| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | Love me Tinder – Love under the Algorithm | >
> | Love me Tinder - Love under the Algorithm | | | | |
<
< | -- By CharlotteBerg - 17 Jan 2024 | >
> | There are hundreds of them, designed to find your perfect match. With options for women to make the first step (“be the CEO your parents always wanted you to marry”), the preferred same lifestyle (“It’s ok to be a GOAL-digger”), apps that are based on the religion (“Where single Muslims meet”) or on any other preference. It seems, as if there is no niche a dating app wouldn’t cover. As of 2023, 25.7 million Americans use dating apps (https://www.statista.com/statistics/274144/smartphone-dating-app-users-usa/) with 10-20 percent of the couples having met over dating platforms (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/). This evident change of dating behavior in the past 10 years leads to a compelling question: Why are we still single? | | | | |
<
< | Introduction | | | | |
<
< | There are hundreds of them, designed to find your perfect match. With options for women to make the first step (Bumble: “be the CEO your parents always wanted you to marry”), the preferred same lifestyle (The League: “It’s ok to be a GOAL-digger”)), apps that are based on the religion (Muzz: “Where single Muslims meet”) or on any other preference. It seems, as if there is no niche left, a dating app would not cover. As of 2023, 25.7 million Americans use dating apps (https://www.statista.com/statistics/274144/smartphone-dating-app-users-usa/) with 10-20 percent (depending on age) of the couples having met over online dating (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/). This evident change of dating behavior in the past 10 years leads to a couple of questions: Why are we still single? And does the way, Millienials and GenZ? meet new love interests change relationships and if so, really for the worse? | | | | |
<
< | How dating apps in general work
One thing, that is obviously different from analogue dating is the way, potential love interests meet: Instead of being introduced by friends and family, meeting at a bar or bumping into each other at the coffeemaker at work, an algorithm picks out the potential partner and suggests their profile to the user, leaving them (generally) the chance to either give them a “like” or not expressing interest. Most commonly, the other part is presented with the same opportunity. If both people express interest in each other, they may exchange messages and arrange a date. | >
> | General Functioning of Dating Apps
Most commonly, dating apps work on the precondition of “being single”, and “mutual physical attraction”: Only if both parties express their interest in each other, they “match” and are able to exchange messages. Hereby, the users rely on the algorithm every dating app is based upon: They (generally) work in two ways: potential partners are either suggested based upon the same interests, similar background etc. or based upon their presumed desirability. Users receiving more likes are generally seen as more desirable and consequently suggested to other people who are seen as equally desirable. These approaches are often mixed though it is not transparent who couples are matched with each other. | | | | |
<
< | The selection of new partners?
The premise of every dating app is the algorithm it is based on. They (generally) work in two ways: potential partners are either suggested based upon the same interests, similar background etc. or based upon their presumed desirability. If you generally receive more likes, you are seen as more desirable and are generally rather suggested to other people who are y seen as equally desirable. Also, a mix is of these methods is possible.
One critique that is often brought up is the preselection: It essentially ensures that only a small bubble of potential partners will be presented to the user. It is, however, questionable whether this mechanism really is inferior to more “old fashioned” approaches. Because when being introduced by friends or family members, one also tends to date within their our “bubble”. | | | | |
>
> | Critique of Dating Apps
The critique of dating apps is endless and a detailed discussion would be pushing the limits of this essay: They boost the transmission of STDs, are discriminatory regarding the preselection of partners, further eating disorders and anxiety due to the permanent comparison with other, seemingly more suitable partners, enable hook-ups and discourage long lasting relationships due to the apparent infinity supply of opportunities and therefore lead to more frequent breakups, as people tend to be less willing to work on their problems but rather connect with someone else. And while I don’t want to deny any of these critics right any, I would like to point out that (1) there is some scientific data that suggest that couples who have met online are less likely to divorce (https://news.uchicago.edu/story/meeting-online-leads-happier-more-enduring-marriages) and (2) that relationship values and expectation have drastically changed over the last couple of decades with gender equality defining new role models. Therefore, the observed effects could not only be caused by the phenomenon of dating apps solely, but by general change of society. However, I would like to discuss two paradox aspects of online dating in particular. | | | | |
<
< | Possible effects of the process
It is often assumed that people using dating apps will not commit to long lasting, devoted relationships. And the arguments appear to be compelling: Dating apps would lose their best costumers if they were actually “designed to be deleted” (Hinge). By now, it is proven that the self-worth of the users is very likely to be impacted by the validation of other users: Every time a user achieves a match, a little firework of hormones starts in their brain, validating their self-worth. It seems very likely possible that the feeling of self-worth validation eventually becomes addictive and therefore, users would be compelled to use those apps rather than deleting them. Another popular theory that is often mentioned is that the sheer number on people using the service creates a fear-of-missing-out effect. They won’t commit to a new partner, because within the millions of users, there is a high probability that they can always find a better partner. Personally, I cannot back up this hypothesis with anecdotical evidence. On the contrary, many of the current spouses in the US met online. There are also studies that suggest that couples who have met online are less likely to divorce (https://news.uchicago.edu/story/meeting-online-leads-happier-more-enduring-marriages). (Please note that there is also a study suggesting the opposite. After 10 years of significant use of dating apps, the long-term data just start to be reliable). Also, I strongly urge to consider that there might be other reasons for an increased divorce rate or an increased single rate than meeting the significant other online. In the last decades, the understanding of relationships has significantly changed. People appear to be pickier about their partner and their expectations towards a relationship. When, for most of mankind, the focus of a marriage was to secure social and financial security, social norms have shifted rapidly within the last few decades, focusing more on partnership and the fulfillment of individual needs. Instead of focusing on one career, a lot of relationships aspire to focus on two careers which creates an additional obstacle. Also, more lifestyles are accepted than just a couple of decades ago which leads to more freedom on the one hand but also to more restraint in choosing a partnership. And finally, I feel that is important to stress that more women have become financially independent in the last decade, meaning they are not forced to stay in an unhappy relationship due to financial reasons. All these circumstances could factor into a higher divorce rate and fewer relationships to begin with, regardless from whether the partners have met over Tinder or have been set up by friends. | >
> | Monetization of Love
While most basic functions on dating apps are free, most apps continue to move to fee based offers that enable the user to e.g. match more people, match more desired users or to become a desired user as well by placing them favorably into the algorithm. And while this monetization of love might have some value in areas that are suffering from a strong imbalance of users (e.g. an imbalance of gender), one could highly question the ability to base a relationship on the manipulated algorithm. If we assume that a match is based on preferred features such as looks, age, academic achievements, astrological signs etc., then the probability of a real exchange or date drastically increases if the users are not necessarily matched to what they truly desire. So the purchase of such premium features is per se questionable, not being mentioned that the monetization and following manipulation of feelings such as love deem to be very unromantic. But they might also constitute a vicious circle: why would a dating app dare to lose its best, because paying, customers? Therefore, the providers have to develop a mechanism that keeps paying users interested in the app by preventing them from either finding a long-term partner (and hence deleting the app) or from being frustrated by the ill success of finding a partner and therefore deleting the app. So, it must rely on an algorithm that creates a push and pull mechanism, giving the user just enough positive outcome to keep them on the app but not enough to make them delete it. | | | | |
>
> | Keeping the Fish in the Pool
These considerations must not only be applied to paying users but also to users who only subscribe to the free of charge subscription. Because firstly, those apps finance themselves over advertisement. More users equal higher paying clients. Secondly, in order to attract new users, the already existing pool of users must remain big enough as more potential partners promise a higher probability of finding the seemingly perfect match. Therefore, it is necessary to create the push and pull mechanism despite the claim that the app is “made to be deleted” (Hinge). | | | | |
<
< | Other implications
So, if there is no reliable data on whether dating apps lead to more fulfilling relationships or not, there might still be compelling arguments for not using dating apps apart from the romance factor. The first one is that those apps collect a lot of sensitive data: apart from obvious data like name or age, sexual orientation or geolocation data are necessary to use those apps. Some of them collect even more information like religion, education or so on. The algorithm is also able to draw massive conclusion from those data: If two users had a match and their geolocation data suggests the same location over hours, possibly overnight, it can be concluded that the users engaged in a sexual relationship. Or the service shares those kinds of sensitive data with third parties for targeted marketing which could also lead to unwanted disclosure of personal information. The only way to avoid these perils completely is to meet people in a bar. | | | | |
<
< |
I think the best route to improvement here is to consider a little further the effect of the engagement-first paradigm of parasite-infected "social media." Despite the "designed to be deleted" claim at Hinge, the actual purpose of any engagement-based technology is not to achieve results that cause less usage or fewer infectable users. So of course the platforms do not provide data on their ability to decrease their value. And as they all move towards "premium" monetization models that bias the dating pool based on ability to pay, there is no reason to suppose that their historical performance (even if accurately described) has anything to do with their present effect.
Your "this or the bar" alternative might also be usefully reconsidered. Why can we not use the technologies of many-to-many communication that the web affords to help people meet one another without adopting engagement-focused, advertising infected ways of doing so. People used the Net to meet before there was a Web, and certainly before there was advertising. Surely it is not so difficult to imagine the future possibility of behaviors I remember from my own past, four decades ago?
| >
> | Alternatives
All these arguments are compelling against dating apps. Still, they count millions o users: how does this “match” the disadvantages? One explanation could be that the pool of possibilities is what keeps the users drawn to these services. Secondly, most apps are radio based, ensuring that the potential love interest is nearby. And thirdly, due to the diversity and specialization of dating apps, he advantages of joining a club, meeting at a place of worship or meeting each other at a work event: similar interests are retained as the same faith or the same professional passion can create a common ground. But dating apps have, in my opinion, one especially strong drawing factor: The fear of being rejected is lower, as no face-to-face interaction happens until a match is achieved. The anxiety whether one is liked back (hence validated) is just not as high since a conversation does not begin until the validation based upon looks (“match”) is achieved. The last drawing factor could be recreated with online spaces that resemble newspaper announces, online forums where users post a search with the information they are willing to submit into the public and give interested others the opportunity to reach out to them. | | |
|
|