Came across this argument on twitter the other day.
Human attraction (specifically for women) requires repeat exposure with low stakes. That used to happen when people met the old fashioned way through college, workplaces, social circles etc. Dating apps do the opposite: meet once, on romantic terms, and decide immediately if it ever happens again.
I think there is some truth to this.
Instant chemistry does happen for women but only with a small minority of guys (the ones getting most of the matches). That is why most regular guys rarely get strong IOIs in public and experience very low match rates on the apps even when they swipe right on basically every halfway decent girl.
Women also have so many options they do not have the opportunity to give guys a chance. So filtering by instant chemistry is efficient for them as well. As is rejecting guys for bizarre reasons (the so called "ick"). Most guys do not get past the first date as a result.
Obviously even in a slow burn scenario she has to find you attractive to some degree. But the threshold is set a lot lower and in classic chick logic she becomes more physically attracted to you the more she likes you. And there have actually been some psychological studies on this e.g. mere exposure effect whereby repeated exposures build familiarity, trust, comfort and often liking.
I am not sure I completely buy the "sapiosexual" and "demisexual" labels. However there is clearly some variability in the importance women place on looks but of course if looks are the only variable they have to go on then even these women will still have to filter by looks and only swipe right on the most attractive guys. Although you can sometimes hook a girl if you can arouse her curiosity or challenge her.
Guys are obviously very visual but I can think of scenarios where a cute girl I wouldn't look at twice on the street has grown on me because of her charm, personality and because we got each other.
For this reason a lot of regular guys do well with things like co-ed sports, running groups, Crossfit, social dancing etc. Also most of the male friends I have who are married met their wife at school/college and in many cases the woman is of equivalent or higher attractiveness. Most guys on dating apps have to date down and for the most part that has been my experience. That isn't so bad if you just want to sleep with as many women as possible and that happens a lot quicker when there is instant chemistry and even a regular looking guy will be "hot" to a small minority of women. But for relationships I'm not convinced dating apps are the way to go if you want someone of equivalent attractiveness that you'll be happy with long term.
And dating apps in a well meaning attempt to respond to user complaints of endless conversations, ghosting etc are introducing even higher pressure models e.g. limiting messaging before a date, time limited matches, forcing you to commit to a date once matched etc.
I got back from Rome and over there social circle is still the predominant way people meet and there were a lot more couples and a lot more were looks-matched. People seemed happier as well.
Human attraction (specifically for women) requires repeat exposure with low stakes. That used to happen when people met the old fashioned way through college, workplaces, social circles etc. Dating apps do the opposite: meet once, on romantic terms, and decide immediately if it ever happens again.
I think there is some truth to this.
Instant chemistry does happen for women but only with a small minority of guys (the ones getting most of the matches). That is why most regular guys rarely get strong IOIs in public and experience very low match rates on the apps even when they swipe right on basically every halfway decent girl.
Women also have so many options they do not have the opportunity to give guys a chance. So filtering by instant chemistry is efficient for them as well. As is rejecting guys for bizarre reasons (the so called "ick"). Most guys do not get past the first date as a result.
Obviously even in a slow burn scenario she has to find you attractive to some degree. But the threshold is set a lot lower and in classic chick logic she becomes more physically attracted to you the more she likes you. And there have actually been some psychological studies on this e.g. mere exposure effect whereby repeated exposures build familiarity, trust, comfort and often liking.
I am not sure I completely buy the "sapiosexual" and "demisexual" labels. However there is clearly some variability in the importance women place on looks but of course if looks are the only variable they have to go on then even these women will still have to filter by looks and only swipe right on the most attractive guys. Although you can sometimes hook a girl if you can arouse her curiosity or challenge her.
Guys are obviously very visual but I can think of scenarios where a cute girl I wouldn't look at twice on the street has grown on me because of her charm, personality and because we got each other.
For this reason a lot of regular guys do well with things like co-ed sports, running groups, Crossfit, social dancing etc. Also most of the male friends I have who are married met their wife at school/college and in many cases the woman is of equivalent or higher attractiveness. Most guys on dating apps have to date down and for the most part that has been my experience. That isn't so bad if you just want to sleep with as many women as possible and that happens a lot quicker when there is instant chemistry and even a regular looking guy will be "hot" to a small minority of women. But for relationships I'm not convinced dating apps are the way to go if you want someone of equivalent attractiveness that you'll be happy with long term.
And dating apps in a well meaning attempt to respond to user complaints of endless conversations, ghosting etc are introducing even higher pressure models e.g. limiting messaging before a date, time limited matches, forcing you to commit to a date once matched etc.
I got back from Rome and over there social circle is still the predominant way people meet and there were a lot more couples and a lot more were looks-matched. People seemed happier as well.
