Whether you love or loathe Tinder , there is no denying it has changed online dating forever. As a result there is now no end of apps with the same aim of helping you fall in love and live happily ever after, or at the least find someone to hang out with next weekend. Whether it's matching you on your favourite interests or finding someone who you share mutual friends with. Here, we take the biggest alternatives to Tinder and give them a spin to find out what if anything they do differently and what sets them apart. Pros: The brashness. If you actively pursue a date on Hinge, discretion mustn't be an issue - your friends are bound to find out. Cons: It's all a little too close to home: what's to stop her feeding your dating tekkers back to your pal?
Oncea dating app that sends users one suggested match per day, reached 7 million downloads last May. Still, swiping or not, some are giving up dating apps altogether, opting for offline dating and matchmaking services like Three Day Rule, which doubled its revenue inand now serves 10 cities in the U. According to Tiana, a twentysomething in California and also a Wingman user, swiping for matches on a dating app can feel like a waste of time.
Online matchmaking apps like Wingman, as well as in-person dating coaches and matchmaking services like OKSasha and Eflirt Expertare helping millennial users make more meaningful connections when the likes of Tinder leave them frustrated. Outsourcing our dating lives to friends or hired matchmakers to vet and select dates beforehand not only creates a higher level of safety, but it helps us think about dating as an organic part of everyday social life.
As Bumble's in-house sociologist Jess Carbino told Business Insiderspending less time swiping also gives us a better chance of actually meeting someone in person. In addition to curated matchmaking services, text-based apps are also on the rise as millennials move away from swiping for dates and veer back toward more traditional methods of connecting. Though the app is still in development following a successful Kickstarter campaign, it promises to maintain its original text-based format.
Is that a charming thing to do? Daniel Jones: Well, I've heard that if a man has a dog in the picture, that's a huge plus, because it's - again, it shows commitment and love, and that sort of thing. John Donvan: Interesting. Daniel Jones: And for a woman, no dog and looking up.
John Donvan: Really? Daniel Jones: [laughs] John Donvan: So, there's a science to the - yeah - to the mystery? Tom will tell you more about that.
John Donvan: I'm curious - in our audience tonight - is anybody here on a date? John Donvan: Oh, come on. Raise - close your eyes and raise your hands if you're here on a date. So - [laughter] - I think both of those things are happening right now. But I want to go to, you know, take that question to you in terms of the - what - you know, the heart wants what it wants, but the brain is the thing that's telling us, "Don't do that stupid thing.
Are there people who can talk themselves out of romance because their brain is telling them that it's a bad idea and their lives become ruined as a result? Or are there people - the opposite as well?
Are people following their hearts and they do incredibly stupid things? Daniel Jones: - following their hearts. I don't think I've ever been asked that question in that way before. I think people are terrified. You know, that - to open - to be vulnerable with someone is what love requires, but that's the hardest thing.
And I think it's harder - part of that is harder these days because we have these ways of sheltering ourselves and being meeker about how we ask someone out.
You know, it's just a text that says, "What's up? Daniel Jones: And there's so little risk in that. And when you're used to taking - when you're not used to taking risks, it was really a risk. Like, when I was in high school, and I was - I mean, I'm terrible at relationships. Like, I just - you know, part of this column has been, like, an education for me, because it's just not something I've ever been very good at.
And I - the idea of, like, calling someone or going up to someone in person - John Donvan: [affirmative] Daniel Jones: - was just paralyzing to me. And if I had texting, I would have been emboldened by that. But it would have been this lower bar of, like, saying, "What's up? Daniel Jones: And I think that you have to practice vulnerability to do it well, just like anything. And I worry that our tools are allowing us not to practice vulnerability. John Donvan: How else has actually working on this column and knowing all of these people's stories - how else has it changed you?
Daniel Jones: I feel like the question that we ask ourselves constantly, with love and relationships, is - and this is something that I've sort of absorbed through people's stories - is everyone is wondering, like, "How happy do I have a right to be? John Donvan: [affirmative] Daniel Jones: Or "How happy is" - you know, because everyone is trying to determine if this person is right for them. But is it worth jettisoning, you know, get - is it worth getting rid of? And the question that's sort of circling everyone's mind, it's an impossible question to answer.
People end up answering it, but it's how - what is happiness? What does it consist of? And how much of that do I have a right to? Is this marriage enough for me? Is this person enough for me? Now I need to - we need to start thinking about having a family. Is this the person I want to do it with? Do I feel good enough with this person? And I admire the people - I've come to admire people through the column, the people who repeatedly open themselves up to love after they've been sort of crushed.
Daniel Jones: And there are really two kinds of people in this world. And one is the kind - everyone gets crushed, you know, at some point. And one is the kind who says, "Okay, I'm going to love again. Those are the people who are going to have a happy life. And the ones who say, "I can't do that again," and go in the other direction and don't - and decide, "My heart can't take that. And if you can be on that right side of openness, there - you have a chance at a happy life.
John Donvan: - the Journalist. I don't consider myself an incredibly brave person - John Donvan: Ah. Daniel Jones: - when it comes to love. I have a good marriage, and - and I feel like I'm happier than I have a right to be considering how much struggle there is in the world.
But I - I don't know. I have a new view of sort of what - what marriage is. I've been married 25 years and have two kids and see them go through relationships and all of that.
And I've just - I've sort of come to appreciate what kindness and generosity can do over the long term versus our sort of obsession with love and romance. Which are - I don't know, I see so many stories of people who - who divorce or break up because they don't feel in love anymore.
They say, "I don't feel in love anymore. What is valuable? And what do you cherish? And I'm fascinated by people who struggle with those questions. Could you see yourself to rekindle the passion coming to an Intelligence Squared debate to sort of - [laughter] - get things fired - Daniel Jones: What are you asking really? John Donvan: I'm not asking you out. I just want to share.
We've had some - we've had people connect romantically by coming to these debates. Daniel Jones: I believe it, yeah. John Donvan: And we - we had - we had one marriage result - actually two a few years ago inI got an email from a guy in Denver named Ryan who wrote and said, "My girlfriend and I have been listening to your debates.
And we were having a lot of disagreements that were keeping us apart. But listening to your debates let us sort out what - you know, what we believe about things and to learn to respect the differences with each other. And now I think I'm ready to pop the question. And I sent the audio file out to him.
And four years ago, he played it in the kitchen while - while Nicole was making dinner. And then he got down on his knees and proposed to her. And I checked in with him this weekend. Daniel Jones: - probably. John Donvan: And we - we're very interested in these topics that kind of mix technology and the human spirit. We've debated the impact of technology on the way we think on whether it makes it smarter, whether video games make us smarter. You know, artificial intelligence, and jobs.
So, tonight's entrance in this category of Intellidating, we think, is really on target for us. Daniel Jones: [affirmative] John Donvan: But to get back to one other - a couple of other insights from your book that I just found fascinating - and your book, by the way, is called, "Love Illuminated: Exploring Life's Most Mystifying Subject.
Daniel Jones: Thank you. John Donvan: I really loved this book, because you had - first of all, you're a fantastic writer.
You - so many people are competing to get into your column. I'm thinking, "Who is the guy who is judging all of these writers? First of all, all those pieces are really well-written - Daniel Jones: Thanks, John.
That's nice of you to say. John Donvan: - but your writing is fantastic. But you mentioned that men are three times more likely to declare themselves in love before sex, and that this was a study done at Penn State. Do you recall that? Daniel Jones: Yeah, yeah.
John Donvan: So, what's that about? Daniel Jones: That surprised me. Well, it didn't surprise me once I knew why. It was a study about who says "I love you" first in relationships.
And I just - you know, I assumed it would be - very sexist of me, but I assumed it would be the women who would get emotionally involved before the man. And maybe they do. But the person who says, "I love you" first is the man, more commonly - three times more commonly, I think, and - John Donvan: Yeah, yeah.
Daniel Jones: - and he says it before sex. So, there's sort of a motive to - [laughter] - to saying it. I mean, I don't dispute its sincerity in the moment. John Donvan: At the time. Daniel Jones: In the moment. John Donvan: Yes. Daniel Jones: And then women are much more likely to say, "I love you" after sex, at which point the man is less likely to reciprocate. John Donvan: - the - yeah, let's not.
You also talk about the accidental "I love you," when one person blurts out, "I love you," not meaning to, and then - Daniel Jones: [affirmative] John Donvan: - and then it lands and becomes often unreciprocated. John Donvan: I recommend the book just for these couple of pages, because this is a brilliant story.
I mean, it - but again, we're so guarded. And this is - it's funny how "I love you," has become this sort of threshold. You know, like saying these words - like, in some cultures you don't even say "I love you" ever. And for us, it's so loaded. And then the - I mean, my favorite of stories that have come my way - many of which actually are about this exact issue - how do you say I love you?
What does a person say in response? And the classic responses are, like, "Thanks," you know? Well, yeah. You are a catch. And you've helped set up this conversation spectacularly well. The book, again, "Love Illuminated. So, far, 80, We've got another several hundred here, of people who can write and tell their stories.
But I want to thank you - Daniel Jones: Sure. John Donvan: [laughs] I want to thank you so much for taking the time and for helping us - Daniel Jones: Thanks, John. John Donvan: - set this table this way.
John Donvan: Daniel Jones. My pleasure. John Donvan: And now, let's please welcome our debaters to the stage, starting with Tom Jacques. Manoush Zomorodi. And Eric Klinenberg. Eric Klinenberg: Hello. John Donvan: Welcome to Intelligence Squared. You are a professor at New York University. You're co-author of the best-seller, "Modern Romance. And that's a field that has been looking at mating rituals for as long as anyone can really remember.
And tonight, we're debating the impact of dating apps on people.
But how have these apps changed sociology itself? Eric Klinenberg: So far, they haven't really changed sociology, but it is inevitable that they're going to. And there's a very simple reason for that, and that is that the things we do on apps are recorded by the companies that make them.
And we can turn that into data that we learn to discover all kinds of things about our secrets, the things we do. And actually, I should say that is just one of the many unromantic things about dating apps.
Eric Klinenberg - [applause] - trying to slip one by us. And Eric's partner is - ladies and gentlemen, please welcome again Manoush Zomorodi. Manoush Zomorodi: Hi, John. John Donvan: You host the "Note to Self" podcast.
It's known as the tech show about being human. Your recent book, "Bored and Brilliant," also makes another sort of fascinating breakthrough argument that is based on new research. You have found, you report, that we come up with some of our best and most creative thinking during periods when we are off of social media and just spacing out, because that's when our minds get busy, you say, in interesting and creative ways.
So, given that, is the advice that you would give your opponents tonight, if they want to win this debate, that they should just space out now and then? Manoush Zomorodi: Yeah, I would say, if they have not ignited the default mode in their brain and allowed their minds to wander towards brilliance, it's a little late, so Ladies and gentlemen, the team arguing for the motion. You've been to many debates as a member of the audience. It's great to have you up here.
You are a biological anthropologist. You are the chief scientific adviser to Match. That's what your book "Anatomy of Love" is all about, which raises the question, which probably will come up tonight, are we stuck with the chemistry that we're born with? We've evolved a huge cerebral cortex with which we make decisions. It's amazing we don't do it better, but we do.
We have, although, you know - although we are flexible, we have personalities that are based in biology. And we're naturally drawn to some people rather than others. So, people are correct when they say, "We have chemistry. Ladies and gentlemen, Helen Fisher. And next in line is Tom Jacques. Welcome to Intelligence Squared, Tom. Tom Jacques: Thank you. You are - that is a leading date site for anybody who might not know that. It boasts more than 3.
The best dating apps can still help you meet people, even when shelter-in place restrictions mean that you're meeting from a distance. With more of us spending time indoors these days, dating apps Author: John Corpuz. Swipe left, swipe right. Are dating apps ruining your relationships? While Tinder and other dating apps like Bumble, Hinge, and OkCupid pride themselves on making meaningful couplings, many young users reject the serious nature of the products and repurpose them as merely carefree entertainment. Rebecca's college roommate, Emily. Well, the arguments go in both of those directions and in plenty others per side, which make us think it has the makings of a good debate. So, let's have it. Yes or no to this statement: "Swipe Left: Dating Apps Have Killed Romance." I'm John Donvan. We have four superbly qualified debaters on the Intelligence Squared U.S. stage.
You, Tom, got your degree in computer science from Carnegie Mellon. And that makes you the numbers guy on the stage tonight, more than anybody else. So being good with numbers - Tom Jacques: Yes. John Donvan: - can you please settle the most important mathematical question to have burdened sages and songwriters for generations. Is one the loneliest number? So, I think one certainly, you know, is a lonely number. But like all questions, the context matters.
So, if we're talking about the number of relationships in the world, then zero is the loneliest number because it means that everybody's alone. John Donvan: Oh. Tom Jacques: If you have - [laughter]. You know, if you have one, but, you know, you might have access to a dating app like OkCupid, you can quickly turn that into two. John Donvan: Okay.
Also getting ahead of yourself. Ladies and gentlemen, Tom Jacques. Everybody, we're going to move on. As always, our debate goes in three rounds. And it's the difference between the first and the second vote that declares our winners, and only one side wins. Let's move onto Round 1. Speaking first for the motion and making his way to the Intelligence Square there on the floor, Eric Klinenberg.
He is sociologist and co-author of the book, "Modern Romance. You heard I'm a sociologist. I love sociology. I can't stop doing it. So, I thought, let's start tonight by getting to know each other a little bit.
I'm going to do an old-fashioned instant survey to get us going. So, let me just ask, how many people in this room - can you clap, please - if you have never done online dating - if you've never used an - [applause] - oh, this is the National Public Radio crowd here tonight. And can you also clap loudly if you have used a dating app? We have - people, we have a future. Can you clap if you're single? Clap if you're married, please.
Best dating apps for
Somewhat disturbing. And just finally, if you could clap if you're currently in an extramarital relationship. Ashley Madison, a dating app that is not dead yet. I have traveled around the world doing interviews and focus groups with people who are single. I have studied the data that come from dating companies. And I can tell you that it's true - millions of people are using dating apps and many are finding relationships.
But we are here not to talk about the numbers so much as to talk about the experience. And let me tell you that the experiences of people who use dating apps are anything but romantic. And let's remember why we're here tonight, ladies and gentlemen. Our question is not "Are dating apps popular? We concede that. It's whether dating apps are bad for romance. And Manoush and I tonight are going to tell you why they are. But before we can do that, let's define the term.
What is romance? Let's go to the Oxford English dictionary, a great source for this. It tells us that romance is this kind of feeling of mystery and wonder - Helen has written about this - that we get around love, but there's something else in the definition that's important to me. It's the sense of being swept away, remote from reality, away from everyday life. It's that sense of being preoccupied with some other person.
You think about them and care about them so much that everything else kind of melts away. You forget about the mundane.
30 vs 1: Dating App in Real Life
That's the feeling that we try to recapture when we go on vacation, or when we go on a date, or when we make a meal for our special person. It's that idea that we're lost in love. There's not another care we have in the world.
Now, it is worth nothing that since the advent of the Internet, marriage rates have gone down. There are more people in the world who are single today than ever before. There are more people who are living alone. Still, I think that most people who are looking for love are able to find it, and technology won't change that.
Other swipe dating apps
The thing is that dating apps are making just about every part of our search for love less romantic. Think about it. If you've been on a dating app, you know that it encourages you to treat people like products. People routinely lie about their height, their age, their weight, their income. They put huge amounts of attention into their photograph - and for good reason. About 90 percent of the action - online dating - is about the quality of your picture. Are you hot or not? But then we sent out heartless and sometimes cruel messages - things we would never say to a person in person - because the phones encourage us to treat people like bubbles on a screen.
Unfortunately, the things that we do online are changing the culture. My fellow sociologists say that they're changing our norms, making us ruder, and flakier, and more self-involved. Have you taken a selfie recently? Here's the most important thing. Dating apps make it harder, not easier to be swept away by another person.
Why is that? Because the phone demands our attention. It is always telling us that there's something or someone that deserves our attention more than the person we're with or the thing we're doing now. That's true for new couples, but it's also true for established couples as well. I mean, think about it. How often have you come home at night, if you're in a couple, looking for affection and connection only to find your partner cuddled up on the couch with his iPhone?
How romantic is that? Real life and real relationships have a hard time competing with the stimulation that apps give us. On dating apps, the problem is there's too much going on.
Today, people go into their phones, and they perceive a world of limitless dating choices. And unfortunately, this means it's very hard to settle on the person that we're with. We're always wondering, isn't there something better out there? Let's go online and find out.
About the App: Made just for single seniors, OurTime is one of the most well-known niche dating apps. It's a fun and straightforward app with simple swiping features. Once two people swipe right on each other, they can communicate. For more match options, visit the Connect and I'm Interested pages. Feb 06, Thanks to Tinder, swiping through selfies has become a defining feature of many millennials' online dating experiences. Since its launch, the app's signature swipe Author: Sofia Barrett-Ibarria.
I have interviewed people who are on Tinder while in an Uber on their way to a date that they organized on Tinder hours before. And this matters because romance and love don't come from superficial connections. It's not really about whether you're hot or not. At the end of the day, romance is impossible without sustained face-to-face contact. What's important is not the quantity of our dates; it's the quality of our interactions.
And the main reason that you should vote for the motion tonight is because apps and the phone culture that they're part of have made spending quality time with another human being a very hard thing to do. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to come out here tonight to debate. So, I usually don't do media or public speaking things. Like most people, it terrifies me. And being a programmer, I'm more likely to talk to a computer than another human being. But, you know, even though I'm not going to be as eloquent as Eric just was, I'm going to do my best.
So, hello, everybody. So, I grew up in a small town of Wayland, Massachusetts. And, you know, after graduating, I moved to New York to join this crazy startup called OkCupid that was trying to use the internet to help people find love. And, you know, working on a dating app, you know, let me tell you some of my interests. I love to travel, love candle-lit dinners, long walks on the beach, and writing algorithms. You know, it's literally what I've spent the last eight years of my life thinking about every single day.
And I may not look like a traditional matchmaker but today, you know, as Eric told you, I am the typical matchmaker because, you know, dating apps are the most common way to meet people now.
And today, you know, I'm going to show you that instead of killing romance, the data actually shows that dating apps are creating romance. And even though Eric didn't want to talk about the numbers, I do. So, I've got three main points that I want to get across tonight. The first point is that more and more people are using dating apps to get together.
You know, since building momentum in when the first dating apps started coming about, there's been a steady increase in the percent of couples that are using dating apps to get together. This is especially true of people who were marginalized before, the handicapped, the LGBTQI community and people over the age of You know, says - a quick question to the audience, and remember, it's radio so make a lot of noise. Who knows somebody who's in a relationship because of a dating app?
Turns out you're not alone. A number of studies estimate that over 40 percent of relationships today come from meeting on a dating app, and over 70 percent of LGBTQI relationships do. A recent study, called the Strength of Apps [unintelligible] that got global attention insays that we're actually seeing an ujankossencontemporary.comecedented rise in the number of interracial marriages.
And this sharp rise in interracial marriages correlates exactly to moments when popular dating apps were released - things like Match. This is what dating apps do. They break down barriers and allow you to connect, form relationships, get married to people who you might otherwise never have the chance to meet.
What isn't romantic about that? So, my second point is that it's working. Not only are people getting together, they're staying together and they're happy. Studies have shown that married couples who met online report higher marital satisfaction and have a lower rate of breaking up than couples who met offline. And you might be thinking, "Alright. So, what? Anybody can cite a study that makes them look good, right?
Well, let's talk about something you can't fake - more data. It turns out that because marriages are registered with the government in the United States, the CDC happens to track marriage and divorce rates.
Don't ask me why the CDC thinks that marriage is a disease. According to them, marriage has been steadily declining in the United States since the '80s.
And this trend only began to change inwhere it started to bottom out, and it's actually started to rise again. You know, if you take a look at divorces - and specifically the rate of divorces per marriage - that's a trend line that's been going up over time. You know, people have been getting divorced more and more. But that trend also reversed in It's actually come back down to one of the lowest points in the last 20 years.
So, now, well, correlation doesn't imply causation. You know, how could these negative trends have been reversed during the rise of dating apps?
It's a hard pill to swallow. If dating apps have killed romance, where's the body? Qualitatively, people don't think that dating apps are killing romance. Pew Research surveyed 55 percent of people who don't use dating apps - think that they're good. A lot of people who do use them - 80 percent - think that they're a good way to meet people. Quantitatively, people are still forming relationships and getting together. Again, over 40 percent of relationships today and over a third of marriages are due to dating apps.
And you know, if this stuff didn't work, I wouldn't have a job. They're making romance possible. And because of that, I ask you to vote no on the motion. I'm John Donvan.
I am not a sociologist. I am not a data scientist. I'm a mom of two kids. I'm a wife. I'm a journalist. And I host a podcast that is about how technology is changing everything in our lives. And my audience is extremely generous.
Every day, we get emails and voice memos about how technology is specifically changing the way that they work, the way that they parent, the way that they fall in love. And oftentimes, they are looking for guidance on how to cope with this accelerating world. And so, that is what I hope to offer them on this podcast.
But when I told them I was going to be doing this debate tonight, they had a message for you. In fact, they had a few things that they wanted you to know about their experiences on these dating apps. Some simply wanted to share the messages that they had exchanged with potential suitors. Manoush Zomorodi: And tell me if this would spark online romance for you.
Yeah, those weren't too bad. Can I read you my favorite? What are you looking for? My kids aren't listening.
I just want you to know that. To be fair, several of my listeners did say that they eventually did meet a special someone with the help of an online dating site. It also offers regular singles events for users, a regularly ated Soulmates blog and a highly refined search function. Cons: Not as innovative or packed with features as newer dating apps. Verdict: Worth the money if sitting in the pub on a Sunday quietly reading The Observer is one of your kinks.
The USP: Their mantra and methodology is explained thus: "Each day at noon, guys will receive up to 21 quality matches - known as 'Bagels'. Then, Coffee Meets Bagel will curate the best potential matches for women among the men who expressed interest. Pros: A more curated selection than just endlessly swiping through everyone.
Cons: The app requires you to give over control over to someone else to decide for you. Verdict: CMB only lets you see people who have liked you, so no torturing yourself about 'the one that got away'. Think of it as a time-effective dating app. The USP: Gives you the chance to tell your friends rather than strangers that you want to sleep with them. Pros: There is a strange thrill in being able to 'swipe' that acquaintance you've always fancied, asking them for a date up or telling them you want to sleep with them down.
Until you realise how pathetic it is. Cons: It pulls in every single woman who happens to be your friend on Facebook, even if they haven't joined Down yet your cowardly come on will be waiting for them if they ever domaking it rather pointless. Verdict: The more you think about it, the less sense Down makes.
Isn't the whole point of internet dating that you can meet someone new? This hook-up app for friends and friends of friends is the equivalent of passing 'I Like You' notes in class. The USP: Hook up with the people you walk past on the street.
Pros: Once you get over the slight stalker complex Happn instils on you by showing women who walked past your front door an hour ago, matching with users within a metre radius is actually quite handy. Chances are you live or work in the same area, so arranging a date becomes a lot simpler.
Cons: If the date goes horribly, there are no assurances you won't bump into her when you're buying milk a few days later. Also, spend too much time on it and you start getting paranoid you're seeing 'someone you liked on Happn' every time you sit in your local cafe. Verdict: One of the most effective - and convenient - dating apps out there. Until it isn't. The USP: Endless personality quiz questions that give you a match percentage with would-be partners. Pros: You can weed out people with traits or points of view you find simply unacceptable.
Cons: Too many basic functions are restricted to paid membership. Verdict: Worth a shot, if only to kill time answering bizarre questions about yourself. The USP: It's a huge ocean, with more members than any of the others around 70 million. Pros: Unlike most of the other apps, doing the basics on PoF - looking at profiles, sending and reading messages - is absolutely free.
Cons: A high number of sexually frustrated virgin-trolls means a lot of women find using it a harrowing experience, which understandably makes them cagey when you, a normal man, comes along.
It's disheartening how many women have to resort to 'please no sex pests' appendices on their profile information.