Incentives matter less when the app doesn’t control your matches. That’s why we created Fynd, a nonprofit dating app where you’re in charge of your search. With a powerful set of filters, you choose who you see, giving you full autonomy over your experience. Try Fynd at https://fynd.one or check us out on Product Hunt. https://www.producthunt.com/posts/fynd-3
A dating app should gently guide you through processing your childhood bonding experiences, less helpful core beliefs (easy to quiz you about and refine a local analysis; no need to collect/share), reprocess previous relationships and towards healthy behaviors around conflicts and emotional regulation of partner and self, paired with local real life group experiences around boundaries and touch, and family constellations type sessions sprinkled with gamification aspects. You could show short clips of real world conflicts in relationships and parenting and quiz users how they would react - not because it is about parenting but because how you treat children is a useful indicator for how you deal with stress and power dynamics and emotional distress in those close to you.
I like the idea of scientist-run dating apps, although it does create its own potential conflicts of interest: the purity of the experiment and publishibility of experiments vs the needs of the participants.
I do think overall part of the reason dating experiences are so bad is that people aren't that good at identifying what traits are actually important in a partner for them, nor determining whether an individual has those traits.
Definitely seems like a space ripe for disruption in any case.
Most dating apps exist to milk socially-unsuccessful people for as long as possible as a simulacrum for developing friends and social skills. These are instead a logical business model extension of technofeudalism mediation and commodification of all aspects of life with pay-to-play technological intermediaries. If any of the social media or dating apps were honest and prosocial ventures (orthogonal to profits), they'd instead focus on social skills improvements, positive social leadership/initiative, connecting people, and being secondary to encouraging expediency, reckless behavior, outrage exploitation, and superficial interactions simply because it counted as engagement and ad impressions. Community and reconnecting people would be the "killer app" that would make dating apps more/less pointless except for flings.
Incentives matter less when the app doesn’t control your matches. That’s why we created Fynd, a nonprofit dating app where you’re in charge of your search. With a powerful set of filters, you choose who you see, giving you full autonomy over your experience. Try Fynd at https://fynd.one or check us out on Product Hunt. https://www.producthunt.com/posts/fynd-3
A dating app should gently guide you through processing your childhood bonding experiences, less helpful core beliefs (easy to quiz you about and refine a local analysis; no need to collect/share), reprocess previous relationships and towards healthy behaviors around conflicts and emotional regulation of partner and self, paired with local real life group experiences around boundaries and touch, and family constellations type sessions sprinkled with gamification aspects. You could show short clips of real world conflicts in relationships and parenting and quiz users how they would react - not because it is about parenting but because how you treat children is a useful indicator for how you deal with stress and power dynamics and emotional distress in those close to you.
See for example the Global Dyads project.
https://www.globaldyadmeditation.org/
https://archive.ph/qz9ii
I like the idea of scientist-run dating apps, although it does create its own potential conflicts of interest: the purity of the experiment and publishibility of experiments vs the needs of the participants.
I do think overall part of the reason dating experiences are so bad is that people aren't that good at identifying what traits are actually important in a partner for them, nor determining whether an individual has those traits.
Definitely seems like a space ripe for disruption in any case.
> I like the idea of scientist-run dating apps,
Sounds like eugenics.
[dead]
Most dating apps exist to milk socially-unsuccessful people for as long as possible as a simulacrum for developing friends and social skills. These are instead a logical business model extension of technofeudalism mediation and commodification of all aspects of life with pay-to-play technological intermediaries. If any of the social media or dating apps were honest and prosocial ventures (orthogonal to profits), they'd instead focus on social skills improvements, positive social leadership/initiative, connecting people, and being secondary to encouraging expediency, reckless behavior, outrage exploitation, and superficial interactions simply because it counted as engagement and ad impressions. Community and reconnecting people would be the "killer app" that would make dating apps more/less pointless except for flings.