being in the best physical shape I've ever been (10% bodyfat or so, can barely see my abs, can bench press 185 for 8 reps at bodyweight of 155), I seem completely uninteresting to women in a nearly universal way without much I can do to change this.
There are no doubt some men who succeed fantastically in this environment, but it seems that for someone like me to do so, I would need to, very much, be conscious of playing the game and pretty much doing anything but presenting an unashamed and straightforward version of self-expression. Since I consider it to be the core of my character to neither accept or deal out bullshit from anyone, but to seek the direct truth, this is a problem.
This is in contrast to where I've actually had success with women in the past - amateur classical singing and opera. There the population is about 75% women, with many of the men being gay. There, I can get a taste of what dating is like for the rest of the world - I didn't have to play some stupid hyper-masculinized pursuer who throws semi-sincere interest at a hundred women until one of them returns a peep, but situations actually can develop somewhat symmetrically and organically. Clearly the answer for me is to get back into a world like that, despite not being very interested anymore for any other reason. (My passion these days is programming and development.)
Anyway, this turned into a big rant, but I've been single for a year, face the prospect of a few more, and it does get to me.
There are no doubt some men who succeed fantastically in this environment, but it seems that for someone like me to do so, I would need to, very much, be conscious of playing the game and pretty much doing anything but presenting an unashamed and straightforward version of self-expression. Since I consider it to be the core of my character to neither accept or deal out bullshit from anyone, but to seek the direct truth, this is a problem.
If you have attitude that you're not going to make any changes to yourself in order to land women, than you're not going to land women. And why should women want to date you if your not willing to make the step?
Women don't want direct and straightforward. They want charm, mystery, excitement. For one trite example, When I'm commenting on some nerdy web forum, and my girlfriend asks me what I'm doing, I don't say, "I'm chatting on a web forum." I say, "I'm engaging in correspondence" and paint the air of some sophisticated 19th century aristocrat. Or I say, "the same thing I do every night, sweetie, try and take over the world". When you can learn to dress up the mundane aspects of life with fun and charm, you'll find women enjoy being around you a lot more.
I used to think "game" was just something for cad's and those who wanted only numbers and notches. But even the most cultured, educated, women wants to be charmed, she wants that psychologically dominant rogue to game her. If you want a great, long term affectionate companion, you need to develop both the personal rapport and shared interests, but also the romantic game/charm that makes her tingle for you.
> If you have attitude that you're not going to make any changes to yourself in order to land women, than you're not going to land women.
I know! Such would be the definition of insanity and all that. That's why my future plans involve making the best of the strengths and weaknesses I have and who I am, who is someone who refuses to strive to be anybody but the person of my dreams. Women don't like me and I'll live.
> Women don't want direct and straightforward. They want charm, mystery, excitement.
I know that too. I've read the SS literature and heard Ross Jeffries tapes. The shit works. I don't like people who use it and it's not for me. Bullshit I can detect disgusts me, in both genders. I know the arguments quite well and I know human nature quite well. When you're learning a foreign language, you don't say "Speaking French isn't me" you make the sounds that seem weird at first. However, feeling like I need to spend my whole life making all my conversations with women crafted according to some stupid shit I don't actually feel isn't worth it for me. Yes I'm bitter, and I don't even rant all the time, just in this thread:)
> you need to develop both the personal rapport and shared interests, but also the romantic game/charm that makes her tingle for you.
Yes I know. But I say no to this, and the anger at the fact that the person of my dreams isn't good enough for a woman will drive me to more success, on my own terms.
Do you enjoy any sort of recreation, horsing around, pulling pranks, play acting, telling stories, fantasizing, scheming, etc? Or is your life 100% droll and serious?
Do you have other interests besides programming - travel, books, movies, anything?
You don't have to be a Jersey Shore-like, brainless, bullsh*tter to get girls. I think there is a difference between doing the Ross Jeffries act and spicing up topics you genuinely like with a little bit of excitement.
> Do you enjoy any sort of recreation, horsing around, pulling pranks, play acting, telling stories, fantasizing, scheming, etc?
Yes all of that, in a way that isn't appealing to women. The kind of humour I enjoy includes dry self deprecation and obscure and nerdy tech jokes, and I literally am part of the reason why women don't get into computer science jobs. You can actually see the repulsive magnetic fields lines as they form patterns at a distance from me at parties, not quite knowing why they need to move but doing so anyhow. And you know what? I have the personality of leader, and I'm going to develop myself into more of one, and women can just go to guys like you when they want to tingle and shit.
> Do you have other interests besides programming - travel, books, movies, anything?
No, a little (and I recognize where your usernane is from), yes if I'm sitting with a girl, and some other things that vary over time, including most that are stereotypically male interests. (E.g. I love watching UFC with friends at a bar.)
But anyway, I apologize if it appears like I'm playing a version of Eric Berne's game "Why don't you...? yes but...", or ressentiment or glorifying my own powerlessness or whatever. I'm really not after help, though I recognize you and others would sincerely like to provide it.
I'm just pointing out that online dating really isn't the best path for everyone, especially for someone like me. I really am likable to some, but I just take a long time to get to know, and it has to be in person over time, and it can't be the sort of whiny entitled women online who are smart enough to understand the economics of scarcity:) My own best strategy will be a two-pronged attack - make a ton more money and get a lot more power (in my view, this is more honest than clowning my way through some speed seduction value elicitation NLP bullshit that revolts me). And along with it get off the internet more and do some things where there is continual interaction with women. Sometimes, I know from experience, even though such things aren't that enjoyable at first, they can take on a life of their own... E.g. the idea that supposedly Sartre got into philosophy to pick up girls.
The kind of humour I enjoy includes dry self deprecation
Yeah, self-deprecating humor is definitely romantic death, I've kicked the habit over the years.
The reason I asked about interests is that 95% of my time is spent with interests that women find uninteresting - programming, reading history, reading economics, sports. Thus when I talk with women, I make sure to only talk about the 5% (design, architecture, society, relationships, psychology, travel) that women find interesting. In this way I am both authentic to myself ( I am genuinely interested in these topics), but also can make decent conversation.
I'm really not after help, though I recognize you and others would sincerely like to provide it.
I used to have a similar attitude to you, and similar droughts. So I feel oddly compelled to give the unsolicited advice that I wish someone had given me.
I have the personality of leader, and I'm going to develop myself into more of one, and women can just go to guys like you when they want to tingle and shit.
The arts of leadership are in many ways the arts of seduction.
make a ton more money and get a lot more power
All the best to you, but in the modern world this is one of the least efficient ways to try and find female companionship.
> interests that women find uninteresting - programming, reading history, reading economics, sports. Thus when I talk with women, I make sure to only talk about the 5% (design, architecture, society, relationships, psychology, travel)
Wow... are you sure that all women are so homogeneous?
You are entirely wrong, if you accept the rest of your post at face value.
Women like leadership.
Leadership in its most primal form is not about intelligence, decisiveness, alpha male-ness, or what-have-you. Leadership is about people believing you have any of those powers (or some several I forgot). And that's where you're going entirely wrong!
You think that such a belief is worthless. You think that people give up something when they follow a leader. A leader is just one who takes the desires and wishes of the people who follow them into his/her own heart.
You think that women are really such base operators and are upset at them for that. And that makes it impossible for you to see them as human.
If you think that making money and power will get you women, you're entirely right. You'll hit the point at which such things are so attractive that your other "defects" won't matter. Money can buy anything with a pricetag, and power can buy anything that can be intimidated.
But you won't be happy until you realize that you're on an equal level with those women whom you despise.
And that's the core of why I'm angry with you. You think you're better than women because they fall for speed seduction value elicitation bullshit, but at the same time you think you're hot shit ("personality of leader") and buy into same shit in your seeking of power. Do you think women will interest you once you can buy them?
The better framework is that yes, there are women who will fall for power and money; yes, there are women who will be seduced by "demonstration of value"; but there are a lot of women. Even speed seduction respects women's choice by taking tactics that try to influence it.
I apologize, I'm being harsh in calling you out so thoroughly. I'm a little drunk.
But fuck it, this story is about online dating in an absurdly negative light, and I've had more than a few friends succeed in online dating because they were serious about finding and evaluating someone.
Good luck in whatever sort of woman you choose to pursue.
I think there are different kinds of leadership. There is the kind you describe. Then there is the kind where you are someone who can't be ignored simply because you are technically better than others around. When I'm in an amateur opera, I have my music memorized before the other people know their notes, and I never miss my part. People notice. When I'm taking a night class I say my opinion out loud whether it's what the teacher wants to hear or not, and I got 100% in the last 4 CS course I took. That's a kind of leadership. I'm not as smart or talented as many people on this site, but I do think I have tasted more failure, and am more terrified of underachieving, and I want success more badly than many of the rest, and you can bet your ass I have more free time. I am never ashamed of who I am, and I will meet you face to face, give you my real name, and look you in the eye. While other people were out doing "fun" things last month, I released my first two iPad apps and made 1200 dollars. It's not that much, to be sure, but give me some time, and it's a nice addition to working full time as well. Give me a few years, see if people I'm working with look up to me, and tell me I don't have the personality of a leader. I think I still won't be good enough for women though. Do I have a chip on my shoulder for this? Yes.
I don't have any hatred for women. I just resent the fact that I am nearly completely unattractive to them, being the person I really am and strive to be. I look around on online personals sites and I'd be thrilled to get a relationship with at least 1/3 of them. In nearly all other areas of life, you can view the genders with symmetry, but someone who thinks low status males like me are playing in the same universe as almost any woman has just never been to an online dating site. There, yes, we might as well be different species.
Yes I do think I'm hot shit, thank you very much, and I intend to prove it. Overcompensation? Fuck yes. Being more of a technical leader is something I want for my own terms, quite unlike being a phony who pretends that traveling gives me some stupid emotions that it doesn't. I hate airports and I will say so if asked. In that sense, having money and success will be my personal "protocol" that will allow women to discover the real me deep down. And I'm not really so bad, despite occasionally displaying my worst qualities, such as in this post:)
For me, online dating is indeed an absurdly negative experience. Compared to a more equal environment, I do feel its pull to make me cynical and less happy to be a human being. I will see what kind of women I can attract in a few years, and the good part is that I only need one, and I will appreciate the hell out of her when I find her.
Then there is the kind where you are someone who can't be ignored simply because you are technically better than others around
This is very much not leadership; this is superiority. That can be extremely off putting if not handled rightly. Particularly if you dominate proceedings simply because of being the best. (it's difficult; I'm an excellent climber but I have to dial it back or I won't find anyone who wants to climb with me).
Something doesn't add up though (and I apologise for being blunt). You are obviously confident, have an attractive body and are smart - these are traits that will attract a mate very easily! (particularly the smarts).
One of two things may be happening.
Perhaps you are disillusioned with dating or with women and, so, are scuppering relationships via attitude or actions.
The other might be you simply have an off putting attitude without realising it when contacting women online. In fact from your post I suspect this is the problem. shrug
I've been in contact with women online that are off putting with their directness and surety - even if it is them you do have to be a bit cautious when starting out a relationship. The internet is impersonal so if done wrong you can come across very easily as arrogant and superior :)
Give me a few years, see if people I'm working with look up to me, and tell me I don't have the personality of a leader. I think I still won't be good enough for women though. Do I have a chip on my shoulder for this? Yes.
This is, basically, your entire problem. People look up to you for many reasons - I doubt you will ever achieve the respect you want the way you are going. People will roll their eyes and say "yes X, well done" (we have people like that at work; they don't last long...
My Boss commands respect in huge measure; he grafted his whole life, is very smart, very companionable, always willing to help people, always willing to listen to everyone in the firm. I suspect this is the sort of thing you are after - and be warned it takes a long time and serious, bashful effort.
Tried OkCupid? For my age it is a good experience and there seems to be plenty of mid-30's on there too. It's much more relaxed.
Forgot about this post. Maybe it's not sensible to come back to it, but whatever.
There are several points of bullshit in your post. The first is that you are _absolutely_ ashamed of who you are. You don't think you'll be good enough for women! That's a wild self-degradation on your part. You'd take 1/3 of the women on dating sites? What kind of valid self-estimation is that supposed to be?
Second, no one cares about technical perfection. Technical perfection is not artistry, for one thing; artistry is about being, taking space, feeling, and embracing honesty. Things that aren't quantified because they aren't rational. This threatens to stray from the topic, so I'll cut it short for now and skip to the clearer argument, which is: there is someone better than you. The world is huge. And what will you do when you meet that person, if your ego depends on being the technical best?
For some reason you seek out visible status symbols to mark your ego's progress. Not everyone can be the President. Not everyone can program. Being the best is not a victory.
>I am never ashamed of who I am, and I will meet you face to face, give you my real name, and look you in the eye.
You just won't do that if I'm a _woman._ And if you did, you'd probably do a lot better at talking with them.
I think you'll have an easier time meeting women (and people in general) if you become a little more culturally active & outgoing. Your lifestyle is dominated by career/technical interests, which from your self description (and I say this with kindness) seems to make you a monotone personality. I sense that even you yourself are bored and frustrated with this monotony. If that is at all true, you must consider, what excitement and joy would you be bringing to a potential relationship?
You've probably adopted your technical and career focus because of your dream to live up to your potential and be successful. And that's admirable, of course. But there is a lot more to having a fulfilling life than just the virtue of productive work. There is the more human and cultural side of life, of which your desire to date is a part of.
It's time to expand your dream to include more of this other aspect of life.
It's a big world, but you haven't yet allowed yourself to explore much of it, neither intellectually or physically. Forgive me if I overreach, but have you made a negative value judgement on your own curiosity about the world, in the name of becoming a more productive and better programmer?
A worldly curiosity is what will give you breadth and diversity of experience, which in turn will make you a more interesting person, and ultimately make you a more creative problem solver and team member. It will also make you more socially comfortable and skilled.
Pay attention to the impulse that led you to your previous pursuit of classical voice that you mentioned. That's an unusual and intriguing hobby, an art that connects you with a tradition spanning thousands of years. And of course, there are lots of cool, nerdy music girls who do it too (especially if you're near a college with a good arts program). You mentioned it was there that you had some success with women. I submit it wasn't just because some of the other guys were gay, it was because you were doing something unusual and interesting that made you seem more attractive as a person.
You've (admirably) rejected the idea of the seedy seduction manuals. Those aren't what dating is about, anyway. In a healthy point of view dating and relationships aren't about games, tricks, and seduction, and you're mistaken if you think that is what people in relationships are actually doing.
Dating is about discovering the interesting qualities of another person and exploring the world and reaches of human experience. It's also about being discovered as a person, by the other person. But you've got to have something interesting to discover. And for that you've got to be curious about the world first. So rather than just giving up on dating, gritting your teeth and forcing your nose closer to the grindstone with the goal of becoming "more powerful and wealthy" as a solution, I think you need to expand your curiosity, and the range and variety of your pursuits.
PS- This isn't a throwaway account; it's my first post. And to be on topic: It's from someone who has had several very enjoyable long term relationships thanks to online dating sites.
Thanks for succumbing to my charms and delurking, haha. Really though, I appreciate the thoughts.
You could say I'm making up for lost time since I did take a couple of years completely off of programming to do a few things, including a lot of voice study and some semi-pro paying operetta gigs. That left me nearly unemployable for about a year, and I'm just really starting to re-establish myself career wise, and I am more dedicated to programming than I've ever been before, and I'm enjoying it a lot more than ever before. I'm also far less interesting to women than ever before:) I can handle it though, since I'm becoming the person I want to be which I have decided is more important than meeting a woman, at least for a few years.
Yes I'm monotonous. I pretty much have nothing in common and nothing to offer a woman, yes I seriously believe this. If I were a woman I'd honestly want to pick a taller, more attractive, friendlier, and much more charming guy like you. I'm fierce, I'm driven, I'm focused on tunnel vision, and right now I don't give a fuck about trying fake some stupid personality full of flowery feelings. This thread has given me enough anger to want to code for about 50 hours during my four day weekend and I'm quite thrilled by this.
I'm fascinated by all ideas, especially the ones that bore the shit out of women. (Math, hard science, programming fundamentals, nerdy trivia.) I've tried travel and it's not just that I'm not interested, I actively dislike it, and don't want to do it. I don't need to actually be in a new place to discover new ideas. I don't need to try new foods either, I eat to have a killer body right now. But really I'm an interesting person, and I make friends very easily, but generally only with nerdy men who are also chronically single, heh.
There are a few things I've learned trying different approaches on online personals for almost a year. (In addition to making up desperate ways of trying to avoid the yawning cataclysm of misogyny:) ) One is that for a man in his thirties, potential doesn't mean shit, and underachieving is repulsive. I need to fix that, I absolutely do.
Again this is who I am, and it's who I enjoy being, and I am quite conscious that any personality I would craft myself toward to be attractive to women would be nearly the complete opposite. But one thing is for sure, I may be frustrated (and man oh man am I frustrated), but I'm not average, and I sure am not a chump.
In ways I envy you that the person you are and want to be is someone women are interested in, so that you don't have to face this conflict of interest every day and can do what is naturally invigorating to you, without being like a modern day monk who trades off discipline, enlightenment, and intellectual invigoration for years of complete involuntary celibacy:)
You're mistaken if you believe that "discipline, enlightenment, and intellectual invigoration" are at odds with being an interesting and attractive person. I suspect it's your particular narrow interpretation of those pursuits, combined with this huge chip on your shoulder and entrenched disdain for females, that sum to a self-fulfilling prophecy of your frustration and celibacy.
You've described several qualities and characteristics that a lot of guys would be envious of. You have all your limbs, a good brain, a singing voice. Drop the self-defeating attitude. Many men have made a success with less.
> You're mistaken if you believe that "discipline, enlightenment, and intellectual invigoration" are at odds with being an interesting and attractive person.
I know, but they're pretty much perfectly correlated with me getting what I want out of life (in all areas except with women), and being less interesting to them. Yes, failure begets failure and reinforcing negative mental patterns, which I am extremely familiar with having spent many years of my life alone and frustrated. And yes, I'm well aware that the average amputee male has much higher status with women than I ever will.
I'm not really as self-defeating as I'm venting out here though. I just know that online personals are a fantastically awful experience for me, having spent years on them, as well has having had the pleasure to meet much more suitable women in the more conventional way. Just read all the replies to me from any man who has succeeded there. It is _all_ about recognizing that geeky men are piece-of-shit commodities who nobody wants as is, and recognizing that it is a game where presenting a true personality free from guile is a hopeless proposition. You will call this disdain, but if so it is also cold truth, and these things are just simply different universes for men versus women online. I have never felt this way (like a worthless piece of too-short shit) in any other area of life, and the parent article resonated with me very much.
Anyway I really didn't mean to jack this topic into a personal self-help section. I'll be more careful in the future!
>I have the personality of leader, and I'm going to develop myself into more of one
From your posts on here it appears you're confusing "leader" for "asshole". Part of actually having "the personality of leader" is charisma. Your posts make it sound like you have anti-charisma.
Ask a girl to tell you a joke, laugh at it genuinely. Then say you have one too, but warn her that your sense of humor is dry and nerdy (with a grin) :) They'll love that!
Your personality won't drive people away, as long as you make a good first impression. After that, you can be yourself!
To practice, you should try speed dating. If you really think no girl is interested, then just for fun, write YES to every girl you meet so they will tell you how many matches -- I bet you'll get more than you expect ;)
Actually I think you're missing the point. Certainly he could actively engage in strategies that work in online dating, and doing so would increase his chances of success in getting dates through online dating sites. His point is that in doing so he plays a very different game to other dating environments - like amateur opera - and that the whole game is unpleasant and unappealing to him. That's pretty much the point of the original video as well.
Self depreciation is actually quite charming - but I really doubt it would work in online dating. So if I was actually trying to give WilliamLP dating advice, it would be to find avenues more suited to his talents. But if we're discussing online dating I think I'd say the things it emphasizes and encourages are contrary to the things that find good compatible relationships.
My first recommendation is to try creating social situations yourself. Instead of spending time in the gym working on your bench press, plan a bike trip or a hike and invite friends. Have dinner parties at your house. Basically: create an environment that a woman would like anyway, whether you were there or not, and invite her into it.
That being said, if you are in the Boston area and are interested in getting back into classical singing and opera I can probably help out.
I think 95% of 'game' is simply to ask as many women as possible, and to not get discouraged when you get shot down. (personally, I think most of the effectiveness of the 'fast seduction' crap is that it gives you something to focus on besides getting shot down.)
Everyone wants something different, and there really is a strong 'right place at the right time' component. A woman who would have rejected you last night might be receptive tonight, etc..
This works, if you just want to get laid. My experience with on line dating was that you needed to differentiate yourself through better writing (and through writing personalized to the profile) and to lower your standards some. (let's be real here. the 'selection pressure' on line is even stronger than real life. You're competing against a hoard of lonely men, all of whom can lie about their stats. So unless you are lying (which really doesn't work to well once you meet) you aren't going to be able to compete on statistics.
But really, I think when looking for a 'real relationship' most of the 'pick up spots' are disproportionately loaded with people who are unable or unwilling to sustain a long-term relationship. I mean, that's fine if you are just looking to get laid; but I don't think it's a great filter to use when looking for a relationship.
Agreed, but I think you're missing something: there doesn't need to be two extremes here. There are more places to meet women than online and nightclubs.
Selection pressure is stronger online due to mere demographic differences alone - but there honestly are more places than online.
Interesting. I had wondered myself whether a large part of the success of "seduction techniques" is that the man using them can blame failure on his incorrect applicatino of the technique, rather than on something intrinsic to himself.
How many people do you talk to?
It can take hundreds of attempted contacts to hit one winner.
>without much I can do to change this.
Dude, you're fit. Many, many women will be down with this. If you're not extremely ugly, it's behavioral so this just means it's time for introspection.
You don't have to play the game, you have to avoid obviously offensive things, contact a lot of people and be VERY selective about who you waste your time on. You could spend your whole life trying to chat up 18-22 yo 8-10 looks girls or with lots of correspondence to someone you don't really like, that doesn't mean it's a solid idea (or that you are doing this, just an example)
"I would need to, very much, be conscious of playing the game and pretty much doing anything but presenting an unashamed and straightforward version of self-expression."
Bingo. You nailed it, and I can say that is the mindset you need.
I'm the same height. Similar build (actually a bit thinner). Yet younger. Friends say I'm anything but unattractive, yet the reality is I've always been single.
I took a crack at things a few months ago and rather than be straightforward, I use Hugh Gallagher's "Essay 3A" as inspiration for my profile. The entire thing was nothing short of a farce. I couldn't of taken it any less seriously aside from the fact that it was genuinely funny.
I received eighteen first contacts within the first week. This is nothing new. Usually I get annoyed, put up something ridiculous, and in come the results. Or if I do contact someone, I write something incredibly brief or incredibly goofy and then start to get replies.
Did any of them pan out this time? No. Ultimately it resulted in three different dates all of which went bad enough to turn me off of dating for another year. However my point is women don't care for straight-forwardness. At all.
Have you tried the free dating sites, like plentyoffish?
I ask because I read an article recently pointing out the economics of paid dating sites, and how it leads nearly every male to have the experience you described.
Couldn't find the link again but I think it went something like this: people sign up for the "free" offer, and their profile goes up. But they can't respond until they pay. So you ping a few people, and in a lot of cases don't get a response because they haven't paid yet (but the site doesn't tell you that). Then you ping a few more. As time passes and you broaden your scope, you're no longer sending carefully crafted, personal messages, you're using a shotgun approach. (Or at least, most guys are.)
Meanwhile, the women aren't initiating usually, they're letting the guys come to them. Since the guys are all shotgunning, the women are getting flooded. If they're even reading all their messages, they clicking through fast looking for any excuse to reject each one and move on to the next.
"... This is in contrast to where I've actually had success with women in the past - amateur classical singing and opera. There the population is about 75% women, with many of the men being gay. There, I can get a taste of what dating is like for the rest of the world ..."
"... Rock Eisteddfod didn't just provide emasculated nerds with an alternative to the Jock Eisteddfod that is competitive sport. It meant for a few blissful hours each week, we had the girls to ourselves. Girls who would dance. In tights. To a soundtrack of Jamiroquai. ..."
Online dating can work very well (it has worked for me) but be patient. It will take time until you really get it. Practice, practice, practice. Don't give up if you have no luck right away. There are subtle communication aspects that you can learn as you go, and they make all the difference.
And keep away from specialized dating sites. Go with Facebook or any other kind of communication platform that are not invented exclusively for dating. People are just much more natural there. With some practise you can fairly easy figure out if there's a date potential just by looking at a profile.
I have started to use an online dating site for the first time about 4-6 weeks ago. It is hard work. It's like having a mini part time job.
Advice for startups in this space. Cut your features to the following: Like + Email. If I LIKE someone (judging by the looks), then show me the basic info. If I LIKE the basic info, they get a notification and if they LIKE me then that's it. Let us email each other from OUR OWN client. So I email user345@datingsite.com and you route the email a la Craigslist. Simple as that. Let us take it further.
Advice to guys. My first 2 weeks I was pinging everyone I was attracted to. That did not work (for me). It's when I just kick back and decide to wait that I realized it's mostly the women who choose in this game. Also if someone contacts the conversation is usually much easier. My 2 newbie cents.
You're right about the women doing the choosing. There was a study about how when women did the approaching in speed-dating, they became more interested. (PDF: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://faculty.wcas.north...) So you're at an advantage if they make the first move.
I only ever went on one internet date. It was the best date of my life and I ended up marrying her 4 years later.
Obviously this a ridiculous statistical outlier, but one of the reasons I always thought it was successful was because we didn't find each other on a huge site like Match.com or Plenty Of Fish. Instead it was through the online dating section of the Seattle Stranger, which sort of guaranteed that we would at least have a few similar interests right off the bat. To anyone in Seattle I highly recommend it.
What, that you both live in Seattle and you are Strangers?
I think this is the way to go, big sites attract lots of strange people. Also, from what I have heard, paying sites have better clientele than the free sites, which makes sense, but I have not been game to actually pay for it.
I agree wiht a lot of his points. I think people do tend to be more superficial or picky when evaluating profiles, because the photos are really the only thing to go on -- you can't get a sense of a person's body language or speaking style online, and textual data only goes so far. And I found the actual "first dates" to be stressful because they're more like interviews for dates rather than real dates -- much of the spontaneity and chemistry of meeting a person for the first time is gone. Finally, as a non-white male, the odds online are somewhat stacked against me, which is discouraging.
I'm intrigued by the guy's idea about creating interactive virtual spaces for dating, rather than searching through textual profiles. I.e., put people together in a rich, dynamic environment, let them observe the complexity of each other's interactions, and they can gravitate toward one another on that basis. Heck, it doesn't even have to be virtual -- you could launch something like a matchmaking amusement park.
I've thought for a long time that the removal of profiles (that are viewable by the other party) is pretty much the key that will make online dating actually work.
People are far too picky, and reject far too many people they would otherwise get along with famously in real life - I've noticed this pattern in myself also. Profiles suck at describing people, not to mention their compatibility with you - yet they have this air of authority and legitimacy about them.
If we had a decent matchmaking service that wasn't just a complete crapshoot (i.e., high-scoring matches are actually good matches), I'd say a blind-date system may in fact work better than what we've got now - get people out there and interacting in real life as opposed to a terminal with a bunch of droll readouts of vital statistics.
A blind date system would suffer from the adverse selection problem. As long as any other system exists, the blind date system would be disproportionately used by predators and other undesirables who find it disproportionately helpful.
Worse, in this case, the adverse selection problem builds on itself. Over time, "normal" users would be driven out until only problematic candidates remained.
You laugh, but Chatroulette could be an awesome way to do dates, you are randomly pared with a person (properly of the gender and sexual orientation you desire somewhere near you) you don't know the name of that person so you can talk as you want, but if you are both interested you can get a link to them so that you can talk again, and if things pan out, get to know who the other person is.
A location aware version of Chatroulette could work, but you'd need a much larger userbase (a few thousand people scattered around the world might not provide any geographically close matches...)
Off the cuff solution: Require accounts be tied to a real identity (provide driver's license #?.. No I haven't thought about legal/privacy repercussions) and introduce a post-date rating system. Sprinkle in some sort of staleness algorithm along with an anti-maliciousness algorithm (IE: someone who always rates their dates as creeps might themselves be a nutjob) and perhaps the system can survive.
Off the cuff so tear this to pieces. Perhaps I just WANT the idea to work so well that I am not seeing the forest through the trees.
You'll eliminate the complete creeps after one date. (Still gives a woman a significantly nonzero chance of winding up with a complete creep on his first date anyway).
But you won't be able to eliminate those who are merely boring, or ugly, or abrasive, or have an annoying personal habit. Your rolls will fill up with people like these.
I've thought about that before, what trips me up is thinking about incentives. If you have a really great date with someone, chances are you don't want to increase your competition by giving them a good rating.
Just to toss this out there. The OKCupid guys have(it's currently down for a reworking?) site called CrazyBlindDate.
And basically they gave you a tiny bit of information about the person and a blurry picture and a location of one of your choosing (a coffee shop/bar/restaurant). In my experiences she was the one who chose the location to meet. We would meet up and have a drink or two and talk. They generally were really quite interesting. I didn't run into any women who were particularly creepy. A couple who were absolutely terrible dates (unable to converse, etc).
I can't speak for the women, but of the ones I talked to who had done it prior to meeting with me were generally pleased with their experiences also.
I've done quite a bit of online dating. It is very difficult to figure out someone's personality from profiles on dating sites. However, I can figure out personality VERY well (and hence whether we'd click) from someone's Facebook profile, if they are an active user.
It's things like -- what kind of people do they hang out with? Who posts on their wall and what do they say? How do they talk with their friends? What type of profile pictures do they post? What do they do with friends? etc. Some people say that Facebook is TMI for dating (or that it's too much personal info to give out before meeting), but it has helped me avoid many awkward first dates!
This blind date idea is really what interests me. I think profiles create two issues beyond the ones you already pointed out. I am pulling these examples from my experience on OkCupid.
1 - People don't give fully honest answers to personality questions. Instead it seems people craft a personality they think will either get them the most results or get the the specific results they are looking for. So not only the profile, but also the questions become gamed due to the 'aggressive filtering' people do.
2 - People spend obsessive amounts of time crafting their profile, which actually gets read, and very little time answering personality questions, which don't. Assuming the personality question formula is more reliable for matching than making decisions based on someone's profile writing skills, this reverses the emphasis.
I think a basic system like OkCupid's could work for matching. I like the way you both give your answer and you give the answer you want your mate to have. It's intuitive and allows for complex dynamics like a submissive person seeking a dominant person. But the profile viewing/filtering gets in the way of the legitimacy. If it was a blind-date popcorn machine I think it would work a lot better (and be a lot more fun!)
While I agree with some of what he says, I still think he discredits online dating sites far too much. Being single in a city (SF) I moved into recently, I've tried both online & offline, and I'd say I'm more satisfied with my dates that came out of the online one. The city is full of singles, but most singles are crowded in bars, and that is not the most conducive environment to find someone for a meaningful relationship. Also, most past attempts have been crapshoot, where I end up conversing with girls that are either superficial, uninteresting, have nothing in common, committed, married (they want to 'network') etc. No real success with the bar scene so far except for a phonebook harder to navigate, and a really attractive girl that also told me she was institutionalized once, and that her parents are cons.
On a paid online dating site (for eg: match.com), you know that the people are there because they really are looking for a relationship (and that they care enough to pony up ridiculous money for the site). You get a sense of a person by various things that they say about themselves, and you only initiate conversations with ones that you'd be interested in. Though much of the Ariely discrediting is with the search attributes, those open-ended questions offer a peek into how the person views himself/herself. If you move beyond the superficiality, there is definitely a good chance there. I've been on a dates with people I met online, and I do feel that there was better chemistry on these dates rather than the offline ones.
Ariely says at one point during the interview: "I mean, imagine that you basically had to drive six hours, three hours each way to have coffee with somebody, and, you know, coffee usually ends up with just coffee."
This analogy is false, because even if the average is six hours, you're free to allocate them however you want. One hour a day for a week, half an hour on your lunch break here, a couple hours on your laptop while watching TV there, etc. If surfing some profiles and exchanging some e-mails is considered the equivalent of driving from New York to Boston to go on a date, that's absurd.
How is it not a poor ROI?
My experience of "real world" dating has been: 1) Social or physical activities that I enjoy regardless of how many dates I get 2) Meeting/knowing/connecting with people within those activities 3) Flirting with some of those people, which naturally progresses to something more.
It beats wasting 5 hours surfing the web looking for dates.
Bingo! If you're constantly pretending to be someone else, and doing things you despise, just for the chance of a date, of course you're miserable!
If you have no interests with many women in it, cultivate others. I used to be all code code code, and other nerdy endeavors, but that simply won't do. There is so much out there, surely you can discover something that suits your interest AND has a population of women?
I moved to Seattle about a year ago - so far as dating goes, this place is a bit of a wasteland (MANY single and desperate software folk here), and while I don't do anything specifically to meet women, I have no qualms about opting for some activities over others. Be yourself - be an optimized version of yourself.
What if you're surfing the web as a social activity that you enjoy anyway, instead of explicitly looking for dates?
I waste easily 5 hours/week surfing YCombinator. I'm tempted to start hanging out on OKCupid. Not necessarily to find a date, but because then I get to spend my online time with girls instead of guys. (No offense to the guys here, it's just that most of my workday time is spent with guys too, and it gets repetitive after a while...) If it leads to something more, great. If not - what have I lost?
In my experience the etiquette on OkCupid is completely different from elsewhere on the web - it's extremely common for someone to ignore your message entirely.
So "hanging out with girls online" can translate to "being ignored by girls online", which is hardly good for one's confidence.
One thing that's positive about online dating is that it takes away a lot of the mysterious parameters.
Mysterious parameters: you meet a girl (or guy, but let's say girl) at a party, hit it off, exchange phone numbers, call a few days later a get the cold shoulder. Or you go on one or two dates, things still going well and then you never hear back from that person.
What probably happened: she had a hang up, she wasn't ready, she met someone else, she wasn't really looking, she was just interested in a few free meals, she was set up by friends but she wasn't really into it, etc...
The advantage of online dating is that people who commit to it are usually a bit more ready to get involved with someone else. I found that there is less playing game and more straight-to-the-point "I'm looking for someone, so are you, let's see if this can work".
It's posts like this that make think "forget women". I mean seriously. I would want a relationship where I can be myself, and don't have to craft every bit of what I say according to some stupid protocol when it annoys the fuck out of me to see other people following when I can tell they're not being who they want but just following the rules. Yes I'm single, yes I have been for a long time, yes I will be for a long time further, most likely.
The "protocol" isn't really for the sake of being someone other than yourself - it's for letting your personality be displayed through the limitations of the medium.
How to approach online dating in a novel way does keep me up long hours as this is something I'm trying to solve in my startup, albeit for a niche segment of the population.
[Apologies for this next plug]
I am very interested in teaming up with a couple of talented and driven hackers and working together if this area interests you. My startup has some initial traction (slightly north of a thousand users) in the two months since launch.
Excellent interview. Yes, he mostly ignores the people who've had success, but I don't think it really detracts much from the overall point. I've had some success with online dating but I agree that it's generally an unsatisfying experience much the way he describes it. (3-6 hours of work per cup of coffee pretty much nails it).
The points about sharing experience are accurate, except that I would focus in particular on shared experiences with multiple people at once. A big weakness in online dating is that it's tends to be a series of one-on-one interactions. Unless one of you is really good at seducing strangers, and does it right away, it's going to be hard to sustain those one-on-one interactions long enough to turn into a relationship.
At least one person has to take the step to integrate into the other's social network, and it has to happen quickly, or else it's not likely to go anywhere. The way offline dating tends to work is that you meet someone in a social situation. You interact with them for a few moments at a time, with frequent breaks while you each socialize with other people. You have opportunities to observe the person discreetly as well as interact with them. You send each other signals and at some point you find some privacy and get more serious.
A dating site that encouraged that sort of thing might be more successful. (okcupid tries to encourage a variety of behaviors but ultimately their design still winds up facilitating the one-on-one chat -> date paradigm)
Online dating is difficult if, like me, you generally dislike superficiality and find the prospect of turning yourself into a sales & marketing guy or a snake oil salesman terrifying.
/ It turns out, women really care about men's height. I’m 5’9”, if I wanted to be as attractive as somebody who’s 5’10”, right, another inch? I would have to make about $35-40,000 more a year.
The fact that women like height and money is uncontroversial (sorry dude). I wouldn't believe any exact numbers about how much of one converts to how much of the other.
It could be true in this case though due to the nonlinear utility of money. This guy's a professor of computer science at Duke so he's presumably making good money, maybe $150K? The difference between making $150K and $190K is pretty unimportant, like an extra inch in height, whereas the difference between making $40K and $80K is important, like an extra (I dunno) five inches in height.
For this particular guy, he could probably increase his attractiveness by an equal amount by spending fifty bucks on a decent haircut.
Hahaha. Oh, yes, I'm aware of that, but the amount he mentioned was strange. But yeah, perhaps he was using a nonlinear comparison as you said, which would make more sense.
Well it says at around 5'9 an inch is worth 30K. Two larger questions arise out of the whole topic?
1. Is the relationship linear? i.e. at 6 vs 5'8, is it 30K per inch, or does the price of the woman start to drop based on your height?
2. If a women's interest is dictated in $$$, what does that imply? Why do men tolerate women who act like this? Why do we raise our daughters to think like this?
It's interesting how everyone is interpreting this data one way. (the startling way)
Another way to look at it is height has a certain level of importance and how much money you make almost doesn't matter at all. In other words, it takes so much money to make up for the height difference because almost no one actually cares about the money.
FTA:
"Women, on the other hand, prefer men who are taller than themselves, and they have a particularly strong aversion to shorter men. For example, our estimates imply that compared to a man who is five inches taller than a woman and earns $ 50,000 per year, a man who is five inches shorter than a woman would need to earn slightly more than half a million dollars per year to make up for his shortcoming."
As yet another 5'7" - great! I revel in the knowledge that there are millions of women who could care less how tall I am (OK, maybe not revel since I married one of the above, but you get my drift).
This "women only like tall guys" thing has as much validity as "men only want hot skinny chix with big tits." Sure there's some truth to it, but in the aggregate, people can't be reduced to simplistic statements.
You met your love based on a niche common interest/activity--programming in PHP--as opposed to a broad common activity--online dating. Not trying to trivialize anything you said... your story is completely awesome, actually. I just want to point out that even though what you did technically qualifies as "online dating," it's very different from the kind of online dating criticized in this interview!
Oh, I know. However, it's the article and headline that is at fault. Online dating sites are one thing. Meeting online is a completely different thing. =)
I can see his point, but I have very good friends who I'm sure they would say the total opposite. Some found love, some found fun... heck, one even found a Maxim model (and they are still dating).
While I can't help but be a little curious and jealous over the last case, outliers always exist. You do need to make sure that your examples are not outliers, as by their very nature they do not represent the whole.
I'm trying online again, and the contrast is extremely stark. There is nothing in any other experience in life that has made me think of myself as an unwanted commodity item quite so much as this. As a man in my thirties who is below average in height (5'8) I fight against about 25% to 75% numbers, and the women seem almost universally to be working extra carefully to exclude me and almost always come across as extremely entitled, both in written and in unwritten ways. And I can't blame them for it! They just understand the economics of scarcity, apparently. Despite being reasonably successful in life and being in the best physical shape I've ever been (10% bodyfat or so, can barely see my abs, can bench press 185 for 8 reps at bodyweight of 155), I seem completely uninteresting to women in a nearly universal way without much I can do to change this.
There are no doubt some men who succeed fantastically in this environment, but it seems that for someone like me to do so, I would need to, very much, be conscious of playing the game and pretty much doing anything but presenting an unashamed and straightforward version of self-expression. Since I consider it to be the core of my character to neither accept or deal out bullshit from anyone, but to seek the direct truth, this is a problem.
This is in contrast to where I've actually had success with women in the past - amateur classical singing and opera. There the population is about 75% women, with many of the men being gay. There, I can get a taste of what dating is like for the rest of the world - I didn't have to play some stupid hyper-masculinized pursuer who throws semi-sincere interest at a hundred women until one of them returns a peep, but situations actually can develop somewhat symmetrically and organically. Clearly the answer for me is to get back into a world like that, despite not being very interested anymore for any other reason. (My passion these days is programming and development.)
Anyway, this turned into a big rant, but I've been single for a year, face the prospect of a few more, and it does get to me.