Tinder Myths Debunked: Online Dating Revisited

Uploaded 3/18/2021, approx. 42 minute read

My name is Sam Vaknin, and I am your favorite Sigma Professor of Psychology.

Sigma Professor, like Sigma Man. I am also the author of Malignant Self-Love: Narcissism Revisited, and a host of other books and e-books and videos, etc.

Are you tired of this? I am.

So, what we will discuss today is Tinder, dating, sex with an S, and everything around it, especially the nonsensical myths propagated by the intellectually challenged geniuses in the Manosphere and the pseudo-intellectuals who lead them astray.

I am going to back everything I say, of course, to numerous studies and research, what have you.

Before you say anything, good research observes behavior. Good research is not based on self-reporting. It simply follows people around and sees what's happening.

So, we have many studies which incorporate and include observations of behavior in situ, in real life, and most of the studies I will cite in this video lecture are experimental studies, studies which observe behavior, rather than just self-reporting questionnaires, because in self-reporting questionnaires, people can and often do lie. They do lie, especially when it comes to sex. God knows why. We are in such a permissive, liberal environment and people are ashamed and feel guilty and feel that they have to deceive and mislead other people when it comes to sexual practices and so on and so forth.

So, before we start, I would like to refer you to the contemporary sexuality playlist in this channel, and especially to the video Youth Sexlessness, where I had summarized dozens of studies conducted with young people under the age of 25.

Today we use the concept of extended adolescence, just up to age 25, when most people graduate, those who do graduate college, and so on and so forth.

Dating apps, we are all acquainted with them, no need to introduce them. It's a great mistake to believe that Tinder is the largest dating app. It's not by far. Badoo, B-A-D-O-O, is much bigger, plenty of fish, meet me, they're bigger than Tinder.

But Tinder has the advantage of catering to people in the West, to especially young people in Western countries. And because the West controls the media, the mass media, the West controls social media, the West controls television, the West controls printing presses, the West controls movie making, etc., etc., or at least it believes it does. We are more exposed to Tinder and we use Tinder as a gauge.

That would be of course highly misleading, because China, for example, has its own social media universe, which is utterly divorced from the Western one. Same goes for Russia.

So anything we learned from the United States, from Norway, from the United Kingdom, from Portugal, is not applicable in Brazil, not applicable in Russia, not applicable in China, not applicable in the Middle East, not applicable actually, to something like 85% of humanity.

And yet this Eurocentric, this atlantocentric view of humanity, like everything important happens in the United States or in Europe, nowhere else, it's unfortunately with us, even in academic circles.

Someone asked me, what exactly was I trying to say yesterday, in my video about casual sex and one-night stands and so on. Here's what I was trying to say in a single sentence.

One-night stands are full-fledged relationships with a very brief or short expiry date. Casual sex is a form of full-fledged relationships with intimacy, with emotions, with affection, with attachment, with bonding, with commitment, with investment, like any other relationship, but with intermittent or short expiry date.

The only thing differentiating a one-night stand from a 25 year old, 25 years marriage is that a one-night stand lasts for one night. Essentially nothing else.


People use dating applications and I will give you the gist of this video for those of you whose attention span never exceeds three minutes. Here's the gist of the video.

People use dating applications almost exclusively for entertainment in order to boost self-esteem and, surprise of all surprises, in order to find an intimate long-term romantic partner.

Dating apps are rarely used to find casual sex. Shocking, isn't it?

Against everything you have been taught online. Dating apps, I repeat, are rarely used in order to find casual sex.

Moreover, dating app usage rarely results in real life face-to-face meetings or dating.

In other words, what is on Tinder stays on Tinder. It's a self-enclosed, self-sufficient, self-contained digital virtual universe.

People interact online or via Tinder with other people online on Tinder and that's where it stops in the overwhelming vast majority of the cases. So it never exits cyberspace or rarely exits cyberspace. It rarely becomes a reality. People swipe right and they swipe left and they do this in order to be exposed to visual stimuli. They like to watch photos. So they watch photos, they read bios and descriptions, they sometimes chat a bit, sometimes they take it to another chat application like WhatsApp. That's where it stops. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that's where it stops. It starts online. It ends online. It starts on Tinder. It ends mostly on Tinder, sometimes on WhatsApp.

It is extremely rare for any Tinder interaction to end in real life and it is even more rare, almost unheard of for such interactions to lead to sex.

These are facts. I'm going to substantiate these facts with numerous studies from all over the world.

But before we go there, I would like to refer you to a recent study published in Sexual Medicine Reviews. It's an academic journal, Volume 8, Issue 3, July 2020. The article is titled, Sexological Aspects Related to Tinder Use, a comprehensive review of the literature. And it was written by numerous authors. It's like, if I count correctly, 12 or 15 authors.

And here is an excerpt from the study.

Casual sex might be a risk for sexual health, but Tinder users have also been committed to romantic relationships.

Moreover, some pathological aspects of personality characterize Tinder users.

The authors say, we found social sexuality, that is, sexual activities outside a committed relationship, to be the main predictor for casual sex in Tinder users.

The sexual aims appeared gender influenced.

Men used Tinder mostly for casual sex compared to women. Women didn't.

With respect to other dating apps, it has been also found that the Tinder use is less related to the risk of sexually transmitted infections.

For a simple reason, by the way, Tinder use rarely, extremely rarely ends in sex.

The authors continue.

However, specific personality traits related to dark personality, association of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy were more frequently reported among male Tinder users.

So what the authors are saying is a mismatch between the expectations of male users of Tinder and female users of Tinder.

Because of this mismatch, it doesn't translate to sex, or rarely translates to sex.

Men want casual sex, women don't, it's extremely simple.

As we go further, and I cite a plethora of other studies, you will see that even this is not entirely true.

The situation is much more benign. And of course, it's much more benign than anything described in the Manosphere.

Manosphere users, Manosphere pseudo intellectuals, Manosphere bright lights, Manosphere geniuses, MGTOW intellectually challenged leaders, all these people have no idea what they're talking about, are not using any data, are confabulating, imagining, inventing, spewing out unmitigated trash and nonsense.

I'm referring now as an academic to facts. I'm not referring I'm not expressing an opinion now, as to the ideology of MGTOW in cells or red pillars or the Manosphere. ideology is debatable. Opinions can vary. We can agree or disagree. I can find them contemptible, misogynistic, fuggish, and stupid, which is exactly how I view them.

But this is my opinion. I am exercised by and I'm incensed by their misrepresentation or lives or misrepresentations or facts. They misrepresent facts. They also misunderstand because they are not intellectually equipped to understand most of evolutionary psychology and other relevant theories in psychology and other fields.

And this creates a mayhem. And they are led by pseudo intellectuals who had failed as academics. And these pseudo intellectuals spew out even greater nonsense. And what's worse, they lend a seal of credibility to the junk, to the junk manufactured by these groups, to the intellectual junk manufactured by these groups.

This is not even junk food. It's just junk.

Okay. Start with the concept of beta and alpha. Alpha males charge in the lingo of the Manosphere and beta males.

Now the concepts of alpha and beta male do exist. These concepts exist in ethology, the study of animal behavior. And they had been imported from ethology to anthropology and to sociology and to some extent into social psychology. So these concepts do exist even in the academic literature, but not in the way the Manosphere had expropriated and corrupted them.

On the very contrary, actually, the alpha male in academic literature is an empathic team player, compassionate, loving, in a way, a feminine networking person. Exactly the opposite. What the Manosphere calls beta male is actually an alpha male. And the alpha male of the Manosphere is a narcissist or a psychopath. They are idolizing narcissists and psychopaths. They're placing narcissists and psychopaths on a pedestal. All the industry of dating coaches and business coaches, they're teaching people how to become more narcissistic, more antisocial, more grandiose, more fantastic, less realistic, more delve deeper into magical or sink in magical thinking. It's a sick industry. And they are sickening people. They're making people mentally ill. It borders on a crime, in my view.

And so when you look at business coaches, even respectable business coaches like Kate Ludington, for example, or Eddie Erlinson, they had written an article published in the Harvard Business Review, Coaching the Alpha Male. When you read the article, you would immediately say, that's not, I don't know what it is, but this is a narcissist. The alpha male in the article is a narcissist, grandiose, defiant, pseudo stupid, not open to criticism and ideas. Absent reality testing leads by intimidation.

So a bit psychopathic, a bit antisocial. And that's the alpha male in the Harvard Business Review.

I mean, what grounds do I have to complain about the poor people in the manosphere whose collective IQ is 100?

So we have a problem here.

Alpha males and beta males are, in my view, legitimate distinctions. It's a legitimate distinction, but they have been misconstrued and corrupted completely online.

And so the fact is that women prefer what the manosphere calls beta males. Women abhor jerks, chads, the macho swaggering, aggressive male types. Women find them repulsive and disgusting and want nothing to do with them.

They prefer, women prefer empathic, kind, attentive men. Yes, even for one night stands.

How do I know? We have numerous studies. We had observed women in settings such as bars and restaurants on dating apps and so on. And we know, I'm going to place five links in the description to studies that confirm what I've just said.

Women prefer the manosphere's version of beta males, even for one night stands.

Alpha males are actually narcissists and psychopaths, and women don't want them. Alpha males are out, except perhaps as visual entertainment on Tinder.

Some alpha males, not all by any means, some alpha males have musculature, they're bodybuilders, they look good, they look nice, they're drug-dead courtiers, they're hunks. So they're nice to look at from a distance, from a safe distance.

And that's what women do, as I will show you in a minute.

Women swipe right in order to entertain themselves. And sometimes, extremely rarely by the way, they reach out and they rebuild or sustain, they get an ego boost, they rebuild or sustain their self-esteem.

And that's where it ends, validation, goodbye. These are the facts.

Now, hooking up is a new stage in what we call the dating script or the sexual script.

Let me retrace. What is a dating script? What is a sexual script? Scripts are prescriptions or recipes on how to behave. They are behavioral recipes. Who gives you these recipes? Who dictates to you how to behave? Society. Society tells you how to behave. Society tells you how to date a partner. Society tells you how to behave in sex. Society provides you with scripts, dating scripts and sexual scripts. And society does this via socialization agents, via people or institutions that introduce you to the expectations, reasons, mores and rules and norms of society.

First and foremost, your mother and father, then grandmothers, grandfathers, then teachers, then influential figures, influences, then role models, then peers. All these people teach you one way or another by example, verbally, intellectually, all these people teach you how you should be a man, how you should be a woman, how a man behaves in a typical date, how a woman behaves in a dating situation and how both should behave in the sack, in bed, during sex, what is acceptable, what is not, what is crossing the line, what's the violation of boundaries, what is really, really bad taste and what is wonderful.

These are dating and sexual scripts.

And now here's the problem.

In the past, people had access to 500 other people if they were lucky. You had 500 people to choose from if you were lucky. You confined to your village, you confined to your city or your town. These habitations were very small. And so you had a very limited and narrow repertory choice set or group to choose from.

Today, everyone in his dog is exposed to 5,000, 10,000, 50,000 people, millions of people via dating apps. The pool had expanded, had exploded dramatically. Today, a woman can choose from 1,000 men or 2,000 men, while in the past, she would have been lucky to choose from three men.

So we needed a new filtering mechanism because the number of possibilities and options and potentialities had exploded supernova in a supernova style. We needed something to help us make the correct choice. We needed a filtering mechanism.

And this filtering mechanism is dating apps. Dating apps are not divorced from dating. Dating apps are not kind of disjointed. They're not out there all by themselves. Dating apps are integrated into the seamless flow of interaction between the genders.

First, you decide that you want an intimate partner. Then you go on a dating app. Then you find your matches. Then you fix a meeting. Then you go on a date. The date leads to sex in a small minority of cases, by the way. The date leads to sex. Following the sex, you decide whether you can have a long-term romantic or intimate relationship.

So while in the past we had the very same sequence, only without the dating apps, today we have the same sequence augmented by the dating apps because the dating apps help us to select their filters. They help us to filter out the wrong options, the options that are not right for us.

And so dating apps actually lead to marriages, to intimate relationships, to committed, invested relationships. This is the main output of dating apps, not casual sex, as I will shortly show you.

And so dating apps are not a bad thing. Dating apps are a good thing.

And even when there is casual sex, in a majority, a surprising majority of cases, it leads to relationships.

And because women prefer to have relationships with beta males, manosphere beta males, even in the manosphere, they admit that women prefer to have relationships with beta males.

So follow the logic. Dating apps, in a tiny minority of cases, result in face-to-face meetings. These face-to-face meetings, in a small minority of cases, result in casual sex. Casual sex, in a large majority of cases, more than two thirds, leads to relationships.

But women want relationships with beta males, not with alpha males, not with narcissists and psychopaths and jerks and a-holes. They want a nice, kind, empathic, supportive guy, attentive, compassionate. So they are likely to choose in advance what the manosphere calls beta male.

So the vast majority of meetings offline meetings that had emanated from, meetings that were catalyzed by the dating app, these meetings are actually, meetings offline, are actually with beta males.

Consequently, most of the casual sex is also with beta males, using the manospheres, misrepresentation of the beta male.

Yeah. Okay. Let me quote to you a study. It was published in Personality and Individual Differences, volume 155. We sure write a lot. We are psychologists. Volume 155, March 2020.

The study is titled, Never mind, I'll find someone like me. Assortative meeting preferences on Tinder.

And it was written again by Van den Balker and others.

So here's another myth, another nonsense, piece of nonsense online.

Women are looking for chads. They're looking for, they're looking to marry up. It's called hypergamy. They want to marry up. They want to marry someone above their station. Someone who is not like them. Someone who is superior to them.

They also want to date, and they also, also want to, to hit the hay. They want to roll in the hay. They want to have sex with men who don't look like them, was superior to them physically, much more attractive.

So women are looking up. They want a man who is more attractive, more muscular, more handsome, more of a hunk and a hunk, more richer, socially superior. That's the myth. It even is a name, hypergamy. It's wrong. It's simply completely wrong.

Many studies have shown conclusively that women want men who resemble them, who are like them in terms of attractiveness, in terms of personality, in terms of economic status, in terms of life, life potentials, in terms of stage of self-actualization, in terms of age, etc, etc.

So I'll read to you from this.

In this process of selecting, it's called assortative mating. So I'll read to you.

The study says, we analyze experimental and survey data on almost 8,000 tinder profile evaluations.

We unambiguously find that tinder users prefer a potential partner whom they perceive to be similar to the personality traits, agreeableness, and openness to experience.

So they are looking for someone who is as agreeable as they are and as open to experience as they are.

With respect to similarity in perceived age, we find either no assortment or positive assortment.

In other words, when it comes to age, people are looking for either the same age or they don't care, but they never look for on purpose for someone who is not the same age.

And this depends on the condition of and other personality participant characteristics.

Finally, and this is the crucial sentence, I want you to listen to this well, because this single sentence demolishes the idiotic edifice of the monosphere.

Finally, we do not find any evidence for preferences for assortative mating based on attractiveness. I repeat this because people in the monosphere don't get anything the first time. We are lucky if they get it the seventh time.

So I repeat the sentence for the benefit of our deprived brethren in the monosphere.

Finally, we do not find, say, these scholars, the authors, we do not find any evidence for preferences for assortative mating based on attractiveness.

In other words, my dear monosphere listeners, in other words, people on dating apps, Tinder in this case, do not choose people, do not match, do not look to meet, do not look to sleep with other people based on attractiveness.

Not. They do choose to go offline, to go on a date, or even to have casual sex based on agreeableness, based on openness to experience, and to some extent based on age, but not based on the possible matches' attractiveness.

Bye-bye monosphere with all your nonsense.

Okay. One very important thing that I keep saying is that people confuse alpha males with narcissists and psychopaths.

And of course, whenever you challenge this idiotic assumption, this misconstrual, they come up with Tinder.

You see, but on Tinder women choose the most good looking guys.

Wrong, by the way. Not true. But okay.

Even if it were right, the good looking guys on Tinder are narcissists and psychopaths. They are not alpha males.

I'm sorry to break the news. The good looking people, the womanizers, those who are playing the field, those who are looking only for casual sex and so on, those who are grooming, they are narcissists and psychopaths.

I refer you to a study in the academic journalCurrent Psychology, published this last year, 2020.

Study is titled The Dark Tetrad in Tinder. Hook up app for high psychopathy individuals and a diverse utilitarian tool for Machiavellians. It was authored by Mina Lyons, Ashley Messenger, appropriately, Rebecca Perry, and Gail Brewer.

And here's what they say.

Using Tinder for acquiring sexual experience was related to being male and to being high in psychopathy.

Did you hear this?

Men on Tinder are narcissists and psychopaths. That's why the manosphere calls them alpha males.

Psychopathy was positively correlated with using Tinder to distract oneself from other tasks, procrastination.

Higher Machiavellianism and being female were related to peer pressure as a Tinder use motivation.

Using Tinder for acquiring social or flirting skills had a negative relationship with narcissism and a positive relationship with Machiavellianism.

Finally, Machiavellianism was also a significant positive predictor of Tinder use for social approval and to pass the time.

Results indicate that individuals high in Machiavellianism use Tinder for a number of utilitarian reasons, whereas the main motive for high psychopathy individuals is hookup for casual sex.

The current situation would come as a shock to you, I'm sure.

One-third of marriages are conceived online. One-third of people who get married had met online, most of them through dating apps.

Dating apps are the main tool today for getting married and for long-term relationships, and dating apps are abysmal failure at arranging and facilitating and catalyzing casual sex.


A survey from 2014 found that 84% of dating app users were using online dating services to look for a romantic relationship. 84% were using dating apps to find a romantic relationship. 24% stated that they use online dating apps explicitly for sexual encounters.

Okay, how many are successful?

There are so many people on dating apps, close to a billion, some people say 2 billion. How many of them are successful?

Does the use of dating apps translate to any real-world benefits?

Sex, marriage, romance.

We know that the main outcome of using dating apps is marriage and romance, romantic relationships.

But how many are there?

What's the statistical outcome?

A study found that 50%, one-half of Tinder users have only ever been on a single face-to-face date, even though most of them had hundreds of matches. 50% of Tinder users have met one of their matches, and that's it.

The same study found that less than 25% of matches are looking for a long-term relationship.

Researchers say users need a large number of matches to have any meetups at all. So 25% go there to find romantic relationships.

It's a huge number, by the way, because all the other reasons are like two and three percent each.

The vast majority, actually, of people who gave reasons want to use the dating apps for romance.

This study was in Norway, which has its own special sexual etiquette and so on. It's Scandinavian, they're much more liberal when it comes to sex and dating.

Marriage rates are exceedingly low, singlehood rates, single motherhood rates, everything is very high. And people have special cohabitation arrangements, which effectively are marriages, but without the seal and imprimatur of the state.

So there's a study by Trond Viggen Grunnet at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He and his colleagues made a survey of 269 students. All of them were members of Tinder. 60% of participants were women, which is an anomaly, by the way, a tiny percentage, a very small percentage of Tinder users are actually women, the majority are men. We'll come to it in a minute.

But in this particular study, they included a lot of women. The students were asked a series of questions. For example, if you are a current or former user of Tinder, how many matches have you had since you started using the app? And of those people you have met using Tinder, how many did you meet with an interest in a long-term committed relationship?

So men reported typically 111 matches. Women reported 124. Half of the participants had meetups with a match. And on average, men had 1.9 meetups. In other words, of 111 matches, men met 2. Women met also 2, 2.2, over 124 matches. Not a very good ratio, is it?

Only about 25% of study participants said they had used the app to meet someone interested in a long-term relationship. That's in Norway. About 80%. 80% in Norway. 80% did not engage in any sexual activity using the app. 13% engaged in sexual activity once, having used the app for years. 3% noted two sexual encounters. And 4% had more than two.

If you put everything together, something like 20% had any sexual encounter. 80% of the heavy users never had one.

And so, to better understand if and how the mechanics of the process Tinder imposes on its users, because Tinder forces you to swipe.

There's an issue of matching. There's a way of starting conversations. It's not totally free for all. You're within a structure. You have to obey rules. You have to follow directives and procedures. In a way, it's very formalized.

So how does this fact that you have to follow certain procedures, how does it influence the resulting sexual or romantic interactions?

There was a study in Belgium. They studied 1,038 Tinder users. And they say, our findings show that a user's swiping quantity does not guarantee a higher number of Tinder matches.

Women have generally more matches than men. And men usually have to start a conversation on Tinder.

Moreover, while having conversations was positively associated with reporting having had offline Tinder encounters, less than half of our sample reported having had an offline meeting with another Tinder user.

Again, the same number.

Whereas more than one third of those offline encounters led to casual sex, more than a quarter of offline encounters resulted in the formation of a committed relationship.

And by the way, two thirds of those who had casual sex ended up having a relationship. Such findings indicate, say the authors, that Tinder is not just a hookup app, as often is assumed in public discourse.

It's a polite way of saying the monosphere. We argue, say the authors, that it is plausible that sexual encounters will eventually lead to committed relationships.

In a society where initiation of relationship formation with dating has been replaced by hooking up. I disagree that it has been replaced. I think it has been augmented. I think the dating apps are a filter telling you who to date, helping you with a mate selection process, including a sortative mating process.

A few anecdotes.

These were studies.

Now a few anecdotes.

One Reddit user quantified his journey in the one billion dollar online dating industry in a very personal graph. I'm quoting from an article. Inspired by someone who did the same for OK Cupid over the course of 500 days, user Keng Manja showed his swiping progress over the course of 28 days.

The results. He had 53 mentions, including 38 people he began talking to on WhatsApp. And 12 of these ghosted or never replied. Of the 38 people he had spoken to, nine agreed to a date. Three of these nine stood him up, never appeared, to cancel.

Actually, over 500 days he came up with 53 matches. He tried to talk to 38 people. And of these 53 matches, he met four people in 500 days.

My grandmother used to do better just walking to the grocery store and back. It's extremely inefficient.

More than 44% of people in one survey reported that they were swiping only for confidence boosting procrastination. 44% were swiping with no intention to meet anyone, to date anyone or to have sex with anyone.

American millennials spend an average of 10 hours on dating apps. The study by Badu is much bigger up than Tinder. Men spend 85 minutes a day. Women spend 79 minutes a day.

Heterosexual men, there's a study, 2016, Queen Mary University in London, UK. Heterosexual men are less choosy, less picky. Men swipe right far more often than heterosexual women do, leaving these men with a low success rate.

The more you swipe right, the more you're disappointed, the more you're ghosted, the more you're stood up, the more you're ignored. So low success rate, the success rate of men on Tinder, hold your breath, is 0.6%.

Meanwhile, women are more selective about who they swipe right on. So women get a success rate of 10%. Women are 16 and a half times more successful than men on Tinder.

And this seems to be the case on other apps as well.

The guy from Reddit that I mentioned before, he had a similar experience. And there was another guy I mentioned before on OKCupid. That guy on OKCupid, he sent 143 unique first messages over these 500 days. And 80 first messages, which are essentially copy paste, canned messages. So a total of 223 messages. And of these 223 messages that he had sent out over 500 days, he received only five responses. He received five responses. And then he pushed further, and he got another response. He finally succeeded to date six women. Two of the six stood him up, and he had four actual dates. These are the decimal ratios all over.

I'm sorry. Successfully getting from match to date doesn't mean the date itself is successful, of course.

Most dates, the majority of dates, do not lead to second dates, let alone to sex.

And women complain that men are using the first date as a therapy session or using them as sounding boards for personal problems, for example.

Many women complain that men are too aggressive, too influenced by pornography.

And so to attract dates, you need openness to experience, agreeableness, sense of humor, and a good credit score. These are the four determinants, not how you look, how you look is irrelevant, not attractiveness. It's a myth.

Dating coach, there's a dating coach called Meredith Gordon. She says the biggest mistake men make is letting banter chat via text message to continue for too long without extending an invitation to a face-to-face meeting.

Banter for about two to three days, averaging two messages a day, and then ask to meet, she says. Also cast the net wide. Swipe a lot and engage with many.

For every 10 interactions, one or two will respond. And of course, one or two of these one or two.

So it's, I mean, it's dismal. It's dismal. I mean, the success rate on dating apps is zilch.

In the youth and sexlessness video, I quote much more extensive statistics. And these statistics show that less than 3%, less than 3% of dating app users get to ever communicate with each other in whatever form. And then a fraction of a fragment of these date. And then one third of these end up having sex.

And luckily, actually, a majority of the dates end up becoming couples, which is a redeeming feature of dating apps.

I would like to quote from an article by Janet Purvis, B-U-R-V-I-S. Article is titled Tinder, women get many more matches, but it's quantity, not quality.

Research has shown, she says, that men and women may have different motivations for using the app. While women do frequently engage in shorter mating strategies, men repeatedly demonstrate more desire for shorter mating, which is a gentle way of saying one night stands.

In addition, studies suggest men are more likely to pursue romantic partners using direct and quick methods of approach and proposition. And they spend more time and energy looking for shorter mating opportunities than women.

And since Tinder users often use the app when they're alone and can reject or express interest without receiving any social backlash, males may be especially drawn to rapid swiping.

As a result, women and gay men receive more matches than heterosexual men.

In one of the first quantitative studies conducted on Tinder, I think it was 2017, researchers created an equally attractive fake male and fake female. Tinder profile, I mean, like fake male Tinder profile and fake female Tinder profile, and then swiped right on everyone who appeared in the app.

They then recorded the number of swiped matches and messages each of the fake profiles received in return.

While the female profile had a matching rate of 10.5%, the match rate for the male profile was 0.6%.

The most matches came from gay or bisexual men.

Okay, I would like to quote from an article published in Technology Review. It's called How Tinder feedback loop forces men and women into extreme strategies.

The article says, next, the team created an algorithm that searched through each profile's matches, logged the details of each one's age, sex, bio, and so on, and then liked all of them.

In total, they crawled 230,000 male profiles in this way, and 250,000 female profiles, huge sample.

By counting the likes each profile got in return, the team could determine the percentage of other users who had responded favorably. It was a big sample size.

The data analysis reveals some interesting differences between the sexes.

For a start, men and women use entirely different strategies to engage a potential mate on Tinder. Men tend to like a large proportion of the women they view, but they receive only a tiny fraction of matches in return, just 0.6%.

Women use the exact opposite strategy. They are far more selective about who they like, but have a much higher matching rate of about 10%.

Still, curiously, the vast proportion of matches came from men, whether for the male or for the female profiles.

Even though the male-female ratio in the data set is roughly even, on average, 86% of all the matches are male profiles received came from other men.

So men try to team up with men on Tinder, not women. About 1 in 10 women are getting matches from men they like. Men are getting swipes from about 9 in 1,000 women and that is excluding homosexual men to men swipes.

Another difference is the way men and women behave once they have received a match. Women tend to be far more engaged, more likely to send a message to the match.

Overall, we find that 21% of female matches send a message, whereas only 7% of male matches send a message.

Another difference is women, because of pre-selecting, are much more likely to send a message.

There was a survey in April 2020 of adults in the United States. 15% of respondents, people between the ages of 18 to 29 years, were using Tinder. Adults between 33 and 44 years were more likely, most likely to use the social dating apps, 19% of these age groups.

So actually adults between 33 and 34 are using Tinder much more than teenagers and young adults.

Another myth busted. Tinder is a popular location-based dating app, and it was one of the first swiping apps. As of January 2019, the vast majority of Tinder users in the United States were male. About two-thirds of active Tinder users accessed the application only once a month. Only one-third of users were daily active users.

So, what is the distribution in terms of gender? Male users, 72%. Female users, 28%. And that includes all the transgendered and homosexual and other fluid sexuality definitions.

By genitalia, men, 72, women, 28.

In the UK, the situation is even more egregiously radical. There's a study by Oguri, O-G-U-RY. The male to female ratio on Tinder in the United Kingdom is 9 to 1. For every nine men, there's a single woman. Men are about 85% of total Tinder users. Women make about 15%.

Again, when you say women, it's also including transgender. Pure men to pure women, I mean, sexually speaking, would be 9 to 1. College students aren't keen to go on dates.

They see Tinder and dating apps as ego boosters.

There's a study by Lend Edu, E-D-U. So, when they ask college students why they're using Tinder, do you want to find dates? They say, no way, we're not dating. Do you want to find casual sex? No.

So, college students are using Tinder mainly as an ego booster.

So, here are the statistics. Close to 44% are using Tinder to boost confidence and to procrastinate. 29% use Tinder for a variety of reasons, which have nothing to do with dating or with sex. About 4% use Tinder to find a relationship, to look for a relationship. And about 23% or 22% use it to find hookups, casual sex.

Ironically, most of the casual sex ends up in fostering and engendering romantic and intimate relationships. So, hooking up is only the third most prevalent reason why students use Tinder.

Another survey asked students to compare Tinder and Bumble. 40% of the students said they use Tinder to hook up and they use Bumble for dating. 54% said they don't see any difference between the two. Tinder and other casual dating apps are actually not used for dating.

The authors summarize the study and say, students see dating apps as a form of past time, to pass the time, entertainment, rather than a chance to get a date.

Simple Texting conducted a survey on the topic of the link between online dating and casual sex. The survey was not specifically focused or centered around Tinder. It was about all dating apps.

But the results were surprising. 23.6% of respondents answered that they've had two or more one-night stands using dating apps.

And the surprise was, of course, that only 23.6% ended up having sex. 24.6% didn't get a chance to have sex. The dating app didn't lead them to sex. 52% said they had no sex whatsoever, not even conversation about sex, like sexting or cyber sex. Nothing sexual. 52%.

So dating apps are not for hookups. They're not for hookups. Simple. If you want a hookup and you use a dating app to obtain a hookup, you are far worse than, for example, going to a library. If you go to a library, if you go to a laundromat, if you go to grocery store, these are facts. If you go even to a restaurant and to some extent a bar or a pub, you're more likely to pick up someone, a partner, for casual sex than if you use a dating app. Sometimes twice more likely.

So there's a high percentage of respondents who actually never had sex. They had zero one-night stands in both genders.

And the surprise was that more women had casual sex as a consequence of using dating apps than men. Women ended up having more one-night stands than men. Men failed more often.

And no, men failed across all the attractiveness measures. So it has nothing to do with attractiveness. Men failed across all personality and biography keywords, all visuals. It was universal.

So dating apps are a failure. So why use it?

So it might be true that Tinder is used primarily to boost one's ego, shore up his or her self-esteem, and not forgetting a date.

So I mentioned the Land's Endu study, where 70% of Tinder users stated that they didn't meet the matches in real life.

There was another study, much bigger, modern dating myths, conducted a study of 7,072 respondents. And the results were staggering.

95% of people, of users of Tinder did not get, I mean, got matches and were able to leverage these matches into a date.

So let me explain. Majority did not get, did not obtain dates, but a small minority of this minority, 95% succeeded to convert into a date. And then 44% of these dates ended up in a long-term relationship after matching. And this is exactly the same as 42% of offline daters.

In other words, people who dated as a consequence of using dating apps had the same success rate in developing a long-term relationship as people who had dated offline without the benefit of a dating app.

So this challenged the perception that dating apps help you to choose, help you to select, that they are kind of filter, that they help you to focus and zero in and home in on the one, on the perfect one.

It seems that random encounters offline are as good as dating apps. So this study challenged a lot of what we had believed. 93% of respondents, when asked what they thought was important in a relationship, answered loyalty.

There was a primary value. So even though Tinder users do not want to hook up, do not want to hook up, do not want to commit to long-term relationships. Only 15% said that they want to commit within the next month. They don't want this to happen, but it happens.

So even people who come to the dating app with a mindset of, I'm not looking for anything long-term, I just want to say, even they end up in long-term intimate relationships.

Of course, statistically, as I mentioned before, the majority fail, majority don't have dates, majority don't have the overwhelming majority, the overwhelming majority don't end up having sex. They don't end up meeting anyone. They end up swiping and swiping and swiping, end of story.

So majority of them end up being single rather than dating.

But those who date, even those who have casual sex, sizable proportion, anywhere between 44 and 67%, depending on the study, end up having long-term intimate relationships.

According to Cosmopolitan, there was a survey by Moore, M-O-R-A-H-P-I. It was 1,000 young adults who used Tinder between the ages of 18 and 25. Cosmopolitan wanted to see how respondents viewed being single while also using the dating app.

72% reported that they choose to be single. And what's even more shocking, 81% of which 47% were men and 34% were women, and 34% were men. 81% said the benefits of being single outweigh the benefits of a romantic relationship.

I want you to listen to this well because it refutes another nonsensical claim by Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson makes many counterfactual and utterly nonsensical claims in his books, lectures, and so on.

One of the nonsensical claims he makes is that men are more sensitive to rejection than women, which is disputed and refuted by numerous studies.

Another nonsensical claim he makes is that women want to get married and have a long-term relationship, and it is men who are averse to it. They are trying to avoid it, and after a certain age, they are no longer interested.

The numbers in this study show the exact opposite. Women. Women want to remain single, not men.

Men want relationships. Men are much more romantic than women. Men want intimacy. Men actually feel much better in marriages than women. That's why 73% of all divorces are initiated by women. Men don't want the marriage to fail because they thrive in marriage. Their life expectancy increases in marriage. Their health condition is much better when they're married.

Women suffer in marriage. Women suffer disproportionately in marriages. Women want to exit marriage, and women want to stay single, not men, Jordan Peterson. So 72% reported that they choose to be single, and 81% said that the benefits of being single outweigh the benefits of romantic relationships. Of these 81%, the majority, the vast majority, were women.

When these people were asked why don't they like the idea of settling down, 61% of women and 46% of men answered that they don't want to make the mistake of ending up with the wrong person. 25% of women and 17% of men reported feeling empowered by their choice to remain single.

Women want to remain single, not men.

Another survey was conducted by Global Dating Insights, and these were respondents between the ages of 18 and 35, and it shows that 68% of women, 68% of women, and 56% of men said that loyalty is their number one priority. 64% of women, and 51% of men wanted independence from their partners if they're going to end up in a relationship.

Again, women wanted independence much more than men. Women are leery and reluctant to give up on singlehood. Singlehood empowers them, and they feel disempowered and dependent when they enter a long-term intimate romantic relationship with men, including marriage, and that's why most of them want out. They initiate 73% of all divorces.

Most Hindu users just use the app out of pure boredom to make themselves feel better, rather than to engage in a real relationship, regardless of the actual outcomes. No one knows exactly how many, but tens of millions of people on Tinder, there's about 1.6 billion swipes, 1.6 to 2 billion swipes a day, so there's about 50 daily swipes. Everyone swipes 50 times a day, because only 56% of the users are active.

So, according to Tinder, it delivers something like 30 million matches every day, and that means that 46% of users get a match every single day.

The majority of users are heterosexual men, but the majority of matches are with other men. And this would mean that men actually get homosexual men, gays, not women. The matches are mainly with homosexual men.

Tinder claims to have accumulated 43 billion matches since it had launched in 2012, and they say they're responsible for 1.5 million days every week, maybe.

A single texting has done a survey and it showed that 13.6 of online matches can end up in a marriage. So, maybe this doesn't apply strictly to Tinder, but there's a whole lot of marriages, and as I said earlier in this interminable lecture, about one-third of all marriages are conceived online one way or another through social media, email, etc.

When it comes to the number of Tinder matches that male and female users get, it's a lot more complicated, as I've mentioned before.

And there was another study. They used male and female profiles. They wanted to see how many matches they would get over a certain period, and this study showed that women got 400 matches within one hour, and men got 100 matches within the same hour.

So, for every match men got in one hour, a woman got four. Over four hours, the female profiles got 700 matches, and the male profiles got only 200 matches.

And so, women have a more frequent tendency to receive matches, and they also react to matches much more frequently.

They write messages first. When they match with someone 21% of the time, they write the first message. Men, 7% of the time.

Men are reluctant to write the first message, because men's motive is not actually to date or even to have sex. Men's motives are to be entertained, ego boosting or manipulation.

Most men, this is the study that I quoted, are actually narcissistic and psychopathic, Machiavellian. Women are more careful and more engaging when they look for potential dates. Men don't care. They are focused on the visuals and the possibility to manipulate.

Women use 122 characters in the first message. Men use 12.

Average time men take to message the match is about two minutes. 63% of men message within five minutes.

Women, on the other hand, take much more time. 18% of women's messages are within the first five minutes of matching. It takes them, on average, 38 minutes.

There's an article in Business Outsider 2017. The article claimed that 52% of women have had success at matching with the person they've swiped right to, compared to only 16% of men who did the same.

If you're a woman using Tinder, you have one in two chances of getting a match. If you're a guy, you have one in five chances.

Homosexual men have more than double the chances. Their success rate is 35%.

So what are the words, the trigger?

We have established already that attractiveness, the visual, is not the thing. It's not a determinant. It's untrue.

The nonsense of the monosphere is untrue. Women do not react to the way the man looks. They are not after chads and jerks and narcissists and psychopaths. Women are very discerning and very discriminant and very wise in using the dating app.

What the people in the monosphere say, the wannabe men in the monosphere say, is because they're projecting their own insecurities, their own failures, their own limited intellectual capacity, their own recklessness, their own defiance, their own psychopathy and narcissism onto the women.

But that's not how women behave on Tinder. I'm sorry. Women are triggered by words like work, travel, music, dog, outdoors, and adventure. These are the words that turn them on.

And when they see these words, these words indicate agreeableness. These words indicate kindness, compassion, empathy. These are all, according to the monosphere, beta qualities, actually.

Women are more focused on matching interests. Women focus much less on the body.

And men, homosexual men, gay men, and so on, they react to words like six feet or tattoos. Women don't.

So women use a lot of body descriptive words in their own bio, but they are not reactive to body descriptive words in a male's bio. They focus on the male's character, the male's history, the male's interests, the male's totality, while the men focus on attractiveness.

So women use very often to describe themselves. They use words like shy, sarcastic, awkward.

Men, surprisingly, use words like nerd, active, and professional.

So the picture is much more nuanced than the monosphere makes it out to be.

As of June 2020, there's a kind of app measuring system called App Ape. So as of June last year, 37.5% of owners of Tinder access the dating app on a daily basis. Only one-third access the app on a daily basis. The rest access the app, part of the rest, some of the rest, access the app on a monthly basis.

That's not exactly the six hungry fiends and predators that the monosphere describes.

The usage of the dating app is intermittent. It's boredom, motivated by boredom, low self-esteem.

It has to do, as far as women are concerned, it has to do with relationships and it's focused on the inherent properties and traits and qualities of the potential mates, potential men.

Men, they're looking for real men and real men, to use the monosphere's terms, are bettas.

The alphas of the monosphere are jerks, stupid narcissists and psychopaths.

It's a good description for a monosphere itself, by the way.

If you enjoyed this article, you might like the following:

Women: Red Pill Nonsense Refuted

Professor Sam Vaknin's lecture discusses the misconceptions and myths perpetuated by the manosphere community. He refutes the idea that the Pareto principle applies to dating and mating, stating that women prefer "beta males" over "alpha males" even for one-night stands. Vaknin also debunks the myth of hypergamy, stating that women have been marrying down in recent years due to increased education and income levels. Lastly, he addresses the myth that women do not consume as much pornography as men, explaining that women consume more text-based pornography than visual pornography.

Narcissism= Toxic Masculinity, Capitalism?

Sam Vaknin discusses the collapse of traditional gender roles and the rise of toxic masculinity, which is now prevalent in both men and women. He connects toxic masculinity to Darwinian jungle capitalism, urbanization, consumerism, and spectacle, all of which emphasize escapism and the denial of reality. Vaknin argues that capitalism has transitioned from manufacturing and consumption to spectacle and addiction, making it a form of narcissism. He concludes that narcissism is the organizing principle of the modern world, extending to gender relations, capitalism, and the attention economy.

20 Reasons to NOT Have Kids

In this video, Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the reasons why people are choosing not to have children. He cites studies that show having children can negatively impact physical and mental health, relationships, social life, earning power, and the environment. He also highlights the high cost of raising children, including education expenses, and the fact that many young adults are living with their parents well into their 20s and 30s. Overall, Vaknin argues that there are few good reasons to have children and suggests that counseling or medication may be necessary for those who still want to have them.

Choose Intimacy, not Self-sufficiency: Response to Angry Women

Professor Sam Vaknin argues that modern feminism is a cult that has led to negative outcomes for both men and women. He claims that the hookup culture, which is often framed as empowering for women, has actually led to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Vaknin believes that the only real empowerment for women can come from stable, loving, emotional, equal, and reciprocated relationships, which are not found in hookups or one-night stands. He also criticizes the idea that freedom of choice should extend to self-harm and harming others, as seen in the anti-vaxxer movement.

Women: Just Say “No”! Self-respect, Boundaries - Men Angry, Immature (Pop Red Pill Podcast)

Sam Vaknin discusses various topics in different transcripts. In the first one, he talks about the power dynamics between men and women, where women have gained the upper hand in recent times. In the second one, he blames the emphasis on career and toxic masculinity for the decline of committed relationships and the rise of loneliness. In the third one, he discusses the crisis between genders and suggests that women have the power to change the situation by tightening up their boundaries and getting clear on their values.

Beware the Stupid Takeover! (Sam Vaknin Rant, Read PINNED COMMENT)

Professor Sam Vaknin argues that stupidity is taking over the world, with technology empowering mediocre individuals and fostering a self-delusion of malignant egalitarianism. He believes that the rise of stupidity is due to a reverse Flynn effect, where average IQ scores have declined, and the tolerance and legitimization of stupidity in society. Vaknin also criticizes the democratic ideal and the influence of technology, which has allowed stupidity to spread like a viral pandemic, overwhelming systems of governance and decision-making.

OK, Boomer: Want to Be Young Again?

Professor Sam Vaknin argues that today's youth are facing a dystopian world and have given up on life, intimacy, and relationships. He claims that young people today engage almost exclusively in casual, drunk sex with strangers, lack basic skills for intimacy and relationships, and are incapable of forming long-term attachments. Vaknin blames older generations for creating a world without meaning or a future for the youth, leading them to reject life and reality. He believes that hope lies in much younger generations, and that older generations must carry on until those younger generations are old enough to take the torch and continue the march of humanity.

Vaknin Rips Into Feminist: Genders, Sex, Relationships (Excerpts)

The speaker expresses strong opinions about feminism, particularly third-wave feminism, and its impact on women's empowerment. They argue that contemporary women are disempowered, burdened with debt, and engage in self-destructive behaviors due to the influence of third-wave feminism. The speaker also criticizes the lack of intimacy in modern relationships and the negative effects of casual sex culture. They express contempt for younger generations and their perceived entitlement. The conversation ends abruptly after the speaker is provoked with the phrase "OK, boomer."

Manosphere - Misogynistic Suicide by Woman: PUAs, Incels, MGTOWs, and Pillers (Red and Black)

The Manosphere is a complex online space where men discuss various topics related to gender roles, relationships, and societal trends. It includes pickup artists, incels, and MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) communities, among others. These groups often have conflicting views and criticize each other. The rise of the Manosphere reflects significant social and cultural shifts, including the changing roles of men and women in society, the decline of traditional gender roles, and the increasing prevalence of unigender behaviors.

Metaverse as Collective Narcissism, Fantasy, Mental Illness (with Benny Hendel)

The process of virtualization, which began with the transition from agriculture to cities, has led to a retreat from reality and a shift towards simulations. The metaverse, a combination of technologies that provide online simulations, is a more profound form of virtualization that could have significant psychological impacts. Dangers of the metaverse include solipsism, self-sufficiency leading to asocial behavior, and the potential for corporations to own and control reality. However, there are also potential benefits, such as increased efficiency in work and improved accessibility for disabled individuals.

Transcripts Copyright © Sam Vaknin 2010-2024, under license to William DeGraaf
Website Copyright © William DeGraaf 2022-2024
Get it on Google Play
Privacy policy