Rendered at 06:17:27 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
water-data-dude 3 hours ago [-]
You know, there's probably fewer perverse incentives with a government run dating service. Obviously I can imagine ways it could suck, but when I compare them to how commercial dating services are run it's hard to see how they could do a _worse_ job.
SwtCyber 45 minutes ago [-]
The nice thing is that the government has no reason to keep you swiping forever
sergiotapia 2 hours ago [-]
Aren't commercial dating sites as a whole summarized as:
Keep supply of women high because men will pay anything for a chance?
I am very curious how this will be changed in this government platform. Maybe it won't LOL
SwtCyber 43 minutes ago [-]
I think that's a bit too reductive, but the incentive mismatch is real. Commercial apps generally benefit from people staying on the app; a government service theoretically benefits if people pair off and leave.
some_furry 1 hours ago [-]
It's also a market for lemons: Every match that leads to a long-term, exclusive relationship is two customers gone for good.
Bluestein 47 minutes ago [-]
It's a self-depleting market. The optimum is, a la Big Pharma, to keep 'em in "dating" limbo.-
throw930839009 38 minutes ago [-]
Autocratic goverment gets all your personal info, and chooses a mate for you. This is beyond incentives, it is just perverse!
Gareth321 24 minutes ago [-]
Honestly, the levels of desperation and despair I'm seeing in the hellscape that is modern dating, I think a lot of people would sign up for this. I probably would if I were single. It's very similar to how matchmakers work, and they're popular all over the world, and have been for millennia. They're an unbiased and impartial judge and coach. We all have enormous biases and weaknesses in so many ways, and we could all do with help to better ourselves.
The important distinction here is no one is forced to marry anyone. This is entirely optional.
throw930839009 15 minutes ago [-]
> desperation and despair
Desperation is from government, because many people just checked out. There are many nicer activities, such as hiking.
> unbiased and impartial judge and coach.
Gov has super strong biases, just the way they punish (or not punish at all) different groups, for the same crime.
> forced to marry anyone.
In every practical way you will be forced to marry. Common law marriage, alimony...
Gareth321 8 minutes ago [-]
I am also pretty disillusioned with government right now, and I share your views on common law marriage and alimony, but I see this as one of the few things a government is doing right.
jjmarr 2 hours ago [-]
Gale-Shapley, used in this service, has the property that one side ("proposing" side) is guaranteed their most advantageous stable match while the other side is guaranteed their worst possible stable match.
I've never heard this discussed or mentioned as a drawback because it's Nobel Prize winning and "stable" is a shorthand for "fair". Even though there's many unique stable matches that each offer participants different utilities even if individual participants don't have incentives to change their pairing.
In practice, the more powerful party seems to be the proposing side, e.g. hospitals are the "proposing side" when using Gale-Shapeley to match w/ med school students and get their ideal students.
I wonder if anyone who works on dating apps knows if men or women are the preferred side? And is there any research on stable matching that ensures equity (or ideally arbitrary distribution of utility) between the two groups in their stable matches?
jmalicki 1 hours ago [-]
Are there keywords to search for to read more? This is the first time I've heard about this! This is super interesting, what are a few well known other stable matches people deeper into this talk about?
jjmarr 48 minutes ago [-]
The set of stable matches for a given problem seems to be called the lattice of stable matching.
The problem is it's a lattice and not fully ordered. There are cases where there are two or more pairings that are worse for women and better for men, but we cannot determine which pairing is superior to the other overall.
1 hours ago [-]
Scaevolus 1 hours ago [-]
Given how women initiate most divorces, it's probably best to set it up so they are the proposing side.
But this isn't raw Gale-Shapley-- the participants aren't ranking all hundreds/thousands of others. In particular, the preference matrix is based on identical mutual compatibility scores, so there's a unique stable solution (not multiple stable ones!), and there's no "side" that benefits, since the solution is identical no matter who does the "proposing".
jjmarr 42 minutes ago [-]
> the preference matrix is based on identical mutual compatibility scores
Is that modeling the problem correctly? It seems pretty rare for two partners to have equal amounts of love for each other.
boxed 29 minutes ago [-]
I don't think you can measure love at all, and certainly not guess it based on some info you can type into your phone, so that's rules out before we even get started.
SwtCyber 40 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
SwtCyber 42 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
dominicq 1 hours ago [-]
> In short, stable matches mean nothing when nobody is committed and the best options might exist outside of the matchmaking pool
This is wrong. Stable matches still mean something, and in fact probably mean quite a lot.
You are given a much better match than a random pairing. If you still aren't interested, you can decline. If you go on a date and it doesn't work out, you can decline.
Nothing forces you to use this process, it is just an offer of a significantly better than random matching to what you might prefer.
It doesn't even need to account for preferences not covered by the questionnaire.
SwtCyber 46 minutes ago [-]
I think the algorithm is almost a distraction here. Gale-Shapley works nicely when preferences are reasonably well-defined and participants are actually committed to the matching process. Dating has neither property. People are terrible at predicting who they'll have chemistry with, and everyone has outside options.
tommica 1 hours ago [-]
A very interesting solution to the problem. Surely this data will not be repurposed, right?
But if it helps likeminded people to find each other, then it absolutely has some value.
jharohit 3 hours ago [-]
person previously dating in singapore - this is awesome! wish i had
ChrisArchitect 3 hours ago [-]
Related:
Singapore govt dating app uses Gale-Shapley stable marriage algorithm
Entirely dismissing how important looks, vibes, personality are in relationships. Not even dating -- if someone smells, you're not going to be incentives to make friends with them. This seems to me to just be trodding the same pseudoscientific route as MBTI personality tests, trying to condense a person into a list of multiple choice questions. That will never work. No algorithm can do it. Social interaction is not a solved game.
dominicq 1 hours ago [-]
The point isn't to be a complete solution to social interaction, the point is to provide a significantly better than random sampling and pairing.
You can then still apply your usual filters afterwards, such as smell, looks, vibes.
eternauta3k 1 hours ago [-]
It's a shame that they deduce your ranking just from the questions. I think the algorithm would be perfect if paired with a manual ranking by the user.
vachina 1 hours ago [-]
There are obvious deal breakers, and then as you grow older you develop “taste”.
These are well defined criteria which can be queried upon.
However the ranking only works if both sides are honest.
MiroslavPokorny 2 hours ago [-]
Welcome to Korea 2.0
sublinear 3 hours ago [-]
Interesting that when I ctrl-f the linked article and the previous discussion (463 comments), not once is the word "trust" found.
That's the actual problem, though (a lack of it)! Above all else, you'll probably overlook a lot and still commit long-term to someone you can trust.
killingtime74 2 hours ago [-]
Trust for the first date or long term? For the first date you already must supply your government id
tonyhart7 1 hours ago [-]
I think this is good, yes there can be improve but the idea is good
especially for country like korea and japan ???? Yeah bro they need it
thrownawaysz 55 minutes ago [-]
I thought incels are white right wingers, first time I see this
term in a non-white context. Southern Poverty Law Center is listing them as a hate group for example so by definition incels can’t be black.
thisrod 3 hours ago [-]
There is an amusing irony in this approach to marriage promotion: who isn't already married in Singapore? I've been told that the city's 30 year old gay and lesbian crowd is treated to a lot of fancy dates at public expense.
ValentineC 2 hours ago [-]
> There is an amusing irony in this approach to marriage promotion: who isn't already married in Singapore?
I don't understand your question.
tantalor 2 hours ago [-]
The govt pays for the date??
maplant 3 hours ago [-]
honestly that seems like a great way to spend public funds
Keep supply of women high because men will pay anything for a chance?
I am very curious how this will be changed in this government platform. Maybe it won't LOL
The important distinction here is no one is forced to marry anyone. This is entirely optional.
Desperation is from government, because many people just checked out. There are many nicer activities, such as hiking.
> unbiased and impartial judge and coach.
Gov has super strong biases, just the way they punish (or not punish at all) different groups, for the same crime.
> forced to marry anyone.
In every practical way you will be forced to marry. Common law marriage, alimony...
I've never heard this discussed or mentioned as a drawback because it's Nobel Prize winning and "stable" is a shorthand for "fair". Even though there's many unique stable matches that each offer participants different utilities even if individual participants don't have incentives to change their pairing.
In practice, the more powerful party seems to be the proposing side, e.g. hospitals are the "proposing side" when using Gale-Shapeley to match w/ med school students and get their ideal students.
I wonder if anyone who works on dating apps knows if men or women are the preferred side? And is there any research on stable matching that ensures equity (or ideally arbitrary distribution of utility) between the two groups in their stable matches?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_of_stable_matchings
The problem is it's a lattice and not fully ordered. There are cases where there are two or more pairings that are worse for women and better for men, but we cannot determine which pairing is superior to the other overall.
But this isn't raw Gale-Shapley-- the participants aren't ranking all hundreds/thousands of others. In particular, the preference matrix is based on identical mutual compatibility scores, so there's a unique stable solution (not multiple stable ones!), and there's no "side" that benefits, since the solution is identical no matter who does the "proposing".
Is that modeling the problem correctly? It seems pretty rare for two partners to have equal amounts of love for each other.
This is wrong. Stable matches still mean something, and in fact probably mean quite a lot.
You are given a much better match than a random pairing. If you still aren't interested, you can decline. If you go on a date and it doesn't work out, you can decline.
Nothing forces you to use this process, it is just an offer of a significantly better than random matching to what you might prefer.
It doesn't even need to account for preferences not covered by the questionnaire.
But if it helps likeminded people to find each other, then it absolutely has some value.
Singapore govt dating app uses Gale-Shapley stable marriage algorithm
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49906432
You can then still apply your usual filters afterwards, such as smell, looks, vibes.
These are well defined criteria which can be queried upon.
However the ranking only works if both sides are honest.
That's the actual problem, though (a lack of it)! Above all else, you'll probably overlook a lot and still commit long-term to someone you can trust.
especially for country like korea and japan ???? Yeah bro they need it
I don't understand your question.