Seconding this for the lesbian community. For heterosexuals, sure, this may only be a hookup app. For lesbians? Long term relationships from Tinder abound (I say this as a lesbian, albeit one who met her wife at work).
Maybe this is not really an issue for homosexual couples, but I would never have considered Tinder because unlike OK Cupid, there's no way to filter out Republican-hates-the-gays-hates-abortions types. The question/answer filtering and profile text was the most important part of online dating to me.
It's funny you say this, because I am a Republican pro-life lesbian. I have used both OkCupid and Tinder in the past, and I 1. Didn't find OkCupid to be terribly good for filtering out those with worldview I disagreed with 2. Liked Tinder more because it forced that initial conversation with someone, which I would rather have, as I am interested in their mind just as much as their looks. Best of both worlds. YMMV.
You need to figure out the signaling then. It isn't that most people would never settle with a Republican pro-lifer, it's just that being a Republican/pro-lifer is an indicator of other incompatibilities (which usually is a good indicator of other things).
Take for instance you yourself are better off filtering out all the Republican/pro-lifers because of the baggage they'll bring with them.
Usually the signally has evolved to be different. You don't say Republican, you say Libertarian (considering gay rights being one of the topic of difference).
I'm registered as a Republican, and in theory, would rather date a Republican than a Libertarian. In unsurprising news, every woman I have ever dated has been a Democrat, and my wife is a Democrat from a socially democratic country. She will be joining me in voting for Gary Johnson in the upcoming presidential election, but is voting for Hilary in her party's primary.
It's funny, I used to look at the types of signaling you reference when I was dating (do we like the same things, have the same outlook, etc). I have found my greatest happiness with my wife, and the only two signals there I used were her work ethic and intellectual capacity. Well. And she's the hottest woman I've ever seen. All three, and I couldn't wait to put a ring on it.
As someone who doesn't like to be used as a political boogeyman or have their rights dangled in front of them when it's convenient, I will never understand this.
I go back to the old-school, small government intellectual Republicanism (this may sound crazy to many of you, but I assure you, at one point it existed). I realize that this is currently not where the party is (see: Trump, Cruz, Jindal, Carson, Palin, et al), but I believe in trying to change it from the inside.
Current and future quality of life for myself and others trumps paying lip service to ideals that are never realized.
Given the past ~30 years, saying that is the equivalent of saying you're a Nazi jew, because the Marxist in you likes some principles of national socialism. I still don't get it.
If she didn't qualify her comment with the statement about often voting libertarian, you'd have a point. But the political spectrum she fits into is currently covered by the Libertarian (big-L) and Republican parties (specifically, a minority libertarian portion of the Republican Party). A pro-life position would push someone back towards the Republican party, along with the fact that the Libertarian Party isn't going to win many major elections any time soon (maybe if Trump gets the nomination and the Republican party finally fractures?).
Bingo. My academic studies of political systems, US politics, game theory and economics leads me to believe that a true free market economy is the causa sine qua non for a more tolerant and free society.
I also believe that one cannot legislate social mores, and that the government does not, can not, and should not grant or even 'uphold' rights. Further, I believe that free markets CAN and HAVE caused (on net) greater social change than any legislated social change, and that on an individual level, free markets are the best channel for allowing minorities/oppressed individuals to champion their cause while simultaneously avoiding and stamping out oppression.
Ergo, I dedicate myself (and my vote) to the goal of an entirely free market. In essence, I swipe right for the Austrian School. (Go ahead and groan).
"Current and future quality of life for myself and others trumps paying lip service to ideals that are never realized."
Agreed. However, I bet we differ on the means by which one should go about achieving/obtaining (I separate those words very deliberately here) a high quality of life for oneself, and the means that will help others. If you're truly interested in a political conversation, and open to learning, my email is in my profile. While the HN community may benefit, we are going on quite the tangent from the main topic. Cheers.
The best way to do that is to actually read their little bio, assuming they put one in there, and look for typical indicators for that kind of alignment: talking about guns/shooting ranges, pictures of them at the shooting range, pictures of them with a dead deer, etc. Finally, if that fails, try just asking them when you have a match and start chatting.
I like the idea of being able to filter people too, and I find I can tell a lot about people from their OKC profile. The problem, however, is that OKC is basically a big waste of time because everyone desirable has moved to Tinder, and the few decent women on OKC don't respond because they get too many messages, and I end up spending way too much time writing messages with zero return. With Tinder, I don't have to waste my precious time 1) reading through a profile to see if this is someone I should spend time writing, and 2) writing a long, thoughtful message, only to get no response. If a woman matches me on Tinder, there's a decent chance she's actually going to respond. It's probably something like 33% chance I'll get a response on Tinder to a match. On OKC, it's probably less than 1%. If that means I have to spend a little more time text-chatting to learn about them because the Tinder profiles are so sparse, that's still a giant time savings for me.
... among others, all of which I had marked, with the correct answer set as "mandatory". If someone answered enough of these with the wrong answer, you won't even see them (if you do, you'll have a high "enemy" percentage), so you won't waste your time talking to them.
I have been on a date with a conspiracy nut, and can confirm that this is something I'd want to filter out if I was still dating and not in a long-term relationship.
I wouldn't use the term "information bubble" to describe this sort of filtering. It's not as though a person is unaware of those who believe differently regarding topics like evolution or the moon landing, or will never hear those arguments. It's just not necessarily a good idea to try to form a romantic partnership with someone who you don't respect because they believe a position you consider to be "crazy".
