Post: #1

link

Quote:Loose ties have traditionally played a key role in meeting partners. While most people were unlikely to date one of their best friends, they were highly likely to date people who were linked with their group of friends; a friend of a friend, for example. In the language of network theory, dating partners were embedded in each other’s networks.

Indeed, this has long been reflected in surveys of the way people meet their partners: through mutual friends, in bars, at work, in educational institutions, at church, through their families, and so on.

Online dating has changed that. Today, online dating is the second most common way for heterosexual couples to meet. For homosexual couples, it is far and away the most popular.

That has significant implications. “People who meet online tend to be complete strangers,” say Ortega and Hergovich. And when people meet in this way, it sets up social links that were previously nonexistent.

The question that Ortega and Hergovich investigate is how this changes the racial diversity of society. “Understanding the evolution of interracial marriage is an important problem, for intermarriage is widely considered a measure of social distance in our societies,” they say.

The researchers start by simulating what happens when extra links are introduced into a social network. Their network consists of men and women from different races who are randomly distributed. In this model, everyone wants to marry a person of the opposite sex but can only marry someone with whom a connection exists. This leads to a society with a relatively low level of interracial marriage.

But if the researchers add random links between people from different ethnic groups, the level of interracial marriage changes dramatically. “Our model predicts nearly complete racial integration upon the emergence of online dating, even if the number of partners that individuals meet from newly formed ties is small,” say Ortega and Hergovich.

Although the study does not explicitly say it, it implies that the graph is for married couples.

Major increase in couples meeting online or at restaurants/bars from 2000 to 2010. Interracial marriages are allegedly up as a result of exposure to more people.

More traditional ways of meeting are on the decline: family, friends, school, church, work. Sharp declines in church and work, which should not come as a surprise to anyone here.

No data after 2010.

I don't have any major observations other than the decline of traditional ways of meeting partners. Probably a sign of society being more atomized, decline of traditional institutions, and young people using the internet to fulfill socialization needs.

Also, no mention of "day game" as a category. Let's hope it stays that way.

Post: #2

Post: #3

(10-12-2017 02:09 PM)BlueMark Wrote:  No data after 2010.

When were Tinder, Bumble, and all those other ego-boosting and choice-paradox inducing apps for women invented?

Seems to me this data might be a bit dated....

Post: #4

(10-12-2017 02:24 PM)Diop Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 02:09 PM)BlueMark Wrote:  No data after 2010.

When were Tinder, Bumble, and all those other ego-boosting and choice-paradox inducing apps for women invented?
Seems to me this data might be a bit dated....

Yep. Show me a chart for how long these resulting "couples" are lasting and how evenly distributed the "coupling" across SMV.

Post: #5

Jesus Fucking Christ! These Faggots & Dykes are fucking lazy, useless & retarded! Just look at those graphs. None of them are cold approaching. That to me says it all about their fucked up culture.

And it's quite clear from the first graph, the abhorrent way this mindset is infecting the heterosexual.

Post: #6

How do you account for the small uptick in online meetings in the early 80's? Was there a dating disk on the commodore 64?

Aloha!

Post: #7

(10-13-2017 01:30 AM)Kona Wrote:  How do you account for the small uptick in online meetings in the early 80's? Was there a dating disk on the commodore 64?

Aloha!

a/s/l

Post: #8

Online dating is a scam. Girls already "cheat" by using makeup. Online they escalate it in a factor of five; filters, angles, beta orbiters likes, photoshoping to alter their hips, blur their skin...

Girls online have a false sense of superiority. As everyone knows here, a 4 girl is a 7+ online.

Unless you're in the top 20% (most men aren't), online dating is a waste of time. If you're in that small percentage, I bet you could get better looking girls not online.

Post: #9

(10-13-2017 01:30 AM)Kona Wrote:  How do you account for the small uptick in online meetings in the early 80's? Was there a dating disk on the commodore 64?

I don't know what the chart refers to, but computer dating goes back long before the internet. When I was a kid I remember seeing TV commercials for them back in the early 80s if not earlier. Back then you had to physically go to an office and fill out a questionaire. The stigma associated from using a service like that was sky-high but it was out there. The underlying matching algorithms really haven't changed much from then until now.

Post: #10

Eh...I dunno, but I've had good results. Got mine off there.

Here's two key principles I've found to have a better experience.

1) Find sites with a high bar to entry. Ones that make you pay a membership fee, have a background check done, etc. The less suited any particular site is for instant gratification the better the overall quality of women on the site.

2) Use religious sites. For religions that are hard to be a part of. This means no milquetoast, feel good evangelical "Christian" or nondenominational sites. It means a highly structured and strict religion that believes in traditional gender roles. If the website gives you the option narrow your results by doctrinal beliefs(e.g. CatholicMatch) use them to filter out all women except the ones who are 100% on board with the religion's moral preachings.

Personally, I was amazed how good of a litmus test a woman's attitude towards contraception is in determining their suitability. There weren't very many exceptions to women who support the use of contraceptives being damaged goods and the ones who were firmly against it being good LTR/Wife candidates for the right guy.


Basically, the key personality trait you're looking for is a woman that is capable of subordinating her own impulses to authority.

Post: #11

Can't recall whether the data was on here or Twitter.
Yet someone referred to a study that broke down how married couples met.

The vast majority of wedded folk met via social circle.
Small percentages were due to online dating or work placed matters.
With a very, very small percentage being people that met by chance or 'cold approaches'.

So, while the data in the graphs above indicate couples are meeting online more so than other ways.
Seems those that are willing or have enough commonality to actually get married still meet & get to know each other to a greater degree via social circle means.

Stands to reason that people would form deeper bonds when able to get to know each other over a longer period of time, as opposed to the lottery that is modern day dating.

Post: #12

(10-13-2017 11:56 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Can't recall whether the data was on here or Twitter.
Yet someone referred to a study that broke down how married couples met.

The vast majority of wedded folk met via social circle.
Small percentages were due to online dating or work placed matters.
With a very, very small percentage being people that met by chance or 'cold approaches'.

So, while the data in the graphs above indicate couples are meeting online more so than other ways.
Seems those that are willing or have enough commonality to actually get married still meet & get to know each other to a greater degree via social circle means.

Stands to reason that people would form deeper bonds when able to get to know each other over a longer period of time, as opposed to the lottery that is modern day dating.

We've been conditioned by decades of propaganda to believe in disney-like true-love marriages, but when you get right down to it marriage is still quite a pragmatic, mercenary institution. It's a way of bonding social circles and forging deals, even if the two individual people marrying don't like each other very much.

Post: #13

(10-14-2017 06:25 AM)Highpool Wrote:  We've been conditioned by decades of propaganda to believe in disney-like true-love marriages, but when you get right down to it marriage is still quite a pragmatic, mercenary institution. It's a way of bonding social circles and forging deals, even if the two individual people marrying don't like each other very much.

I can see how it was used pragmatically in the past, but do you actually know of people outside of upper class circles who still take that approach to marriage? I don't know anyone in my circles of upper middle class millennials.

Post: #14

^ Proven by the fact that arranged marriages from traditional cultures outdo "love marriages" or "you choose" by leaps and bounds. Modern people are bad decision makers; women are particularly susceptible to making these bad choices.

Post: #15

(10-13-2017 01:05 AM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  Jesus Fucking Christ! These Faggots & Dykes are fucking lazy, useless & retarded! Just look at those graphs. None of them are cold approaching. That to me says it all about their fucked up culture.

And it's quite clear from the first graph, the abhorrent way this mindset is infecting the heterosexual.

Damn, take a breath, man. You're going to give yourself a heart attack.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #16

(10-14-2017 11:26 AM)BlueMark Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 06:25 AM)Highpool Wrote:  We've been conditioned by decades of propaganda to believe in disney-like true-love marriages, but when you get right down to it marriage is still quite a pragmatic, mercenary institution. It's a way of bonding social circles and forging deals, even if the two individual people marrying don't like each other very much.

I can see how it was used pragmatically in the past, but do you actually know of people outside of upper class circles who still take that approach to marriage? I don't know anyone in my circles of upper middle class millennials.

Love and feels wear off quick. All the newlyweds I know have long faces because they just dont feel like they used to and are now locked in. The pragmatic approach to marriage IS the best approach.
People need to figure out how to make it work. Social circle meetups are still number 1 around here but online and bars are where the quick fucks are found. Most people STILL dont want to marry the person who they woke up hungover next too with a fake name.