‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Singapore govt dating app uses Gale-Shapley stable marriage algorithm

466 points · 499 comments · rzk

  1. purplepatrick · · focus · HN ↗
    Cute. Of course, beyond basic deal breakers, neither do people know their preferences (but they think they do), nor do the majority of preference categories actually matter.

    This is a common problem with all dating apps. Specifically, interests, hobbies, daily routines, objectives, etc. have nothing to do with compatibility.

    “We like the same things!” is the compatibility signal of a naive 22-yr old…

    1. Gigachad · · focus · HN ↗
      IMO the largest problem is that there is an enormous amount of friction to go from getting a match on an app to actually meeting them in real life. Which means it just doesn't happen that often. What we need is physical spaces where people can meet in person for a low or zero cost. That eliminates the friction of actually seeing someone because they are already there in front of you.
      1. alexey-salmin · · focus · HN ↗
        This used to be the workplace: observing a big group of people over long periods of time when they don't pretend to charm you. Are they kind? How do they treat others? Are they secure? Are they ambitious? Are they hardworking? What do they talk about on the lunch break?

        Meeting people from dating apps is quite literally the opposite of that: one person at a time, extremely short period of time, they can pretend, no or little interactions with third parties (how they treat a waiter maybe).

        I honestly believe that making workplace dating something frowned upon (or even a terminable offence sometimes) was a huge disservice to society. People spends most of their adult life going to work but are supposed to squeeze the search for a partner into the little time and energy that remains outside of work.

        1. mystifyingpoi · · focus · HN ↗
          Exactly. Using a dating app is just asking for being lied to.

          Also, the whole concept of finding your significant other by ONLY going out on dates is... kinda broken in concept? It's not really that hard to pretend to be someone else for a few hours a week.

          1. HPsquared · · focus · HN ↗
            Indeed, a lot of people treat meeting a partner as a step on some planned self transformational journey, where they try and manifest "the new me" .. a recipe for misleading the other party.
            1. bmn__ · · focus · HN ↗
              That's literally the first time I've heard of that. I think that in reality there are not a lot of people who think as you describe, and I believe the most likely explanation for your conclusion is that you're in a bubble.
              1. HPsquared · · focus · HN ↗
                Same with getting a new job, moving house or having a child. Any "big commitment move" involves long term hopes and intentions that are often fanciful.
        2. Gigachad · · focus · HN ↗
          I think safety has also taken a back step in modern dating. Previously you could ask around what a person was like and like you said, observe them passively. Now you are meeting a total stranger, you don't know anyone they know or anything about them.

          An awful person gets to just reset their reputation every time, and in turn, people assume the worst by default.

          1. riffraff · · focus · HN ↗
            Isn't that always been the case for people you met at a bar/club/cafe?

            I'm sure a lot of couples met through friends of friends but the date with someone you barely know has always been a thing, I believe.

            1. HPsquared · · focus · HN ↗
              Even "meeting at a bar" would usually have been among friend groups, not atomic individuals meeting in isolation.
            2. not-kinsale-joe · · focus · HN ↗
              Kind of but things were more local back then so degrees of separation were smaller.
            3. DharmaPolice · · focus · HN ↗
              As someone who used to go clubbing a lot there was more social interconnections than you might expect. Excluding tourists most of the people you met ended up being people who knew people you knew. Men/women with behavioural issues would often get a reputation. And there was a culture (especially among women, understandably) of warning someone if it looked like they were about to hook up with someone known to have some sort of form.

              When adoption of social media started to ramp up (on MySpace initially) it quickly became apparent that most of the seemingly random people you met were all on each others friends lists.

          2. gumby · · focus · HN ↗
            In some ways it’s easier. In my 40s I was meeting ppl online and one mentioned that she knew my name, where I had gone to university, and from those starting points learned a lot about me. Not enough to sustain more than a few dates but at least she knew I was not a convicted mass killer. And nowadays reverse image search and such means you can scope out your prospective date’s background.

            Around the same time I met my now wife online and it turns out I knew several of her neighbours (she knew them all), had visited some of them, yet she and I had never met. So community cred isn’t automatic.

            And I have friends who met in a bar 30-odd years ago, both who were there alone. So…?

        3. Turskarama · · focus · HN ↗
          Clubs are still imo one of the best ways to meet people for all the reasons you give. You have at least one thing in common which is a conversation starter and there's opportunity to meet more people. Also the average person could stand to socialise with strangers more in person.
          1. dansquizsoft · · focus · HN ↗
            How do you speak over the loud music though?
            1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

              [deleted]

            2. tirant · · focus · HN ↗
              You get closer, if necessary to the point your lips almost touch their face. What millions of people have done during decades. And that’s the point, yes.
            3. ninalanyon · · focus · HN ↗
              LOL.

              Just in case you were serious I think they meant clubs like a sewing circle, crown green bowling, tennis, the local brass band, civic action groups, etc. In other words associations of one kind or another, in tech. terms special interest groups.

              1. exe34 · · focus · HN ↗
                Just be attractive though. Otherwise it's "eww women go to clubs to enjoy their hobbies, not to be approached by creepy men"

                (I'm gay, but I listen to and observe a lot of straight people in their natural habitats).

                1. whstl · · focus · HN ↗
                  Haha, yes. I just keep watching those discussions online it's really predictable how it would go.

                  The advice for some time was almost universally that one should "volunteer", join "hobby clubs", or even go do "women-centric activities" or even "women-centric events" and "feminist groups" to meet people. Often women would recommend that.

                  Well, naturally the people doing those activities wouldn't enjoy being approached, and you'd have this parallel online universe where women complain about people approaching them in hobby groups.

                  1. watwut · · focus · HN ↗
                    The actual advice was to widen your social circle and become more well rounded individual. It is not surprising that a heterosexual guy who socializes exclusively in male only group will be able to pair with males only.

                    That creates a situation in which you can create coupling like normal people do. Which incidentally did not used to be "hit at random girl you just encountered".

                    1. exe34 · · focus · HN ↗
                      > not used to be "hit at random girl you just encountered".

                      Heard that one too, and the corresponding "eww he only pretended to be my friend because he wanted to make a pass at me".

                      1. watwut · · focus · HN ↗
                        Yes, it is also possible to pretended to be friend in order to make a pass. Which is not the same thing as being a friend who has romantic interest. The trick for you here is that you need to image women/girls as full people and normal relationship with them.

                        That girl is looking for genuine authentic connection, you are looking for sexual access. And in that case, part of your evaluation should involve searching for women who want those physical only relationships.

                        But again, the thread was about forming long term relationships, this is different matter.

                        1. exe34 · · focus · HN ↗
                          As i said, I really don't care, this doesn't apply to me. I'm gay.
                          1. whstl · · focus · HN ↗
                            It's amazing how people in this website can go "it's all very easy you just misunderstood the point" and mansplain every single topic that appears in here, when they themselves can't even understand or follow a simple discussion.

                            I blame Youtube and coaching culture. Everyone thinks they're an expert now and must spread their genius.

                  2. mrguyorama · · focus · HN ↗
                    The problem is people taking "Join a club" as meaning "The club is a source of women and nothing else"

                    Very dumb boys then go to the club meeting, immediately try to pick up women, and it doesn't work because that was not the recommendation.

                    You are supposed to get engaged with a club you care about, participate genuinely, meet new people and make new friendships, and like all of human history, that is very likely to randomly result in you finding someone you hit it off with.

                    Boys still tend to think they are trying to shotgun pickup lines as a good method.

                    Basically, the underlying problem is roughly the same in all those situations: You have to understand, respect, and treat the women in those groups the same way you treat anyone else. How often do you join a new tech related club and start hitting on the same sex members of that club for example?

                    1. whstl · · focus · HN ↗
                      You and the other guy are still pretending that this ridiculously horrible advice is defensible or justifiable.

                      Volunteering as way to eventually meet woman? It was a nonsensical idea 5 years ago, still is now.

                2. AndrewDucker · · focus · HN ↗
                  Part of the effect of spending time around other people is that you get to know them, discover which ones aren't creepy, and develop connections with them. And, over the age of 25, the personal connection starts to matter more and more for people than "Are they hot or not?"
              2. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
                Nightclubs are also pretty cool though. Especially ones that have chill-out areas a bit away from the music. But I'm biased as I live in Berlin at the moment.
            4. ruined · · focus · HN ↗
              step out for a smoke
          2. icantevenhold · · focus · HN ↗
            I have the inverse experience - the last thing I would want is to hook up with some random in a club, I’m here for the music and dancing, please don’t shout in my ear on the dance floor or pull some other weird move
          3. Turskarama · · focus · HN ↗
            I'm way too late to edit this post so I should be clear: I did mean "doing stuff" clubs not "loud music and dancing" clubs, though I'm sure they can work for some people too.

            Also I wouldn't recommend joining clubs _just_ to try and meet potential partners. You should join a club that's for something you're actually interested in, if you would leave the club just because you failed to meet someone then it was a bad fit from the start.

        4. chii · · focus · HN ↗
          > This used to be the workplace ... making workplace dating something frowned upon

          because the owner of the business do not want relationship frictions to affect people's work.

          1. HPsquared · · focus · HN ↗
            Yet another example of capitalism eroding the social fabric.
            1. whstl · · focus · HN ↗
              Kinda funny that the three YCombinator startups I worked at had founders who hired their significant others.

              Capitalism for thee but not for me.

              1. aleph_minus_one · · focus · HN ↗
                > the three YCombinator startups I worked at had founders who hired their significant others.

                Often, this is done for tax reasons.

          2. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

          3. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

          4. b800h · · focus · HN ↗
            That has nothing to do with it. It's due to legal liability.
            1. mrngld · · focus · HN ↗
              No, that became a norm in management thinking back when HR was just a back-office role processing time sheets and punch-cards.

              Even today, the primary concern when I'm talking to other managers dealing with job applications from family members (including kids) and even friends of existing employees is "How does the existing employee react if it doesn't work out and we have to fire their spouse/kid/best friend?"

              Better to avoid that drama entirely. (edit: EASIER to avoid that drama, I should say, but perhaps not always better)

              And if you don't think management isn't at least 60% drama control between team members you've never been in management of a diverse set of people, which is why the best engineer, the best electrician, etc doesn't necessarily make the best manager, etc. Different skill sets, different universe of concerns.

              1. hnal943 · · focus · HN ↗
                No, sexual harassment laws in the 80s and 90s changed the workplace dynamic because the company is liable for the behavior of their employees.
        5. watwut · · focus · HN ↗
          Workplace used to be where people mostly met their partners? It occasionally happened, but I do not think it was THE place for it. The place for it was that people socialized in person and your partner was part of extended friends group or otherwise originated as acquittance from some activity.
        6. Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
          It's just another example of social change which was made for good reasons but has resulted in negative outcomes. Companies wanted to reduce the risk of accusations of workplace misconduct in the wake of #metoo. This reduced misconduct, but at massive social cost.

          Another example is that most economists admit that as women entered the workforce en masse, prices settled higher for the same goods and services. Now survival requires two incomes instead of one. It was a massive net loss to society, but we also agree that women should be free to work if they would like, without barriers. We see similar things with women becoming educated. The more educated women become, the fewer children they have. That's really bad for society, but we also want women to be free to become as educated as they like.

          Sadly I see no easy solutions here because it requires weighing individual and societ-wide rights. Companies aren't going to risk higher rates of misconduct to benefit society broadly. These are collective action problems, and unless we find ways of individualising the problem, they're only going to get worse.

          1. neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
            >It was a massive net loss to society

            Yeah if you totally ignore the unprecedented crazy high standard of living developed over trillions of work-hours.

            1. I-M-S · · focus · HN ↗
              That standard of living is more due to work-hours put in by people with a much lower standard of living. Often from what is sometimes condescendingly called "third world countries".
              1. mrngld · · focus · HN ↗
                That's not how economics works. Everyone pretty much everywhere throughout history has worked, they've worked because if you don't work it eventually means you starve, so people in less wealthy countries didn't just start working since 1990. And yet, since 1990 the number living in extreme poverty globally fell from 2.3 billion to roughly 831 million, the big majority of those in sub-Sahara Africa.

                <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;end-progress-extreme-poverty" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;end-progress-extreme-poverty

                Random citation, I think the situation is actually a little better than they do, but that&#x27;ll do since they present some data in an easy to read way.

                The standard of living went up because productivity and value creation went up significantly. That&#x27;s the only way that happens.

            2. Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
              This is easily refuted. [In 1950, food, transport, and housing consumed 70.3% of median working household expenditure. Today is it 63.3%.](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;opub&#x2F;100-years-of-u-s-consumer-spending.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;opub&#x2F;100-years-of-u-s-consumer-spending....) In 1950, 87% of family households were married couples, and only 21% of married women participated in the labour force. Today, 62% of cohabiting couples have both partners working. Households are earning more, but prices rose almost commensurately. If you were correct, the proportion spent on necessities would be far lower.

              I will concede that luxury goods are far cheaper, and perhaps one could make an argument that cheap TVs are a reasonable concession for expensive food and housing. I would not agree with that.

              1. mrngld · · focus · HN ↗
                You didn&#x27;t compare apples to apples, housing in 1950 was radically different than housing in 2026. Homes today are significantly larger, better insulated, vastly more robust construction codes, more technology incorporated (not least of which is air conditioning, which was just starting to be a notable thing in the 50s, didn&#x27;t become truly mainstream until the 70s).

                Real estate is a very local thing, so I can&#x27;t speak to your area, but 1950s equivalent homes in my area are still impressively cheap. Why? People aren&#x27;t interested in a 900 to 1000sqft home with no central AC. There&#x27;s cities in this country that will give a run down property like that to you for free if you agree to live in that little town for a certain number of years, or at least there used to be. Those things come and go.

                Also, because that&#x27;s not what they want, the neighborhood becomes a meth lab. But if people actually wanted those homes that issue would resolve itself.

                The data doesn&#x27;t all support this common misconception. Really, it&#x27;s an intentional deception on the part of many people who know better.

                1. Grombobulous · · focus · HN ↗
                  Some reasons why your dismissal may not hold up:

                  1. In many jurisdictions, many of the homes built in the mid-century can’t be built anymore due to modern code and zoning ordinances.

                  2. Building the same 1950s home, if it’s legal at all, is more expensive than it was back then. Materials and labor are more expensive.

                  3. Air conditioning is more of a necessity as global temperatures increase and as employment centers move south. If I can’t get a job in Detroit but I can get one in Arizona, then yes I need air conditioning.

                  4. Consumers are generally not in control of what housing is available on the market. Builders don’t build homes for lower middle class people because they’re not profitable. Nobody is forcing them to build the kind of homes the lower middle class can afford.

                2. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
                  Homes built today are being built with all corners cut, into a market that doesn&#x27;t seem to care as long as there is a house. They may be big, but they&#x27;re bigger than people actually need and there aren&#x27;t any smaller ones, so that&#x27;s a bit like saying phone users don&#x27;t want headphone jacks. Better insulated, yes, probably. But was that ever a huge issue?
              2. neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
                I don&#x27;t disagree with your stats but the jump from &quot;households have to work more&quot; to &quot;society is worse off&quot; is a personal value judgement. Seriously would you rather spawn as a random person in the 1950s than random person now?
              3. hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
                The housing is better. Square footage per person for example has approximately doubled.

                Also, in Chart 1 on page 6, &quot;expenditure share for non-necessities&quot; in the US goes from about 32.5% in 1950 to fully 50% in 2002-2003.

                It would be nice if you told us the page from which you got your, &quot;in 1950, food, transport, and housing consumed 70.3% of median working household expenditure.&quot; Searching for your text verbatim fails, which is not particularly surprising because PDFs cannot be searched reliably.

                Also because 1950 is considered by some to be a particularly prosperous time in the US, some might accused you of cherry picking. For example, in 1918-1919, the &quot;expenditure share for non-necessities&quot; was about 22%.

          2. watwut · · focus · HN ↗
            #meetoo was about abuse and not wanting to pay the social cost of that. Complaining about it and stopping it is a social good. There is massive social cost to abuse, even if abusers and their friends like to pretend otherwise. There is no wide social benefit of males being able to abuse those around - whether women or other men.

            Somehow your weighting of social weighing individual vs society-wide rights ends up with very self serving &quot;other peoples rights are hindrance, I should be in positions to do whatever to them, that is social good&quot;.

            1. Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
              I don&#x27;t think you read my comment before you replied (or the comment I replied to). I encourage you to take another look. It&#x27;s hard to meaningfully respond to a non-sequitur.

              To reiterate, the social cost discussed is the inability for people to form relationships at work. I acknowledge all of the costs of people being harassed at work. That&#x27;s bad. I hope you read this comment and understand that I am not disagreeing with you.

              1. watwut · · focus · HN ↗
                I did read it and my response was not non-sequitur.

                1.) Meetoo did not meaningfully changed peoples ability to &quot;form relationships&quot; in work.

                2.) Meetoo did not even meaningfully changed ability to abuse, abusers even had their own backslash.

                3.) Pre-metoo, while people sometimes formed relationships at workplace, it was not the primary way to form relationships. Plus, companies did not wanted the drama from predictable breakups anyway (which is the primary source of issues with workplace dating).

                4.) This is triple funny on HN, where most men work in male dominated or male only teams.

                1. Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
                  You continue to soapbox without addressing the content of this discussion. I&#x27;ll try one more time.

                  &gt; Meetoo did not meaningfully changed peoples ability to &quot;form relationships&quot; in work.

                  You are confidently incorrect. [People widely reported a stifling effect on office relationships.](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;legacy.vault.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;workplace-issues&#x2F;2018-vault-office-romance-survey-results" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;legacy.vault.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;workplace-issues&#x2F;2018-vault-o...) More than 1 in 4 said #metoo made them less accepting of workplace romance. 43% considered relationships between workers at different levels unacceptable - 15% higher after #metoo.

                  &gt; Meetoo did not even meaningfully changed ability to abuse, abusers even had their own backslash.

                  This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. I understand you have strong feelings about this but I need you to understand that from the bottom of my heart, I do not care about your feelings.

                  &gt; Pre-metoo, while people sometimes formed relationships at workplace, it was not the primary way to form relationships. Plus, companies did not wanted the drama from predictable breakups anyway (which is the primary source of issues with workplace dating).

                  No one claimed it was the primary mode of forming relationships.

                  &gt; This is triple funny on HN, where most men work in male dominated or male only teams.

                  This is one step removed from, &quot;men are stupid, am I right, ladies?&quot; Your disdain for men, the users on Hacker News, or whatever villain you&#x27;ve concocted in your mind prevents you from having a normal conversation like a normal person.

                  This has been a thoroughly uninteresting waste of time. I suspect you became lost on your way to some protest or &#x2F;r&#x2F;Politics.

                  1. ballmerpoint · · focus · HN ↗
                    &gt; Vault&#x27;s 2018 office romance survey received 654 responses from professionals in a number of industries. Approximately 70% of responses came from the Law, Banking, Accounting and Consulting professions. A further 7% came from professionals in the Technology sector.

                    This survey is weak evidence based on a small number of self-reports. Population was not representative of the American work force c. 2018. Their call for submissions heavily primed the pump:

                    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;vault.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;general-articles&#x2F;take-vaults-2018-office-romance-survey" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;vault.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;general-articles&#x2F;take-vaults-2018-of...

                    &gt; Have you ever had a fling with a colleague, hooked up with a coworker, or met your significant other through work? We want to hear about it (anonymously, of course!) in our latest Office Romance Survey, our most popular study which has been featured by Forbes, Newsweek, and NBC.

                    So of course the people with strong opinions are overrepresented. I suggest you find better data to support your own degree of confidence.

          3. hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
            &gt;most economists admit that as women entered the workforce en masse, prices settled higher for the same goods and services.

            Most economists emphatically do not admit or maintain that.

            Most might believe however that compensation settled slightly lower because the economy&#x27;s ability to create jobs lagged slightly behind the increase in the supply of workers.

          4. vasco · · focus · HN ↗
            Do you also think of all the things you could do if you didn&#x27;t have to sleep with such seriousness? Unless you actually don&#x27;t think women deserve those rights, why even spend time pondering such things? I don&#x27;t go around annoyed I can&#x27;t read books instead of sleep because I&#x27;ll always need sleep.
        7. pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
          There was a point in relatively recent history where, once people met in the workplace, the woman would be expected to leave. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Marriage_bar" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Marriage_bar
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.