Anyone under a 50% match with me, I will generally ignore from the get-to. Anyone above a 90% match with me, I will generally message on the off chance that the profile isn’t representative, even if the profile isn’t interesting.
Beyond that? Meh.
I pretty much ignore all that stuff. I look at the photos, read the profile, and if I like them, send a message.
I really dislike both of you quite evenly, but in this case it’s worth noting that it’s silly to use your own confirmation bias as the basis for accusing someone else of confirmation bias. It’s up there with ‘That’s an ad hominem argument, I can tell because you’re a dumb shit.’
WarrenM
6584
Not the same site, I know, but my wife and I had a 28% compatibility match according to match.com’s calculations. We’re in our 7th year of marriage now.
I would ignore.
In fairness, Match’s system is drastically different from OkCupid’s and incredibly archaic.
OkC simply asks you how you would respond to a situation / question and how your ideal match would. Compatibility is based solely on how closely someone’s answers mirror the answers of your ideal mate (and vice versa). It’s about as straightforward as you can get.
Which isn’t to say it’s infallible. Like I mentioned, it really only gauges how well you’d get along, not necessarily how well your personalities would gel. But it’s still leaps and bounds ahead of Match.
mkozlows
6586
For my own purposes, I think the match questions are sort of interestingly informative beyond just the percentage. Like, if someone disagrees with me about how quickly they’d resort to cannibalism if they were trapped on a desert island (actual question), I don’t find myself much caring; but if they say that they always sleep with a dog in their bed, well, eww.
I have not tried Match.com’s system, but OKCupid matched my wife and I at 98%… We have been married for 17 years. It must know something!
That’s right, I have a confirmation bias that says that women are, in fact, people, rather than soulless automata attracted to money and large penises.
delirium
6589
I think most rational people would agree that reality lies somewhere in between what the two of you are arguing about.
That women are people attracted to large, soulless automata?
You both seem to be arguing about what you think women want, and you’re both just using the examples in your own lives.
And, for funsies, neither of you happens to be a woman.
Is it confirmation bias on my part to say not all women are attracted to penises? :)
Gourmand
6593
The match % is new age mysticism. I think it’s a new kind of astrology for those in the dating world. It’s nice having reassurance “This chick will like me! We match!” But really, you don’t know shit until you have a conversation.
Ignore the %'s, and have a 5 minute conversation. It’ll tell you more than the numbers. You should know if you’re interested in even doing that from her profile.
By saying ‘not all’ you cleverly ease yourself out of that trap.
I think Sofa’s point is that “what women want” is an insane categorization, like saying “what people with brown hair want.” Since women are actual regular people and not some special race of clones, the corollary is that they will all want different things.
I sort of hope that this isn’t controversial.
If you’re suggesting that some women may very well consider looks and money to be important, then it would appear your issue is with Sofaer, not with me. He’s the one making absolute statements based on his own experiences.
The only absolute statements I made were along the lines of “Martin’s argument makes this assumption, which is an absurd generalization”, “women have agency”, “Martin is a dumbshit PUA monkey”, and “Doing awesome things is more awesome than making more money”.
You’re right that I make these statements based on my experiences (and the experiences of my friends, etc), but these statements don’t presume to assert that no women are shallow, pathetic human beings attracted only to the trappings of money and “Alpha” mentalities.
See also, discussions on PUA rhetoric and how it does in fact work sometimes on women with shitty self-esteem, but frankly, I’d rather be dating someone incredibly awesome than someone lame enough to fall for dumb "neg"s.
Oh, I think I also asserted that the world(s) I live in is/are the most awesome world(s) ever, but I don’t think you’re talking about that statement.
Astrology is based entirely on a completely arbitrary circumstance you have no control over. OkCupid’s match % is based entirely on specific things you indicate and how closely someone meets them. Clearly, they are very much alike.
Ignore the %'s, and have a 5 minute conversation. It’ll tell you more than the numbers. You should know if you’re interested in even doing that from her profile.
The % isn’t a substitute for conversation–no one ever said it was–it’s simply a hint as to how much you likely have in common and how smoothly said conversation COULD go.
JoshV
6599
Common interests != a match. Also, a lot of the question are just really stupid. I think its better to ignore the match percentage entirely.
Common interests = as close to a match as you can get from a simple questionnaire, and definitely a lot more accurate than astrology or any other similar malarky.
As far as the stupidity of the questions, even the dumbest-seeming questions are still very telling and useful as, if nothing else, good conversation starters. Meanwhile they are vastly outnumbered by the good questions.
Ultimately there’s no better indicator for compatibility than actually getting to know someone. But when it comes to devising a system to easily give people an indication of how well they’d get along, I challenge anyone to come up with a simpler, better system than what OkCupid currently uses.
