Thanks for sharing your insights, Ann. I don't have a "settled" opinion on whether your theory of dating would scale, but I'll just share quickly my two largest worries upon reading your article.
1. Misaligned incentives. You mentioned it briefly at the end based on what Spencer wrote, but I think the problem deserves much larger consideration — and hence care. Profit making, under the capitalist framework, works reasonably well to increase social and material wealth, but only as long as its core assumptions are sufficiently met. One of those assumptions is that the buyer knows exactly what they'll get in return. Dating apps are very bad at that, especially the ones that ask to pay per "service" rather than something tangible like a "relationship obtained". So the system fails to convert market signals into a price that reflects the product value.
The even bigger issue with paid dating apps is that it's one of those rare things that, in economic terms, you ideally "consume" only once (for the majority of people; seeking monogamy). You pay for a relationship, get the best one and done. Pure profit making would get the incentives to keep the people on the app through ads or subscriptions, and near-misses to kindle their hope. This fact really cannot be overstated, and is the reason why running a dating app like any other company is doomed to stay extremely sub-optimal; it may work for some but at a terrible psychological and financial cost to the population as a whole. We, EAs, should aspire at something truly, altruistically effective.
Of course, I'm pretty hopeful that Settled is meant to maximize social well-being as opposed to pure profit. But the fact that Settled is registered under a for-profit commercial entity doesn't help.
People are aware of those, especially in EA circles. And trust is one of the most important factors for the success of a dating app (since, as I said, its value is not tangible at purchase).
2. Separation between relationships and friendships. Lots of research, including from some of the authors you mentioned, shows that people found their life partner mostly through mutual friends in the past. I personally think this is a better way than organized dates. People find a life partner through shared values, not unlike friends. Separating the two seems counter to the EA culture, in my opinion. Most of my stable romantic relationships emerged organically from friendships. Would be great to have more research on that to see the effect of the meeting origin (friends, app, etc.) on relationship outcomes (satisfaction, duration, etc.). Lmk if you have any seen any research on the matter!
Also I'm wondering what's your take on this and why you chose to go that road with your company.
Bonded by Evolution is a nice book to explore relationships from an evidence-based perspective if you're interested.
Thanks for sharing your insights, Ann. I don't have a "settled" opinion on whether your theory of dating would scale, but I'll just share quickly my two largest worries upon reading your article.
1. Misaligned incentives.
You mentioned it briefly at the end based on what Spencer wrote, but I think the problem deserves much larger consideration — and hence care. Profit making, under the capitalist framework, works reasonably well to increase social and material wealth, but only as long as its core assumptions are sufficiently met. One of those assumptions is that the buyer knows exactly what they'll get in return. Dating apps are very bad at that, especially the ones that ask to pay per "service" rather than something tangible like a "relationship obtained". So the system fails to convert market signals into a price that reflects the product value.
The even bigger issue with paid dating apps is that it's one of those rare things that, in economic terms, you ideally "consume" only once (for the majority of people; seeking monogamy). You pay for a relationship, get the best one and done. Pure profit making would get the incentives to keep the people on the app through ads or subscriptions, and near-misses to kindle their hope. This fact really cannot be overstated, and is the reason why running a dating app like any other company is doomed to stay extremely sub-optimal; it may work for some but at a terrible psychological and financial cost to the population as a whole. We, EAs, should aspire at something truly, altruistically effective.
Of course, I'm pretty hopeful that Settled is meant to maximize social well-being as opposed to pure profit. But the fact that Settled is registered under a for-profit commercial entity doesn't help.
People are aware of those, especially in EA circles. And trust is one of the most important factors for the success of a dating app (since, as I said, its value is not tangible at purchase).
2. Separation between relationships and friendships.
Lots of research, including from some of the authors you mentioned, shows that people found their life partner mostly through mutual friends in the past. I personally think this is a better way than organized dates. People find a life partner through shared values, not unlike friends. Separating the two seems counter to the EA culture, in my opinion. Most of my stable romantic relationships emerged organically from friendships. Would be great to have more research on that to see the effect of the meeting origin (friends, app, etc.) on relationship outcomes (satisfaction, duration, etc.). Lmk if you have any seen any research on the matter!
Also I'm wondering what's your take on this and why you chose to go that road with your company.
Bonded by Evolution is a nice book to explore relationships from an evidence-based perspective if you're interested.