Silicon Valley Singles Are Giving Up On the Algorithms of Love (washingtonpost.com)

The Washington Post: Melissa Hobley, an executive at the dating app OkCupid, hears the complaints about the apps [being unable to find good matches] regularly and thinks they get a bad rap. Silicon Valley workers "are in the business of scalable, quick solutions. And that's not what love is," Hobley said. "You can't hurry love. It's reciprocal. You're not ordering an object. You're not getting a delivery in less than seven minutes." Finding love, she added, takes commitment and energy -- and, yes, time, no matter how inefficiently it's spent.

"You have a whole city obsessed with algorithms and data, and they like to say dating apps aren't solving the problem," Hobley said. "But if a city is male-dominant, if a city is known for 16-hour work days, those are issues that dating apps can't solve." One thing distinguishes the Silicon Valley dating pool: The men-to-women ratio for employed, young singles in the San Jose metro area is higher than in any other major area. There were about 150 men for every 100 women, compared with about 125 to 100 nationwide, of never-married young people between 25 and 34 in San Jose, U.S. Census Bureau data from 2016 shows. That ratio permeates the economy here, all the way to the valley's biggest employers, which have struggled for years to bring more women into their ranks. Men make up about 70% of the workforces of Apple, Facebook and Google parent Alphabet, company filings show.

Comments

A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a big data experiment and the result is exactly as expected. Go figure you can't cheat at this either.

Re:A lesson learned.

[ArmoredDragon]

I think they screwed up somewhere. From what I understand about half of the male population is gay, so the dating pool should be pretty good no matter which way you swing. Of course, there is the number of lesbians to counteract that, but urandictionary doesn't have any data on that, so I can only guess.

Re:A lesson learned.

[ShanghaiBill]

We're all nerds here, so if technology isn't solving the problem the answer is MORE TECH. In this case the obvious solution is user reviews, which are conspicuously missing from dating sites. I am a solid four-star guy, and I realize that five-star chicks are out of my league, but I also don't want to waste time on two-star and three-star women. It would be great if I could downvote women whose photoshopped pictures don't match reality.

Re:A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't seem to be born out by surveys:
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2015/03/24/silicon-valley-lgbt-population-among-nations-smallest/

Re:A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad ass ;)

Re:A lesson learned.

[DNS-and-BIND]

You're right, but for the wrong reason. The gay population of males is tiny, but the unfit male population is huge, far more than 50%. Remember, half of all men are below average, which pretty much gets them out of the dating pool. The Silicon Valley women are accomplished, so they are only interested in a small percentage of top-tier men. These men who do qualify...what would they want with a driven, programmer wife? Thus do both sides claim there isn't anyone available.

Re: A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, average != median

Re:A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

20% of men are above average looking and 80% of men are below average.

Re:A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your *-rating system primes you for failure. Your worldview is toxic. Grateful to have been born two generations ahead of you. Good luck.

Re:A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, half of all men are below average, which pretty much gets them out of the dating pool.

If that were the actual standard, the human race would have gone extinct a long time ago. Put less nicely, if that were the standard you would never have been born.

Re:A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly would love to meet someone that shared my profession. The problem is these driven women will not date anything less than a Chad.

Re:A lesson learned.

[iampiti]

In this case what tech could do to solve the problem, given the male to female ratio is robot girlfriends. That would be tech advancement worthy of being seen :)

Re:A lesson learned.

[narcc]

The problem, at least in your specific case, isn't the women.

After reading your post, it's pretty obvious that it's you.

Re: A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd advise you to just stick with the blokes thrn if you can't handle the ladies, but by the looks of things that would be unfair on them too.

Re:A lesson learned.

[ghoul]

In a marriage someone has to marry up and someone has to marry down. Traditionally men have married down as women have not really had real jobs. That has changed. Now women have equally good jobs so now some women need to marry down. But women have been brainwashed that the perfect man will earn more than them, be handsome, a great father and help around the house. The fairytale cannot happen for everyone. Some women computer engineers will have to marry baristas. Its not because there is a shortage of men, its because now women have equally good jobs and given the silicon valley costs and lifestyles 2 bristas getting married cannot afford to live here and 2 engineers getting married would be too busy to run a household.

Re:A lesson learned.

[DNS-and-BIND]

We have not reached true gender equality until it's socially acceptable for a man to reject a woman because she's too poor.

Re:A lesson learned.

[deek]

Actually, he's not wrong. Most women do act quite entitled. He just failed to mention that most men also act that way as well.

I call this phenomenon the natural population governor of the developing world. The more materialistic we become, the more choosy we are about our partners, the less we spawn. I've often thought that China didn't need a law for birth restriction. They just had to give them bling.

Re:A lesson learned.

[Rande]

Or full immersion VR girlfriends - less cleanup afterwards and no embarrassment when you have fleshy friends over.

Re:A lesson learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not have read the descriptions women put up on dating sites. Hint: they're not as much describing themselves as writing a laundry list of requirements you must meet to be allowed to spend time with them. This list almost always includes a height requirement, calculated as: her height + 5" heels + 1-4" extra. It also includes the requirement to "make them laugh", to be liked by their dog and get along with her friends.

Apparently, a tall clown is what all of them are after.

Re:A lesson learned.

[cthulhu11]

You missed a word.

^average^average height

Re:A lesson learned.

[thecatt]

Or just ditch the fleshy friends. Your plastic pals are more fun to be with.

I for one welcome our new robot girlfriend overlords.

Re:A lesson learned.

[RockDoctor]

These men who do qualify...what would they want with a driven, programmer wife?

I read that first time as a "programmable wife", and thought - has this man not heard of Galatea (though the name is much more recent than the myth), or the Stepford Wives, or modern robotic sex dolls.

Ever since the (mass) production of the first (common) condoms (around 1850), sex and reproduction have been two distinct questions. But people still struggle to understand this. Sex robots and teledildonics are just another step along this road. When, for example, you can rent use of a sex robot and 10 minutes shared time up the best rent boy in Bangkok for the price of five beers, the sex industry is going to change, a lot. And it'll get even more separated from reproduction.

I was checking the most-recent census data recently. 20% of women who reach age 45 (currently the practical end of child bearing, for demographers at least) do so with no children. That's up from a low of 10% for women who were child-free through the "baby boom". Given the increase in availability of assisted fertility through that period, one can only conclude that significant numbers (10% or higher) of women in the last few decades have chosen to not reproduce.

Of course, it won't be enough. The acceleration of materials demand as living standards rise will become unsupportable before populations start to fall. Then populations will fall, faster, but with more suffering.

Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturday

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising. Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturday night.

Re:Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturday

[Anonymous Coward]

Get married so you have an excuse like us winners.

Re: Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturday

[Anonymous Coward]

So your off masturbating in the bathroom?

70% male?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it is almost like there is some kind of unknown factor where males are more likely to seek out these types of employment and invest the time and energy while having a greater aptitude for it. I heard that is the sort of thing that gets a person fired though so it must not be true.

It is obvious that slashdot editors must be lying about the 70% male ratio, if that were the case then reality would be completely out of whack with political correctness and thats just not possible right?

Re:70% male?

[BeauHD (Sr. Editor)]

Why is it that you are posting as anonomys...COWARD?

We try here to stay politically neutral and inoffensive as possible. Sometimes that means we can't be in your face at all about things like these topics I would like to joke around all day about living the single Oakland lifestyle, but I can't. Some people to this day take offense to anything that isn't straight. It is the type of hurdle we must get over as a society. I tried both Tinder and Grindr to find guys and gals and it was hideous and I now feel empty for even trying. I was swiped so many times and days later I would see an account that was obviously the same person...different person and same picture, all lit up. But these people proved to be real shallow. Especially the guys. It never went anywhere, and thankfully I didn't end up with an STD. So I do what I used to do all throughout HS and just hang out with my bros on a Sat night play a little PS4 and lite it up and wherever the evening takes us, it takes us.

Re:70% male?

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually appreciate a response to my comment, I do rather wish it was labeled as something closer to snarky than troll.

That being said, those applications you mentioned are generally utilized for sex not relationships and are poor hunting grounds for companionship.

Actually if you want to form a connection a gulf of time and communication is required, I would suggest that you find a live chat which is situated in your area and not one which is for dating or anything of the kind. Then simply speak your mind, find like minded individuals, form relationships and bonds and then go from there.

Best Regards, Trolling anonymous commenter

Re:70% male?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the thing is, men drive women off the dating platforms because they operate on a "I want to fuck that" principle. So they keep spamming people until someone who doesn't know better responds.

You'll find the same complaint on every site "everyone just spams until they get a response" whatever algorithm is underlying is irrelevant.

Re:70% male?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it is almost like there is some kind of unknown factor where males are more likely to seek out these types of employment

The factor isn't unknown. It's basically avoiding people like you.

And now you can't find a girlfriend. Wonder why. It's probably the girl's fault, right?

Re:70% male?

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHA, wow lookit you go, grawr big fella

I never said women suck at their jobs, I said, and I quote "males are more likely to seek out these types of employment and invest the time and energy while having a greater aptitude for it". Which is backed up by the 70% statistic and reality in general.

What is a 'beau' ?

I get the feeling you hit reply on the wrong comment, I'm pretty sure your intent was to get someone angry, I'm just kind of giggling because I don't think its me :)

Re:70% male?

[nonBORG]

It is James Damore not AC who wrote that. He is telling the forbidden truth, again.

YOURE FIRED!!!!!!!!!!

Re:70% male?

[jellomizer]

Well it is a chicken and eggs problem.
Women as a fact of cultural norms will not normally make contact with the guys profiles they are interested in. So the guy while actually looking for something more worthwhile have to initiate first. Making them seem like the same sleeze balls as the guys trying for a one night stand. So the woman will not answer the guys who contact first.
So the guys stay lonely and the woman stay lonely.

Re:70% male?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you believe that in your heart?

Do you believe that throughout human history, across the north american IT landscape, across the globe that 70% is entirely because women want to avoid men? That 70% is only in application to google which massages the numbers by cherry picking candidates according to political criteria. The more realistic numbers are 100(m):1(f) for those who will spend the blood sweat tears and years it takes to become a professional in something so complex and full of minuet.

Being a programmer is a forceful act of will to follow your obsession down the rabbit hole. Why do more women not do this? I do not know, but I refuse to be blind to the reality that more men are attracted to this than women.

I refuse to live in an illusion to assuage the screetching of whatever political movement de jeur is bellowing loudest on this particular day. It is how you make bad policy and bad decision.

Re:70% male?

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are the same way, don't fool yourself.

They either want to fuck you or they don't. If they don't it is unlikely they will talk to you on these sites.

The difference is that women have the privilege to be picky.

Men don't.

Numbnut SJW

one word

[Anonymous Coward]

sharing :)

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

The article summed up the issue quite well.
On paper, people are far too picky and don't want to just meet/explore. However, given a different setting they relax expectations.

My advice, break dating rules and do something fun. If the date turns out as a no go at least you had fun.

Re:Hmmm

[chuckugly]

So you're saying match.com and saucey.com should co-brand and cooperate?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1. Meet and see if the person is remotely compatible.
Step 2. Do something fun on second date (or an extended first).

First dates should be a quick hit and run.

Re:Hmmm

[arth1]

It's not just about how picky people are if there aren't enough women to go around. If there are 150 hetero males for every 100 hetero women, there will be 50 males that can't get any women no matter whether they drop all requirements to zero.

And to make it worse, women are even more picky. If you're neither tall nor powerful, most women just won't be interested, and would rather be alone.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like pretty good advice. Though a caution you already know if you watch the Bachelor, people in fun settings tend to hit it off and then fail at real life.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

you're forgetting female promiscuity. people can and do have multiple mates.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the traditional belief that men are more promiscuous than women can't actually be correct, due to basic maths. if you have e.g. 100 men and 100 women, and each man has dated 3 women on average, then each woman must have dated 3 men on average as well, out of mathematically necessity.

The same with cheating. If some men are cheaters, they must be cheating with someone, which implies female cheaters they're cheating with. Or, if they somehow are only cheating with single women, then some other single men must be getting *zero* partners to make up the difference. e.g. if married men are more promiscuous than married women, then single men must be less promiscuous than single women, which is a result that would seem to be contradictory to common sense: what's more likely is that married men and married women are equally likely to be cheaters.

"male/female pairings" are a *shared* statistics that counts for +1 for both genders, so any statistic that purports to show a big gender difference in something that by necessity involves *both* genders is clearly based on bad data, e.g. people are lying in surveys.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html

Re:Hmmm

[Another Mouse Coward]

Although I no longer give a flying-fuck about sex, I once did and I can tell you that, 1) I could give FUCK-ALL if a man was tall! I'm 5/3" if I stretch and my last boyfriend was 5'7" (self-reported, but if I had to guess I'd say he was STRETCHING WAY TALL!) I didn't care! He ended it, I didn't. 2) I've forgotten, but just don't get so down-hearted and defeated about it! It's not your height; it's your breath! Or body odor! or I dunno what, just keep putting yourself out there. And don't be so damn picky yourself! Somebody is out there.

Re: Hmmm

[Zero__Kelvin]

I can't believe no you haven't figured this out, but there could be 100 men and 10000 women and there will still be 50 arth1s with whom none of the women would want to be in the same room, nevermind date.

Re: Hmmm

[c6gunner]

In fact, the traditional belief that men are more promiscuous than women can't actually be correct, due to basic maths. if you have e.g. 100 men and 100 women, and each man has dated 3 women on average, then each woman must have dated 3 men on average as well, out of mathematically necessity.

It's more about the distribution than the average. Say, in a group of 100 men you have 50 who have never dated, 25 who have 1 date, 15 who have had 2 dates, 5 who have had 3, and 5 who have had 50. Then in the corresponding female group you have 5 who have had 1 date, 20 with 2 dates, 25 with 3 dates, and 50 with 4 dates. The average is the same for both groups, but any random woman you select is likely to be more "promiscuous" than any random man.

The same with cheating. If some men are cheaters, they must be cheating with someone, which implies female cheaters they're cheating with. Or, if they somehow are only cheating with single women, then some other single men must be getting *zero* partners to make up the difference. e.g. if married men are more promiscuous than married women, then single men must be less promiscuous than single women, which is a result that would seem to be contradictory to common sense: what's more likely is that married men and married women are equally likely to be cheaters.

No that doesn't work. You're mixing promiscuity and cheating, which are two different things, so your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the rest of your argument. But, even ignoring that, it falls apart for the same reason I listed above; distributions matter more than averages.

Besides which, if, say, 100% of men cheat, and 0% of women cheat, it's quite possible that there is a subset of women who service a large number of cheaters. Professionally. There might even be a name for sure a profession.

Re:Hmmm

[serviscope_minor]

And to make it worse, women are even more picky. If you're neither tall nor powerful, most women just won't be interested, and would rather be alone.

Yeahhhh right.

And how many women have you passed over because they weren't attractive enough for you? I mean would date that 85 year old granny over there? Ah thought not.

I think you're just not counting sufficiently attractive women as existing for the purposes of the poit you're attempting to make.

As a second exercise, you may wish to look around. You will see some guys who are not rich, not tall and erhaps who resemble inside out toads who are happily married. You may wish to consider what they offer that you do not.

Re: Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not cheating if you pay for it. Everybody knows that.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If a married guy is banging some chick, how is the chick a cheater? She made no commitment to his wife.

numbnuts

Re: Hmmm

[Brockmire]

Holy shit, you shouldn't purport to know anything about math. Your own fucking example proves you're wrong. A man goes on 3 dates. 3 women go out on a single date. 3 > 1. Fuck, you are stupid. The world isn't fair, we're not all getting equal dates.

Re: Hmmm

[Brockmire]

You're so short, you're excluded from the group in question. Seriously, you're too fucking short and I'm only 6ft. The bigger the difference, the creepier it is.

Re: Hmmm

[TranquilVoid]

distributions matter more than averages

It depends how you perceive or ignore things. Although your point is interesting, I keep seeing newspaper articles about how survey X shows that men on average have had 30% more sexual partners than women. They're not talking about distribution at all. The conclusion fits with our stereotypes on male/female sexuality, but it's a mathematical impossibility more easily explained by self-reporting bias.

Re: Hmmm

[TranquilVoid]

Assuming you're not trolling, the OP's example would be
- Population of 3 men and 3 women
- 1 man dates each of the 3 women, the other 2 men date no one

Male average: 1 date
Female average: 1 date

Re:Hmmm

[Rande]

The granny said no, saying it would feel creepy to date a guy young enough to be her grandson.

Re: Hmmm

[c6gunner]

Although your point is interesting, I keep seeing newspaper articles about how survey X shows that men on average have had 30% more sexual partners than women.

Surveys could well show that without anyone lying ... if there is a small outlier group which isn't properly represented.

For the sake of the argument, assume that men frequent prostitues far more often than women (it's a stretch, I know, but just go with it). How many prostitues would you imagine were interviewed for these surveys? If a hooker gets a random phone call saying "we want to ask you about how many partners you've had", how likely is she to tell the caller to fuck off, compared to someone not employed in her trade?

The reported disparity could well be explained by sampling bias, or other statistical quirks. In this case distribution makes a huge difference because if there are small but significant outliers who refuse to be part of your survey, you're going to get shit results.

The conclusion fits with our stereotypes on male/female sexuality, but it's a mathematical impossibility more easily explained by self-reporting bias.

Absolutely, that's one of the factors. I read an interesting study talking about the difference in how men and women actually come up with their numbers when asked to do so. Women tend to try and count their partners by name, which tends to result in a low estimate because they invariably forget some. Whereas men tend to go for a rough guess of the total, which often results in overestimates. None of them are necessarily trying to be untruthful; they just use different methods which result in different biases.

This, along with my previous couple paragraphs, are some of the reasons why surveys are often pretty useless.

But none of that really has much to do with the perception of differences in promiscuity; people tend to base those perceptions on personal observation/experience rather than surveys.

Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Can apps help you find "love"? No. Can apps help you find sex? Yes.

The complainers don't understand the difference between love and sex. That's why they fail.

Re:Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

too true
  you can use an app to date, talk about something in common and fuck for a few years and get married but real love won't be there until you go through some hard times together

Re:Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't Tinder originally meant for quick hook-ups, and not for making marriages like some people use it now? Just imagine the conflict when some people send dick pictures with "how-abouts" while others want to find the true, romantic love. It's like somebody didn't read the fucking manual, literally.

Re:Expectations

[Another Mouse Coward]

So insightful!

Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Hal_Porter]

Write a heartfelt but rather naive memo explaining that you value diversity but want your company to enhance it in ways that don't 'incentivize illegal discrimination'.

Get promptly fired by your Ivy League Communist wannabe management.

Go on the paid speaker circuit and start a Patreon. Sue your company.

Meet blonde alt right hottie with rich conservative parents on the paid speaker circuit.

"Value her diversity" HARD. Start a family and write a book.

It beats slogging away knocking out boilerplate code in a single sex environment.

Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not factoring in all the hot womyn penis you can fuck or suck. They have tampons in the male restroom.

Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

That's for definitions of "best" that include living a horrible life that will eventually cause you to suffer such a high degree of cognitive dissonance that eventually your brain melts, and if you want that outcome, it can be arranged in fifteen minutes or less.

Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Hal_Porter]

I dunno, I think I'd have more cognitive dissonance pretending to approve of SJW nonsense at work in order to not get fired than debating Reactosphere types. Ironically the Reactosphere is more tolerant of diversity than the SJWs.

On the Alt Right

Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep saying 'faggot' like it's an insult the right care about. The right is actually pretty accepting of gay people, trans people and so on. Look at Dave Rubin, Milo, Blaire White, Theryn Meyer and so on.

Re:Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang dude. You have never even seen a woman naked, have you? I mean, outside of a .jpg.

Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[cyber-vandal]

You're incredibly homophobic. You must be a Tea Party member wishing Ted Cruz was president.

Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, I think I'd have more cognitive dissonance pretending to approve of SJW nonsense at work in order to not get fired than debating Reactosphere types.

Exept that is a faulty point of comparison, as your suggestion is to subsume all your rational thinking to pursue an agenda of self-serving moral depravity.

Given the outcome from that, your choice not to take the far quicker option is your point of comparison.

Ironically the Reactosphere is more tolerant of diversity than the SJWs.

Yes, as long as you march entirely in lockstep with their agenda of tax cuts for the rich, mandatory church attendance, and fuax patriotism, they are happy to accept your unquestioned loyalty.

Re:Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[serviscope_minor]

Dear Penthouse,

I never thought that I would be writing one of these, but you know, sometimes life can get pretty crazy. When I wrote a memo "valuing" diversity I though my career was over. But then I decided to sue my company and go on the paid speaker circuit. You'll never velieve what happened! I met this alt-right blond hottie with rich conservative parents with a thing for skinny engineers...

Re:Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Hal_Porter]

I notice you didn't respond to this

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our side is more accepting of LGBT, faggot"

Maybe not OkCupid, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't hurry love. It's reciprocal. You're not ordering an object. You're not getting a delivery in less than seven minutes."

Actually, isn't Tinder that?

Re:Maybe not OkCupid, but...

[smallfries]

You'll just have to wait.
It doesn't come easy.
It's a game of give and take.

Use an SV business strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Pivot to men.

Date out...

[b0s0z0ku]

Not sticking to your own ethnicity opens up a bigger dating pool...

Re:Date out...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should learn to be more tolerant of people's preferences.

Re:Date out...

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're trying to force people to change their preferences, remember that if you just stop caring about gender it more than doubles your dating pool!

Re:Date out...

[The Grim Reefer]

While you're trying to force people to change their preferences, remember that if you just stop caring about gender it more than doubles your dating pool!

Very true. But it's not a very good long term strategy. ;-)

Re: Date out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even real things!

Me and my waifu forever!!! :-D

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

Girls want someone that they can control so they don't want an engineer.

Not Scaleable or Quick

[NicknameUnavailable]

OKCupid has long used their userbase for social experimentation. They only match people with those unlikely to work out, because it means they keep coming back and paying while thinking "well, it's matching me with people and I'm getting dates, it must just not be the right one." They're especially fans of social justice matchmaking.

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[b0s0z0ku]

OKC lets you search by criteria, and you can essentially select any that you want.

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, citation needed on that one, buddy.

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

I used a dating service to find my wife. We get along and rarely argue.

She laid it out for me what women want. Strength to support them when they are balling their eyes out. Not 'oh I am there' but actual sympathy. Not but maybe I can get some if I act interested. But actual strength. The 'bad boys' that most men fail out to women like because those losers project that strength. But women quickly find out it is a facade.

The service I used laid out the odds. For every 100 people you meet 25 or so you may like you. They called it 'chemistry'. Out of those 10 will get along with you. Out of that maybe 5 you can get along with short term. Out of that 1-2 you can get along with long term.

'bad boys' play the odds. They match out to lots of people. My sister played this game in college. She hit the bars and probably went through about 20-30 boyfriends. I didn't as more than that because I didnt want to know. But she had an easy test. Commitment. She would invite me over to meet them. Suddenly most would ghost out. One she wanted me to meet and I did meet him started crying in a bar about how I hated him (I had just met the guy and bought him a beer and basically said 'hi'). Instant turn off.

Friend zoned guys are trying too hard to be friends. Women have dozens of those. They want strength. Not fake strength but actual "I can help you" strength.

The "I want someone who can make me laugh" is just them matching out for chemistry. Do you get along and have things in common. Like actually in common.

Do not be fake. Women can sniff out fake. A lot of their friends are that. They live it and breath it. Men are amateurs at it compared to they BS they put up with from other women and 'bad boys'.

Women are looking for safety. Then a friend. Dont be fake. Meet those needs and your in. Remember they are people too. Treat them as such and you might find someone you like and they may like you back.

Re: Not Scaleable or Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar much? Speling counta. You my make a donta such

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[NicknameUnavailable]

Check their blog, they go on at length about their social experiments.

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

"Strength to support them when they are balling their eyes out"

I've heard of a skull fuck, but that's just ridiculous.

Re: Not Scaleable or Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Women don't know what they want and can't be trusted to communicate what they want. I've gone out with numerous women over the years claiming to want somebody just like me, but apparently not enough to make it multiple dates.

A better strategy is to just ignore what they say and be a jerk because that's what women actually go for. The arrogance and narcissism of demanding certain behaviours and attributes only to find the only jerk in a room and still lie to single men about what they're looking for is astounding.

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this is actually true and you can die in a fire. People like you that have somebody are fucking it up for the rest of us.

Women don't need somebody to provide rationalization for their bad choices. What they need is to be taken to task for their ridiculous standards and abuse of men. They typically do precisely no work when it comes to dating. They don't ask men out, they don't plan the dates, they don't do any of the work to make the dates go well and then unless they were completely insufferable, they probably make the decision about whether or not there's going to be another date.

Women aren't good at sniffing out BS, they're great at disqualifying men. The two are not the same thing. They filter out all the good guys, get badly burned by the ones they thought were exciting, then go about punishing the good guys they do encounter until they panic and lower their standards to something that could happen. And increasingly, that doesn't happen until they're in their mid-30s and really too old to find somebody to have kids with.

So many of the dating profiles I see have a shopping list of things they expect out of men and nothing about what they're providing. If they're going to have a list of things that they're expecting to get, they should have the decency to have a list of the things they're going to provide. Or, better yet, they should have a profile about who they are and what they're interests are. But, OTOH, whenever I used to see the shopping list, it made the decision to not initiate contact very easy.

The friend zone is why I absolutely refuse to be friends with women. If they're lacking the common decency to help these guys out finding somebody, and are still willing to waste their time, then they can get bent. That is unconscionably selfish and women like that can burn in hell.

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[Applehu Akbar]

"I want someone who can make me laugh"

This is not just an expression. If your problem with women is having esoteric interests that they don't share, humor is actually surprisingly good at breaking the ice. And if you're concerned about height, hit the gym. Change those things about you that you CAN change.

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[serviscope_minor]

She laid it out for me what women want. Strength to support them when they are balling their eyes out.

If someone balled their eyes out, I'd probably call an ambulance then nope the fuck out of there. That sounds seriously unpleasant.

Re:Not Scaleable or Quick

[AmiMoJo]

That sounds seriously unpleasant.

It's a lot easier and less messy if you use a spoon.

Which algorithm would find love for

[Anonymous Coward]

creimer? I don't think an AI or quantum computer powerful enough for that exists yet.

Re: Which algorithm would find love for

[Zero__Kelvin]

Oh come on, it's a single line of code. if(creimer) return(ice_cream);

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[greenwow]

I graduated high school here in Seattle in 1973, and none of my technical friends have ever had a girlfriend. Some of them have had boyfriends, but that's a different story entirely. Girls don't want independent males.

Re: I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. We can get by without them so they hate us for that.

Re: I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

True. They want control.

This isn't surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage rates have fallen from around 75% of adults in the 1960 to 50% today. Some are living together without marriage of course and others were married but divorced. But around a quarter of men in the US will never marry. Many of those will never father children.

Lots of factors mentioned in the article, but the culture has changed so much that marriage and long term relationships are devalued. Fewer people are religious than in years past, and many don't have much encouragement from parents to get married or have kids. More women are working than before and are delaying relationships and marriage longer. Online dating apps have just amped the problem, like much of the internet, into virtual shouting matches instead of quiet conversation, or quick hits of dopamine such as swipes or likes.

I think the article is making too much of the male/female ratio. The SV ratio isn't that much larger than the average. It's really the culture of American society that has shifted which is causing this.

Re: This isn't surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

The lurking variable that breaks your analysis is poverty. The welfare system severely punishes the poor for being married. That, combined with a trigger event of giving a guy a good night before he went of to war, has caused the death of marriage in the urban poor. The numbers aren't nearly as stark for middle class cultures in the U.S.

Re: This isn't surprising

[Cederic]

The welfare system severely punishes the poor for being married

The legal system severely punishes men for being married, which is one reason so many fewer are risking it.

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Kjella]

I graduated high school here in Seattle in 1973, and none of my technical friends have ever had a girlfriend. Some of them have had boyfriends, but that's a different story entirely. Girls don't want independent males.

Uh, how many dependent males are there? Like, guys with little to no education who couldn't get by on their own because they've been stay-at-home dads and housewi... househusbands? Is that even a word? Is there a market for sugarmoms? My impression is that most men can't stand women that are richer and more successful than themselves, it hurts their pride. I'm afraid I may have to give you some shocking news: It may not be the economic independence that is the reason why your technical friends are single. They're probably just dorks or nerds. Not geeks, they can be kinda popular. P.S. None of them can be truly rich, if they were they could get trophy wives. It's basically long term prostitution, but if you have enough money it works.

Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Nemyst]

None of this is even remotely of the same magnitude as the core issue of online dating: men outnumber women on all these sites by a factor of 10:1, if not worse. Women get overwhelmed by the number of messages they receive and either drop out of the service or become extremely picky. Men end up with an extremely low positive response rate and so turn towards a "shotgun" approach of just sending identical messages to dozens or even hundreds of women, further exacerbating the issue.

As long as the gender imbalance isn't solved, online dating is going to remain a game of chance and a mess for both genders. Right now, all it's doing is taking the already fairly dated (but still very widespread) social norm that men should be the ones initiating romantic advances (and therefore take on the numerous refusals and the emotional toll that goes along with them) and push it to a ridiculous limit.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Kjella]

While your description is pretty much spot on you say it's a mess for both genders and I don't really see how. Women certainly can make romantic advances if they like someone, but if they just sit back they get plenty offers and can pick and choose. Sure they complain about not finding Mr. Right and all the guys looking for a one night stand, but if you look at the standards in the lower end of men where the choice is between a girlfriend or no girlfriend... eh. Anything with a pussy and a pulse can get a boyfriend. If they want, as more women than men seem happy with artificial substitutes.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mind refusals per se, but it just turns into a time sink. Take time to compose 10-20 messages a day while trying to be at least a bit creative ... takes hours, get a couple of "thanks" replies ... total waste of time!

Now what I always wonder ... 10:1 men are sitting on the online dating .. where do women hang out? Bars are lousy too .. do they just sit home?

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because men are the pursuers. When women are asked why they don't pursue men, they usually say they don't like the rejection. In the end, women complain about this mating ritual but don't want to change it. Also, based on OKC's own data, women tend to be pickier, going after only the hottest guys. Whereas the men will start in the middle range and work their way up.

We also have a world were casual sex is the norm and as much as women complain about the meat market, they engage in this behavior too.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Men should be strong enough to handle the emotional toll rejection. If you're not good enough to deal with it, maybe that's life trying to teach you a lesson. Don't try to fob this heartbreak off onto women, they have enough problems already.

Re: Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[cyber-vandal]

Why?

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is people not having enough opportunity to socialize. Online dating is a time saving measure, but it makes the effort required so low that we get the problems you describe.

As well as a lack of time, there is a lack of venues. Lots of places to drink, but that isn't really what you want for a serious relationship.

This is definitely a cultural problem. For example, in Japan it's going the other way, with some guys deciding they are happy without a girlfriend and women but being able to find a partner. They are trying nerd friendly social events as a solution, and women's magazines that explain nerd culture etc.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[jareth-0205]

You are exactly correct. It's a horrendous experience for everyone. The men who have any self-awareness (ie most decent people) get very quickly disillusioned, the repeated effort to make contact and get nothing back eats away at the ego. Rather quickly these men give up and leave. The ones that stick it out are the ones where this treatment doesn't bruise their ego - the ones that don't care and will behave in any manner.

The women on the site get tens of messages per day, and a good number of those will be from the men who have no shame and will say fairly inappropriate things. Words do matter, and that constant stream of unpleasant things means they don't have a good reason to hang about either.

It's bizarre that the new technology actually takes us backwards in male-female heterosexual interaction. The social norm that men approach women, in real life is tempered by the fact that women have multiple ways in communicating their interest without doing the main approach - through looks, touch, etc., in a way that is ambiguous and deniable. You can negotiate interest without actually breaking the 'order'. On the internet everything is formalised so much that it is impossible to have any ambiguity. Someone presses the 'like' button first. Someone sends the message first. So that is left for men, who have to do it without any information about whether they will be welcomed. Women have to handle many inappropriate advances, men have to approach without any idea whether it's appropriate.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[jareth-0205]

Men should be strong enough to handle the emotional toll rejection. If you're not good enough to deal with it, maybe that's life trying to teach you a lesson. Don't try to fob this heartbreak off onto women, they have enough problems already.

I don't think anyone's blaming the women - they do have their own problems (constant streams of inappropriate messages being one of them). The system is flawed, that's what's at fault.

Also, why the hell should men be 'strong enough'. If you are strong enough to handle multiple rejections then you're probably not paying attention, you could well be being an awful person but you wouldn't notice because you're being 'strong' and 'handling it'. This is exactly toxic masculinity - that being affected emotionally is bad and that you shouldn't.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

No algorithm and no textual conversation, no matter how long and detailed, can do better than 20 seconds of actually talking to someone.

That's why online dating doesn't work.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Strong, confident men don't take rejection personally. If the man is not strong and confident, then what is he doing? A good man can get 50 rejections and still know he's good. A shit man? If he feels like shit after getting rejected, whose fault is it?

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[jareth-0205]

Shouldn't you? After a while? If you get 50 rejections in a row you probably should be taking it personally. I know we're all supposed to be self-sufficient in confidence but at some point you need to calibrate to the outside, otherwise you may well be being an arrogant arse, or any number of character flaws that you can't see from the inside. At some point you need to listen to how people react to you.

The question is, when, and how much.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being good and being rejected numerous times is arguably even worse. Women treat good men badly and we all know that. They rationalize it by claiming that good men won't be bothered by rejection, so they're clearly not good men in the first place. I've been rejected by numerous women claiming that they were looking for somebody just like me. But, I'm hot enough to have to put up with the stupid bitches sexually harassing me, and I'm who they claim to be looking for. So yeah, I'm a bit bitter, why on earth should men have to put so much work into it so a bunch of self-entitled bitches can have choice. Women shouldn't have choices if they can't figure out what they want. Perhaps they could spend some time doing the work so they can appreciate why the bullshit needs to stop.

They seem to have no meaningful comprehension about just how much rejection a man is being expected to put up with in places like Silicon Valley where there's a massive imbalance of men and women.

They also don't seem to care about wasting men's time, and why should they, the selfish princesses are expecting Prince Charming to show up without them having to do a damn thing or even deserve somebody good. Then they'll hit their late 30s, and panic having already missed at least a few great guys that were willing to put a ring on her their finger, but were too self-absorbed to say yes.

Being rejected dozens of times by women worth having is probably not that big of a deal. Being rejected dozens of times by marginal women that go on to date men that are worse is going to destroy a man's self-esteem for any man that actually cares about what other people think about him at all.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the best strategy for women is to hide their profile and then make first contact with any man that appears to be a good match. But, that would require doing some actual work, and few women think that should be required.

The end result is a system where nobody is really happy. I got plenty of first dates by being a better guy, but they never went anywhere because the women weren't serious about finding somebody and didn't mind wasting men's time because all that really matters is themselves.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Nemyst]

I'll absolutely agree on the lack of venues and cultural issues, but I disagree it's about an opportunity problem for socialization. If that were the case, men and women should realistically be affected to a similar extent, but that's not the case. The problem is almost exclusively cultural, in that men are expected to court women and thus women tend to have an easier time finding relationships without having to resort to online dating.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[Nemyst]

The social norm that men approach women, in real life is tempered by the fact that women have multiple ways in communicating their interest without doing the main approach - through looks, touch, etc., in a way that is ambiguous and deniable. You can negotiate interest without actually breaking the 'order'.

I think we're headed straight for a big culture shock in that particular aspect though. As women rightfully rectify the state of things regarding sexual harassment, assault, etc., the expectation that ambiguity in responding to advances is acceptable will also have to vanish. Most men will not attempt an advance if the response could potentially turn into some form of accusation of depravity. Women will have to be more direct and obvious in their responses, or we'll see a sharp decline in relationships as overly cautious males avoid ambiguous women (which is currently still the majority of them). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Mind you, I see that as a good thing. As a man, the last thing I want is to have to decipher the mess of social cues and ambiguous responses that women use. Give me a firm "yes" or "no" so we can both get on with our lives, and if that makes women have to shoulder part of the emotional distress that comes with rejection rather than just delay and muddy the waters until the man gives up? That's called equality.

Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue?

[jareth-0205]

Wow... You've got some issues there, buddy...

Being a single woman in SV...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is like dying of thirst on a dingy in the middle of the ocean.

Re:Being a single woman in SV...

[Anonymous Coward]

A dingy what?

Re:Being a single woman in SV...

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, a dingy dinghy, ding dong.

Re: Being a single woman in SV...

[Zero__Kelvin]

So you are saying they are surrounded by undrinkable men?

Re: Being a single woman in SV...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying they are surrounded by undrinkable men?

Only if they don't swallow

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Silicon Valley they just want someone that showers regularly, doesn't "code" 14 hours a day, and can hold a conversation about something other than their shitty blockchain startup written in node.js. I live here and it's pretty fucking obvious why most of these socially stunted retards can't get dates.

Arbitrage

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like the SIlicon Valley sex industry is ripe for arbitrage.

You can quickly buy love. Or it's analogue.

Re:Arbitrage

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can quickly buy love. Or it's analogue."

You don't need to buy the correct possessive pronoun. it's means it is.

Their algorythms don't work because they are BAD.

[gurps_npc]

It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers'.

This a 'one night stand' mindset - you end up finding the desirable/attractive but damaged people, not the acceptable ones.

Example:
OKCupid asks people if they have cats or dogs. Then they let you look for someone that already owns a cat or a dog. They do NOT let you exclude people that have cats or dogs.

That is a one short term relationship system. If you only date people that already have a cat or a dog, you are looking for someone that won't have to change their life style to fit with yours. Perfect if all you want is a couple of months of fun.

However, let's say you want to get married. If they love you, they will grow to love your cat or dog. It will not be a 'deal killer'. But if you are allergic to a cat or a dog, you NEED to exclude those people. You can't ask them to give up their pet just to date you. If you tried that, your success rate plummets.

Same thing with many other such factors. If you are a short man WITHOUT a complex, then you are perfectly willing to date women, regardless of their height. You have no problem asking out someone a foot taller than you. That's healthy, non-discriminatory thinking. But if you try to ask out most tall women, you will be wasting your time, because most such women only want to date tall men.a

The truth is short men do not want to search for short women. Short men want to search for any woman that is willing to date men their size. Guess what - OKCupid knows which women are not willing to date short men but OKCupid will not let you exclude those women from your search..

The dating web sites are all seriously flawed by their 'show me a 10' mindset, rather than a "no deal breakers" mindset.

Materialist secular humanist problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a natural tendancy for tech people to view everything through the prism of their own specialty, so that chemists tend to see things as chemistry problems, physicists tend to see things as physics problems, and coders tend to see things in terms of algorithms. The folks in silicon valley are used to, and focused on, machines and well-defined, optimizeable, solveable problems. Such people tend, as a gross generality of course, to embrace a secular humanist world view and think of people as complex biomechanical systems - it's at the very heart of all the dreams of robotics, AI, "the singularity", etc - the idea that people are sort of squishy bio-machines whose souls are just the software of a computer currently made of neurons but which could be replaced with artificial neuro nets. "live forever by replacing your body with a robot body!", "live forever by moving your intellect into a computer!" etc.

Unfortunately (from this point of view) people are NOT just squishy bio-computers.

Human beings and human relations are studyable as large groups, and can be analyzed and even predicted as large groups, but the individual cannot be. Human beings have free will and the ability to act capriciously, unpredictably, erraticly, and apparently contrary to their own best interests simply on a whim or due to that intangible thing: "personal taste".

The downside to being a chemist and seeing everything as a chemistry problem is that everything is NOT a chemistry problem. Same for physics and math and evey other field. People are also NOT a computer problem or a robotics problem; they are PEOPLE, for better and for worse.

Re: I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

I donâ(TM)t know any guys that have been on a date. Girls hate guys that work on tech because weâ(TM)re educated.

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

This oft-repeated notion that "men are afraid of successful/rich/strong women" is getting really old. The truth is that a large number of the women that feel the need to broadcast those attributes loudly turn out to be shitty people. It's not that he's afraid of her success, it's that she's an asshole. The problem is that these "rich successful women" spent all their time on their status and none of their time on learning to build genuine caring relationships with other human beings, but they'll be damned if it's any fault of theirs. "I gotta blame somebody, otherwise it's my fault. Fuck that.

Now that that retardation is out...maybe you should stop casting large numbers of males you know nothing about into bullshit stereotypes. You must be loads of fun at parties.

True enough, but misses the point I think...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"You can't hurry love. It's reciprocal. You're not ordering an object. You're not getting a delivery in less than seven minutes." Finding love, she added, takes commitment and energy -- and, yes, time, no matter how inefficiently it's spent.

The complaint, Ms. Hobley, isn't that your site/app fails at finding a match that a person is already in love with; it's that your site/app fails at even finding a match that a person could fall in love with.

Yes, your users have to work at making a lasting relationship. I think there are very few people who don't understand that on some level. But if people are finding your site/app less useful than meeting people through their hobbies, you're probably doing something wrong.

Although, to be fair, I do wonder what the actual "satisfaction rating" among users of dating websites might be.

Re:True enough, but misses the point I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since most modern "dating sites" are frauds, stuffed with bots pretending to be attracted women to entice their nearly 100% mail userbase to continue their subscriptions, why are you even asking? They don't care about "satisfaction", they care about ongoing income. The exposure of the fraudbots at Ashley Madison is true of almost every dating site.

OK, Cragislist got a bit weird and had less money involved.

Re:True enough, but misses the point I think...

[dgatwood]

Yes, your users have to work at making a lasting relationship. I think there are very few people who don't understand that on some level. But if people are finding your site/app less useful than meeting people through their hobbies, you're probably doing something wrong.

Actually, that's a pretty high bar. People you meet through your hobbies are more likely to have common interests, which makes them much more compatible than randomly selected people using almost any other metric.

One big problem is that the dating sites don't take hobbies into account nearly enough, and don't let you provide detailed enough information about hobbies. Worse, most people don't provide information about more than maybe one or two of their hobbies and interests, which means the data needed to get a good match just isn't there.

Re:True enough, but misses the point I think...

[Applehu Akbar]

Because in Silicon Valley, dating apps know not to ask about hobbies.

Executive summary

[93 Escort Wagon]

Lonely Silicon Valley men:

How long must I wait
How much more can I take
Before loneliness will cause my heart
Heart to break?

No I can't bear to live my life alone
I grow impatient for a love to call my own
But when I feel that I, I can't go on
These precious words keeps me hangin' on

Melissa Hobley:

You can't hurry love
No, you just have to wait
She said love don't come easy
It's a game of give and take

You can't hurry love
No, you just have to wait
You got to trust, give it time
No matter how long it takes

(Apologies to the Supremes and/or Phil Collins)

Re:Executive summary

[nerdonamotorcycle]

First thing I thought of when I saw this quote in the article summary:

"You can't hurry love. It's reciprocal. You're not ordering an object. You're not getting a delivery in less than seven minutes." Finding love, she added, takes commitment and energy -- and, yes, time, no matter how inefficiently it's spent.

Re:Executive summary

[Calydor]

It made me wonder if it's even possible to say the sentence "You can't hurry love." without breaking into song halfway through.

It leads to the eternal question, though. What is love?

Re: Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

We're no strangers to love
You know the rules and so do I

Re:Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supremes were GREAT, Phil C not so much

Re:Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

shut the fuck up.

Re:Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Re: Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Wise words, and a great quote!

Re:Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

It leads to the eternal question, though. What is love?

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more...

Re:Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

It leads to the eternal question, though. What is love?

Baby don't hurt me!
No more!
Unh!

Re:Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me.

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

> My impression is that most men can't stand women that are richer and more successful than themselves, it hurts their pride.

This is completely wrong. It's women who have an issue with men earning less. Likewise, they are the ones that have an issue with height. They are also the ones more discerning about race (not an outright racist belief, but they just see themselves with a certain type of person).

Men want an attractive women of any race, height, or wealth. They don't give a shit. (If they do, they might be some sort of nutjob.)

OKC sucks bc they crippled it

[Anonymous Coward]

It was better 2-3 years ago before they turned it into a Tinder clone swipe fest.

I found the love of my life as well as a great fwb playmate there a while ago. But I wouldn't have met either one with all the new changes, feature removal, mandatory pay-to-play system, enforced face pics for those in need of discretion for their alternative lifestyles, and general fucknuttery.

Thank you old OKC for all you've done for me. New OKC I wish a quick death.

And don't get me started on Match with the faked robot winks and dead profiles saying hi.

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you don't have any massive personality flaws or anything. Just bury your head in the sand and don't look inward at all. After all, it's not like there are hundreds of millions of educated males that are in perfectly happy relationships right now.

Re: I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. I would apply that to California as a whole. SJWtards, NRxtards, Technotards, Hollywoodtards - it's the only place in the world where a person can summarily dismiss an entire population on the basis of mental illness. A relationship requires actually caring about *someone else*.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn’t even begin to address all of the other shortcomings and deficiencies of OKCupid. I dated a string of psychos even after answering the 500-question profile. People still lie, and attempt to project some weird and pre-conceived notion of their ideal partner upon a mere date. And then it isn’t a date, but rather an interview to ascertain if you’re that pre-determined “match.”

Prior Art

[McGruber]

My mama said you can't hurry love

No, you'll just have to wait

She said "love don't come easy

But it's a game of give and take"

You can't hurry love

No, you'll just have to wait

She said "love don't come easy

But it's a game of give and take"

You can't hurry love, no you'll just have to wait

here is my experience, and it's not pretty

[john of sparta]

or PC.... girls are looking for money. period. i am 64. lots of women my age have more money than me. the AARP crowd is about a good time with some pharmaceuticals. the 15-25 (yes, some are illegal) girls are only interested in money. a "sugar-daddy" is SPECIFICALLY asked for and required. dating sites are for all the losers. adjust to the real world.

Re: here is my experience, and it's not pretty

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitter much?

How is it allthe women your age have more money? Because you spent yours having a good time. Congrats on funning your way through the first 3/4s of your life. Now the rest will suck because you had all your fun up front.

Re: here is my experience, and it's not pretty

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, why do you think a 15-25 year old would be interested in your saggy ass other than for your wallet?

You have absolutely nothing to offer them but raw hard cash. You're grandpa age, not boyfriend age. And the fact that you're trying to date under 18 at any adult age is just fucked up.

Go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. (But you can pay $200 for a bj).

Re: here is my experience, and it's not pretty

[guruevi]

Regardless of matching ages, the issue stands. Even OKC admitted it years ago when they did the first analysis of data: men with higher salary ranges on their profile got more responses and more dates.

The raw data is there, you CAN craft the perfect profile, it won't be PC but it's very well known what both men and women want from their first impressions in order to get a first date. I don't know if OKC still publishes the data, they used to when they first started and with some data mining you can make a good profile, initial message etc and your success rate skyrockets. I think my 'success rate' was like 40-50% in terms of responses and I would say about 10% in terms of dates, I still didn't meet my current partner there but I did a number of my previous partners, sometimes simultaneous.

Re: here is my experience, and it's not pretty

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the vampires who sucked their ex-husbands dry in a divorce and are now saturating the dating sites because they "can't find happiness" for some reason.

Re: here is my experience, and it's not pretty

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to use OKC for dating, but I gave up as it turned out to be a massive waste of my time and energy. I'd get response rates like yours, but the dates wouldn't go anywhere. Didn't matter how well the date went, none of the women were serious about finding somebody. They were picky as hell because of all the messages they were getting and near as I can figure out, the fact that I'm only 5'10" and aren't rich were the only things that I didn't have going for me.

There were one or two dates that might have wanted another, but I wasn't willing to put up with all the bullshit needed to actually schedule a 2nd date and after a couple weeks, I just dropped them.

But, the problem is largely that women don't view men as being deserving of humane treatment. We're there to be used as a source of income or to give her whatever she wants and few women are actually capable of real love. Which is probably why they kill so many relationships. Divorce rates are initiated by them more than twice as often and at every stage in a relationship, they're more likely to kill it off. The only exception being the dating stage and that's only because they've already had the luxury of saying no when the guy asked rather than having to ask all sorts of people out in order to get to the one that says yes.

Re:here is my experience, and it's not pretty

[Applehu Akbar]

If you're 64, you are entering a demographic that has an exceedingly favorable male-female ratio. Wanna meet lonely women? Offer to fix their computers.

Re: here is my experience, and it's not pretty

[Anonymous Coward]

Try math: at besta woman will get half in a community property state like California.

So either here's had a lot more money than this loser so obviously she's not going to lower herself to dating a bus driver. Or she'sdoing a lot better than him. Because again, he's a loser driving a bus.

Either way, he's clearly a loser. Why? Because he spent his life partying and chillin wit his bro's, yo! instead of being responsible.

I See

[oldgraybeard]

"Giving Up On the Algorithms of Love" just tells me the kids are pretty smart! ;)

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm allergic to cats. When I met my wife, she had a cat. It knew I was allergic (trust me - cats always know) and used to sit on my lap and shove its tail up my nose. The cat died, and was not replaced.

misunderstanding

[supernova87a]

Lots of people seem to misunderstand what Silicon Valley is.

Silicon Valley is not much different than North Dakota and the oil/gas industry, where lots of young men go to earn big bucks for jobs that need some certain skills and are in demand compared to the average population. The housing prices are ridiculous there too and the aren't many women in oil/gas fields because they're sensible enough not to want to do that kind of work.

Silicon valley just looks a little bit nicer and appears like a place where you might try to raise a family, but it's actually almost as hard and unpleasant as trying to raise a family in North Dakota.

Don't be surprised that things aren't as good as they seem. There's a reason people get paid a lot for living and working in with places. Few things come for free in this life.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

So you murdered the cat then. Ok.

You don't find love.

[Organic Brain Damage]

You make love.

Re:You don't find love.

[Anonymous Coward]

A fellow adherent of the sexbot approach I see.

Re:You don't find love.

[Anonymous Coward]

$ make love
make: Don't know how to make love. Stop

Re:You don't find love.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got an idea from your post, I believe I've found the solution! Wouldn't it be possible to make a dating site that with two entirely different front ends for women and men, which are then translated with Artificial Intelligence?

- For men it looks like a casual SEX dating app. Horny women looking for fun, etc.

- For women, it looks like an app to find a serious, caring long-term partner who is maybe interested in having children some day. (If the woman is >30).

- Conversations are translated automatically by A.I.: "Wow, great tits!" --> "Your profile picture looks gorgeous. Is that really you?"
    "Hi!" --> "Hi, my name is Rachael, and yes, the profile pic, that's really me. I'm looking for somebody who knows how to treat women - no financial interests, no strings attached"
    "I'm into kinky stuff, BDSM" --> "I like cooking and travelling"

Problem solved. $$$ guaranteed.

Re:You don't find love.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the hunter-gatherers of love to love farming. The next step is the industrialized mass-manufacturing of love.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[grasshoppa]

It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers

This is laughable, and demonstrates a severe lack of comprehension of interpersonal relationships, even the bare minimum self awareness.

We all like to believe we know ourselves inside and out, but the fact is we don't know shit. We're just kinda riding these chemical signals. Our bodies are this amazingly complex machine; we can't hope to know a 10th of what's going on, nevermind being fully cognizant of what we like. Your exclusionary list that you seem to fond of would only serve to deprive people of their choices, virtually guaranteeing misery except for those lucky few.

Not that these dating websites are any better. They're trying to nail down a chaos system that puts the weather system to shame. It's little more than snake oil.

Re:Their algorithms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty standard behaviour for a cat. The cat was just giving you the benefit of the doubt that since her roommate had invited you into the home, you deserved a proper hello.
https://www.petplace.com/article/cats/pet-behavior-training/why-do-cats-smell-other-cats-butts/
 

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

... excluding 'deal breakers'.

To quote 'Nip/Tuck'; "You'll never fuck Brad Pitt." When one goes to the market, one has a shopping list in hand. We all have to learn that's not a good way to judge people. Mostly because a shopping list details material things while a relationship depends on behaviours.

... won't have to change their life style ...

Why is changing one's lifestyle so admirable? If one is willing to change, that's great. But how does one know that one is willing, or one is capable of change? Doing this, or more likely, claiming a willingness for this, to win a partner is a dumb idea. The likely outcome is a narcissistic "you owe me" price placed upon a relationship.

People choose people like themselves. That tends to mean a partner will have a lifestyle similar to oneself: That is, a behavioural match. Owning a dog or cat is an activity that represents several behaviours: Loneliness, emotional neediness, nesting instinct. It is unlikely that a questionnaire will ask the necessary questions, or get honest answers, to determine which behaviour is present.

Re: I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Another Mouse Coward]

I *heart* that comment!

Ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

"There were about 150 men for every 100 women"

While true, that doesn't portray the reality of the situation. The top 90% of women sleep with the top 10% of men. Of those 150 men, only 15 have a chance.

Ha yes saw that

[aepervius]

Initially I tried to type a long good message... Only to get AT MOST a single 6 word sentence as response, at worst a one word sentence "Yes." (wtf ? Do you want me to continue speaking ? Are you interrested ? Not at all ? WHATTTTT ?). And there there is the scammer. So after a month or so I took the shotgun approach and got a few response (funnily enough I estimated the number of single women in my region using OKCupid for my age : 55. Everybody else is 100 +km, so that service does not seem to be widely used here). So I am part of the problem, but then again, we are human we don't persist into using what do not work, we do try to use other method and stays with what works.

Create a female profile and test it out

[FeelGood314]

It does suck for women. Create a female profile on POF and test it out. Men come across as undesirable on these sites. A woman who doesn't have something seriously wrong with her will get 10 messages a day and probably one every 5 minutes when she is logged in. A guy has to stand out in this noise and keep a woman's attention for 3 or 4 messages over a span of 15 minutes. Stand out to much and she will reject you as not being normal enough. Stand out just the right amount and you seem to needy and too easy to be worth her effort. Women don't want a guy who sounds like he is chasing them. If one of her messages is only 6 words long, she might still be interested but was lazy but now the guy is screwed because he can't respond with a short message because then the conversation will die.

Sites like POF let you do a fair bit of mining. In Ottawa, Canada - age range 30 to 50, excluding BBW - Active men on a given day outnumbered women 3.5 to 1*. The median time before a woman's account becomes inactive or deleted was 88 weeks (that blew me away). Seeking "a relationship" or "marriage" makes your profile significantly more attractive.

*Ottawa has a lot more single women than men due to the federal government being here.

Re:Create a female profile and test it out

[jareth-0205]

Yes, all of this. I actually think this should be a thing that everyone experiences - very few things expose the difference in gender experience better than what it's like to be a man (ignored) and a woman (inundated) on a dating site.

Re:Create a female profile and test it out

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really funny is that you think "it does sucks for women".

Piss off, you women-worshipping perma-virgin. Male attention is what women crave - and selecting out lowly males gives women a dopamine hit. It's why they are on the site... until they get bored of it when they realise it's empty.

Inferior Social System

[PerlPunk]

Compared with the Indian engineers (male or female) who are expecting an arranged marriage and are not in the dating pool, the non-Indians (mostly Anglo-Americans) are not happy. Suggest the lonely Anglo-American men to try switching over to the Indian system. Some of your Indian friends might even help you.

Re:Inferior Social System

[Average]

At one level you might think it. But, I've talked about it with a number of Indian co-workers. At least, of the castes that end up working in America, there's some *stupidly* expensive wedding expectations, *stupidly* expensive rings and gold, and you'd f-ing well better have the house and car figured out before the wedding. Because your mother-in-law is moving in. These nice cricket-playing engineers were all working themselves silly over this stuff.

When I suggest to them that they just elope and have a $50 civil wedding (like I did), they just don't even fathom how that's a possibility. Trust me, the Indian system sucks, just in different ways.

Re:Inferior Social System

[Thelasko]

I've known several Indian colleagues that gave up on the American dating scene and had their parents arrange a marriage. However, I know some that have been very successful with the American way of courtship (mostly women). However, one colleague of mine had quite a bit of drama in his family when he married a girl he met from another caste.

They all seem happy regardless of how they met.

Where are the missing women?

[HuskyDog]

So, there are a lot more men than women in Silicon Valley. OK, but since babies are born in almost exactly a 50:50 ratio that means that some places in the US must have more available women than men? I presume single men in Silicon Valley can't move to these places since there are no suitable jobs, but perhaps they could at least vacation there. Ahh, perhaps people in Silicon Valley don't get vacations either.

Notes:
1: Since I am in the UK and married I am asking where all the single women are purely out of curiosity.
2: My wife is from a different European country, so I don't see that there is a problem with dating someone in a different US state.

Re:Where are the missing women?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Manhattan is one of those places. The women outnumber the men significantly, so they don't get to put men through the same sort of abusive mating process that happens out west. IIRC, Sedona is the only place out west where men don't massively outnumber the women, I believe the numbers are more or less equal.

The problem with dating women from a different state is that there aren't necessarily jobs there and as more and more jobs pay starvation wages, moving to a new area for something other than a new job gets to be harder and harder to do.

But, the only real fix here is for men to move back east and for women to move out west. At least at increased volumes until we get back to somewhere near equilibrium.

Re:Where are the missing women?

[Average]

The key words in the story were "singles 25-35".

There are a statistically significant surplus of single men 25-35. There is also a statistically significant surplus of single women 55-65.

This visualization is fascintating. http://jonathansoma.com/single...

Underlying factor--there are quite a lot of 25 year old women (especially those who are single moms already) willing to become a 45-year-old middle manager's second wife. There are exceedingly few 25 year old men (especially who would like to be fathers) who are willing to become a 45-year-old elementary school teacher's second husband.

Re:Where are the missing women?

[Mark of THE CITY]

At Cisco in 2000, I met a tech writer in another building (so as not to have to see each other every day). We went to dinner and concerts. 3 months on, she yells at me; I had me as I had not planned a Valentines Day getaway. Ouch.

Re:Where are the missing women?

[Cederic]

There is also a statistically significant surplus of single women 55-65.

Yeah, and they all make googly eyes at me when I'm dancing with them.

Re:Where are the missing women?

[Anonymous Coward]

Over fifty years old is when men start dying of heart attacks due to being fat and having not done any exercise for twenty years.

Women living longer could entirely explain your link showing 25 more single women per 1000 single people in the 50-60 age group.

Re:Where are the missing women?

[Anonymous Coward]

What an inconvenient truth.

We must put an end to trophy wiving.

Re:Where are the missing women?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. This is how it has ALWAYS been. Women "marry up" and as a result they tend to first "date up". When I was in my 20s, it was a source of endless frustration - all the women my age dated men 10+ years older than me (or her).

Many also were happy to involve themselves in "Harvey Weinstein-esque" relationships where they could trade sex for career opportunities (this was in Los Angeles at the time). The whole #MeToo thing is in many cases simply an arrangement the woman rationally and voluntarily agreed to. If you agree to it, you have no right to complain later! You made your bed, now sleep in it!

BTW my "solution" was to marry a women from a (non-US) culture where being unmarried at 23 or older made/makes the woman an "old maid". I wasn't explicitly looking for that, but that reality changed everything. So when I started dating her (while on a business trip), I was treated as "marriageable peer worthy of consideration and honest romantic attention" (which NO American women offered back home). She was so much nicer to be around than the American women who all had "roving eyes" looking for something better once you back was turned and was always criticizing me for not already being a millionaire capable of lavishing my wealth upon her! American woman tend to be: "Whatever is mine is mine and whatever is yours in mine too". That was not remotely the attitude of my foreign-born wife - it's always been "Whatever is mine is ours and whatever is yours is ours".

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[TeknoHog]

It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers

We all like to believe we know ourselves inside and out, but the fact is we don't know shit. We're just kinda riding these chemical signals. Our bodies are this amazingly complex machine; we can't hope to know a 10th of what's going on, nevermind being fully cognizant of what we like. Your exclusionary list that you seem to fond of would only serve to deprive people of their choices, virtually guaranteeing misery except for those lucky few.

Are you seriously suggesting that riding on the love hormones will cure cat/dog allergies? Because that was a good example of a deal breaker, something you cannot change by willpower alone.

More generally, I agree with your general argument that we people don't really know what we want. If you're looking for the "10" you imagine right now, it's probably not that great for you in the long run. OTOH, from personal life experience of myself and others, I believe it's much easier to know what you don't like than what you do.

For starters, you can only know how you feel about things you've actually experienced. If you're choosing a "10" only based on your past experience, you're missing out on a lot of potential happiness. But you know your bad experiences and you know to avoid them in the future. Besides allergies and other physiological limitations, there are personality traits such as introversion/extroversion you cannot simply grow out of.

The same idea is often discussed on /. with political elections. There are a lot of OK candidates but a few bad apples stand out, so it would be great to give negative votes. In other aspects of life, it's often easier to weed out sources of unhappiness than come up with new positives. For instance, when your parents told you not to hang out with that particular kid because he's bad influence.

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Knuckles]

I know when I tell a girl that I can afford a spouse that doesn't have to ever work that they get turned off.

Problem spotted. Maybe if you didn't talk about a possible future spouse like you were buying a car.

Ah, the p-word.

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them can be truly rich, if they were they could get trophy wives. It's basically long term prostitution, but if you have enough money it works.

What you fail to understand is that almost all long-term relationships are prostitution. You don't think so? Stop providing money / sex / housing / etc. and just see how long the SO stays around.

Marriage is simply formal prostitution. Someone who admits being a prostitute is just more honest than most other people. "I do it for what I get back" is pretty much the refrain of almost everyone, where "it" covers a very wide range of... services.

But don't worry. 10-20 years down the road, when the kids are out of the nest, it'll end with a nice new Porsche for your lawyers.

Re: Ah, the p-word.

[Brockmire]

Your definition is so narrow, all the volunteers at the hospital are prostitutes. You need better relationships if you equate marriage to formal prostitution and not making an over the top joke.

Re: Ah, the p-word.

[david_thornley]

Actually, if we backed up a century or two he'd have a good case. Nowadays, women can earn their own money and support themselves, so they don't have to put up with a guy just for money.

Just put your deal-breakers in your profile

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also up front in my profile with personal characteristics which are likely deal-breakers for some women.

Once you take the attitude that you're primarily filtering out unsuitable partners instead of just trying to attract someone it actually works quite well. That's why my account is deactivated.

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true, she's going to be much more expensive than a car.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[gurps_npc]

1) I didn't whine, I stated a fact - one you agree with (that short men are fine asking tall women out and that women are NOT OK with it.) You are the only person here whining.

2) What would you think if someone said "jews are money grubbing bastards?" But you are fine attacking nerds as immature perverts.

3) Stop being upset when people call you on your personal flaws. It's OK for women to complain about men being shallow pigs only interested in sex with thin women. It's also OK for men to complain about women being shallow pigs only interested in relationships with tall men.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[jvkjvk]

OKCupid asks people if they have cats or dogs. Then they let you look for someone that already owns a cat or a dog. They do NOT let you exclude people that have cats or dogs.

That is a one short term relationship system. If you only date people that already have a cat or a dog, you are looking for someone that won't have to change their life style to fit with yours. Perfect if all you want is a couple of months of fun.

Your words do not back up this assertion.

Why it it only perfect "if all you want is a couple of months of fun"? Aren't relationships built upon congruencies as well as fascinating differences?

Regards.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[grasshoppa]

Are you seriously suggesting that riding on the love hormones will cure cat/dog allergies?

That's not what I said, Ms Newman.

What I said is we don't know ourselves anywhere near as well as we like to pretend we do. So someone with a cat/dog might realize they'd rather be with an amazing person who has animal allergies ( than have animals ), but only if s|he were looking to find them first ( and visa/versa ). Or perhaps those animal owners are themselves allergic, and so have hypoallergenic animals.

You are artificially, and inappropriately, limiting your pool of potential matches through hard exclusions that you create based on ignorance.

For women...

[Anonymous Coward]

For women, the odds are good, but
the goods are odd in Silicon Valley...

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[HyperQuantum]

That is a one short term relationship system. If you only date people that already have a cat or a dog, you are looking for someone that won't have to change their life style to fit with yours. Perfect if all you want is a couple of months of fun.

This could be intentional. If you find a permanent relationship, then OKCupid will permanently lose you as a customer. Even if you don't pay them to be a member, they will have one less profile they can use as bait for attracting new members.

Fits my experience.

[Qbertino]

I've had a very solid share of affairs and relationships within the last decade, fuled by a growning aged geek-perspective and the cool that comes with it, a "silver-back" bonus, social dancing and systematically practicing the mating game and doing some PUA research. It worked out very well. Awesome pr0n-style sex, all-out "let's just f*ck like there's no tomorrow" ONSes and all. ... Looking for something different I started to use Tinder last year (Oh the irony, I know). And while the effect in "time-to-business" was palpable, the overall experience wasn't all that spectacular, especially with always-online addicts and ladies with the attention span of a squirrel. I quit after a few weeks. I don't use social media for the same reasons.

Right now I'm having an affair that looks out to become a long-term relationship and we got together in a very old-school regular fashion. Feels awesome. We screw like bunnies 3 times a day on average and are continuously getting better at it. Good sex takes practice with the partner :-) .

My conclusion on this: I do think dating apps can significantly improve your throughput and first-encounter experiences but the actual time it takes to slowly shift your priorities and your experience with one another and start moving together for an LTR won't go away by using some app. There is only so much you can leave to computers and the internet. The real deal always involves humans and "human labour". Especially when it comes to relationships. It's that simple.

My 2 eurocents.

Personals online and a condo ownership helped us.

[Mark of THE CITY]

My spouse and I met when I was working in Berkeley at Ion Systems and she had part-time work at universities. This was sixteen year ago. She was impressed that I had saved up to get a loan to buy a condo in San Bruno.

Certainly they can make a good male vibrator

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly they can make a good sucking vibrator.
That should be 1000x easier than love.

And without batteries! Plug it in.

Re: Ah, the p-word. Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, stop providing a relationship and your SO will leave.

You're a dumbass.

Re: Personals online and a condo ownership helped

[Anonymous Coward]

So she married your wallet.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

You are artificially, and inappropriately, limiting your pool of potential matches through hard exclusions that you create based on ignorance.

That's dating. Once we all become immortal, maybe things will change.

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[omnichad]

It's not that he's afraid of her success, it's that she's an asshole

Which is also how people become "successful" in business in the first place. When the tables are turned, there's far too many women attracted to this kind of toxic personality.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

About a year ago, when I still had some time to date, I made an OKCupid profile and it asked me many questions about my preferences and it did allow me to specify deal-breakers.

Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982...

[Average]

Uh, how many dependent males are there? Like, guys with little to no education who couldn't get by on their own because they've been stay-at-home dads and housewi... househusbands? Is that even a word? Is there a market for sugarmoms?

More than you might think at first. I know a *surprising* number of professional 40-something women (doctors, college profs) supporting educated but generally ne'r-do-well "indie filmmaker type" stay-at-home man-baby hubbies.

I think the reasoning is this. "I don't really have the assets/looks/personality that men above or even paralleling my social status want. If I marry someone a little below my station (university staff, male nurses, etc), there'll always be a lot of unspoken tension about that power imbalance. But, if I marry some good-looking 6'2" drifty-doofus who is good with kids, we both know where we stand".

Workforces

[Anonymous Coward]

That ratio permeates the economy here, all the way to the valley's biggest employers, which have struggled for years to bring more women into their ranks.

The obvious solution is to build more elementary schools. They will quickly be filled with single young women teachers.

But seriously msmash, is it a huge surprise that a lopsided ratio in the population "permeates" the economy? There's no way it couldn't.

Re: The answer is here, right in your nerd faces

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. Have these angry and disaffected ACs been lurking here the whole time?

Tough titties

[Anonymous Coward]

There are enough people already.

The world needs more unmarried, childless people. Especially the US Tax Dept.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound really invested in this.

Maybe its time to admit the problem isnt with the dating sites, but just maybe its YOU.

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

There were about 150 men for every 100 women, compared with about 125 to 100 nationwide, of never-married young people between 25 and 34 in San Jose, U.S. Census Bureau data from 2016 shows. That ratio permeates the economy here, all the way to the valley's biggest employers, which have struggled for years to bring more women into their ranks. Men make up about 70% of the workforces of Apple, Facebook and Google parent Alphabet, company filings show.

Solution: Have Google, Apple, et al hire women to date their employees. Workforce representation of women goes up, employees are happier. Easy.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[AmiMoJo]

short men are fine asking tall women out and that women are NOT OK with it

Is that true though? I know a few people who demonstrate otherwise, but of course that's not data. Is there any statistical evidence?

Being tall tends to give people an advantage in almost every aspect of life (except flying) so I do wonder if any observable trend is more related to that.

How many women.pisted here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha!

Losers.

Re: Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturda

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'm just in here for the peace and quiet.

Hookers are the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said

Hang the DJ

[sad_]

obviously this is the answer, let a virtualized world figure it out for you.

Brag much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making these nerds feel bad with tales of all your casual sex.

Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out that job finding uses pretty much the exact same algorithm: get a shit-ton of profiles describing the candidate using keywords, mash them together, rank them and pick out the cream.

The problem for BOTH dating and job searches: it doesn't actually work particular well. The problem is you TRULY CAN NOT answer or identify the "je nais se qua" that makes the difference between a "Meh!?" match and a truly good fit. Even resumes are Epic Fail when it comes to this: people are simply more complex (i.e. require more information to describe - a la Shannon or Kolmorgov information) than you can fit into a resume, let a lot key words or low order numerical principle components). You simply can't capture the subtleties that actually matter for a good fit. You can't capture how Candidate A has better academics (or credit report) but Candidate B worked on exactly the same problem you are trying to solve but in a different field or B has traveled to Cambodia to teach English which is somehow irresistible to you. Getting enough information formally as such algorithms require would be impossibly, illegally and uncomfortably intrusive - has Monster or OKCupid earned the right to that level of intimacy?? Hell no. Not even for sharing-friendly millennials.

Big surprise, yes? No. Not even a little bit if you know anything about people or about jobs.

Instead there are other ways common to "meatspace" (and used for millennia) that are both more effective and less intrusive (and are really hard to encode into software).

re: You don't find love

[Anonymous Coward]

Given up, eh?

You make love.

And not 3D print it neither.

Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA

[Anonymous Coward]

I always found it frustrating that I couldn't exclude vegan/vegetarian folks. I already know we wouldn't be compatible so don't waste my time! Such things would have been nice. I think they finally let you filter out folks that weren't compatible for age ranges?

I did luck out with OKC and I've been in a relationship for the last four months. Amusingly I saw her profile as I was gearing to close my account.