User:Postcel/Can Dating Be Debugged

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a WIP, don't be hesitant to critique it!

The Current State of Dating[edit | edit source]

The Mathematic (Unaccepted) Solution: Looksmatching Data[edit | edit source]

The (Bad) Moderated Solution: Optimize for communication "Niceness"[edit | edit source]

Since dating app uses an ELO-like gaming system, some would consider the game should not be optimized for "swipes" based on physical appeal, but rather sustained conversation length (as to slow down Life history of the platform). This however produces a newer set of problems:

Female Tactical Silence[edit | edit source]

Girls often Shit test through communicative isolation and linguistic Fuck-off signals, to test if the man is likely to be loyal. By social isolation and "request to use other social contacts", it can remove the moderative effectiveness of the platform, as observed in Fiverr (an app for free-lance work). Blocking off this contact avenue though can cause a deterioration in user experience, so there should be at least a compromise. Female passive aggressiveness in messages, often through emojis and backhand compliments, are hard to detect using existing machine learning methods.

If the girls were to be penalized through the algorithm that is optimized for healthy conversation, then she will simply drop off from the platform, thus debasing the site's value while artificially inflate the other girls value (relative to the males). Pussy cartel (especially r/FDS) are known to tout vileness as a moral right. The only way against this social trap, is to literally create an honor culture among Chads to use a politeness-centric platform rather than Tinder, which the promises of a future wife will come in handy (for those that are slow Life history). However, fast Life history Chads will mess with this dynamic, and this will have to be addressed later.

Male overcompliments[edit | edit source]

Nice guy self-regulation are known to be a problem, as noted by John Gottman. Simp behavior should be penalized, and communication should be the main focus. It would be easy keeping track of the ratios through sentiment analysis, but it is not that simple. There is a major problem against even this enhanced version of "no-simp niceness". Non-Violent Communication (or NVC)[1], the idea of speaking emotions clearly and politely, is often considered to be an essential skill for the Mentalcel inside and outside dating, but it does NOT include conflict resolution methods, especially when it comes to toxic persons.[2] NVC can also be done through textual emotion detection, but there are no easy solution for conflict resolution, i.e. a negotiation protocol.

In order to solve the problem of conflict resolution, one has to establish "fair fights"[3] or the social equivalent of the Geneva Protocol. Any protocol is fragile as it requires a third party (e.g. an AI counsellor) to intermediate, and if the girl were to engage in unconventional emotional abuse (similar to IRL[4]), unless the third party can penalize her existence outside of the relationship (e.g. social shaming), there is no way to resolve it other than to ending the relationship. And let's say the male side was in a toxic relationship, and that he attempted to be civil, could he be justly compensated by raising his score?

Compensation Against Hypergamy[edit | edit source]

If the platform were to perpetuate Tinder-like slot machine mechanism, female will get to continuously pick Chads over others. To stop this, there has to be a leveling system where people must work through their current provided opportunities, similar to video game team balancing and team ranking. The major issue is that women who wish to be hypergamous would have to win average men in the short term before moving to better men, whilst the men would like to become more social through long-term engagement. These two goals are not aligned with one another, as it disincentivizes women to use the platform. The general rule on a win-lose condition could be based on a set time e.g. "one month rule"[5]. People should be rewarded for sustaining a relationship, but not necessarily be penalized for dumping a person just for the points. Unless the reward is exponential, or that "rotation" is penalized, there is no easy solutions.

The Radical (Authoritarian) Solution: Forced Monogamy[edit | edit source]

The (Reactionary) Libertarian Solution: Strict Islamic Polygamy[edit | edit source]