really interesting, kai. thanks for writing this :) i was wondering if there's generally a misalignment in understanding when online dating really...works. in my opinion, the most successful use cases have been for gay people, or people in kink/non-monogamous spaces (i.e. where it's difficult to find like-minded people in the mainstream).
i don't think contemporary online dating (with the swipe patent, and the elo ratings, or the gale-shapely algo) has been particularly successful - but that's also because these innovations have coincided with massive consolidation of the dating app industry under the match group monopoly.
i think of okc when it first came out, how you could look at all the singles and then just send the ones you're interested in a message. and how grindr works in a similar-ish way. i do think more efficient algorithms existed in the past - but that was before the apps got so obsessed with "compatibility".
me, personally, i think there was a very short period of time in the 2010s to early 2020s where online dating was very novel and a fun way to meet new people in heterosexual spaces, but it has passed its saturation point (and enshittified itself, like you said). now i think most of the value and innovation is happening where these communities first originated - in gay and kink spaces.
one indicator of this - out of all the bigger players in the dating app industry - only grindr stock has maintained long term profitability. match group (tinder, hinge, okc) and bumble inc. have fallen rather drastically over the past 5 years. so to me, firstdate is adopting a model that the free market has already rejected...
i have a lot of other thoughts (like how SDU and dating services are not spiritually accurate predecessors of online dating, and i think that's part of the problem on how the government is viewing this project) - but might write about all of that on my own because this is getting a bit too long now.
Very disappointed there was no sugar mommy option in the questionnaire.
**in all seriousness though, thanks for the fascinating deep dive. However, I'm doubtful that proliferating third spaces will lead to more action in small spaces. The financial cost of socialising isn't nearly steep as the emotional or energy cost, especially when you've spent a lifetime interfacing with frictionless platforms. Clarke Quay bridge was the ideal third space born of zero government intervention and an abundance of horny desperation, but I'd wager that it would struggle to compete in the present day, if revived.
Disagree! That sober rave co-organised by the government had the same frantic and chaotic energy you’d find on a clarke quay bridge pre-covid. Even rizzless people can put together the conditions for other people to have fun. And imo, the most important condition is really an accessible and intriguing third space (which is probably why the ministry that co-organised it was so discreet about its involvement).
Genuinely all valid criticisms. But also I do understand the governments dilemma right now. At least as a temporary measure, the dating app is at least practical method to try to coax the TFI to increase (or at least stop decreasing so much). Quite sad that they did limit it to below 35 which makes the attempt look kinda shallow but i suppose it targets the TFI problem so excusable (and maybe if demand is high after the app picks up speed they’ll widen the age range) also thanks for mentioning the lack of same sex couple arrangements. As a queer person myself, yeah it was instantly exclusionary but again, doesn’t serve their intended purpose so whatever
Interesting piece. I think the fundamental problem is that we are trying to find a simple solution to something inherently complex. If one size really fitted all, we wouldn't need different educational streams, specialised schools, and different pathways for different students.
Likewise, if the underlying mindset is that marriage or relationships are simply too much work, then it probably doesn't matter how sophisticated the algorithm is at matching two people.
Assuming that someone who takes the time to complete the questionnaire genuinely wants a relationship, perhaps the next challenge is creating more opportunities for people to actually meet IRL, rather than relying on the social media and virtual interactions we've become so accustomed to.
People also look for very different things in a partner. Some prefer someone similar to themselves, while others are drawn to people who are quite different. And sometimes it takes time and experience for us to understand what we actually want. I'm not convinced that this is something an algorithm or AI can easily solve.
great piece, kai! Loved and agreed with many of your opinions ;-) esp funding parties, festivals, clubs. I also do wonder, how can we attract demand and attention to these things from people - and for them to play for play/pleasure's sake? (Maybe they make babies after, if they want to). But i'd argue that the erasure of avenues of play in Singapore is also contributed by people who have lost the desire/ability to play. I'd love to be part of the conversation that helps people to get back to that side of them!
You hit the nail on so many fronts. The investment in third spaces and the chance for people to interact in person is what the country desperately needs if they're serious about solving the problem. Alas, the government will never do it for those purposes because (gasp shock horror) the efficacy of that method is unquantifiable and therefore DOA.
Also, people filling in this form when using the app will totally not game it at all. No way.
How can anyone take this seriously when you start by dehumanizing an ever-growing disenfranchised portion of the population using such a polarizing term?
You should really look within and try to expunge this moronic side of yourself, although don't be surprised if there is nothing left afterwards.
The annectode that claims "[Singapore] has no nature" really confuses me. In all my travels so far, I'd say that Singapore has the best cityscape in my eyes purely because of how well it blends with nature.
Although I speak as a tourist, I do think that you should be proud of the fact that there are plenty of spaces over there where you can see lines of trees, gardens, and even vines growing up sides of the building.
I think you’re conflating greenery with nature that people can meaningfully engage with. There’s a difference between gardening incorporated into the cityscape and having nature you can go to to escape the noise and chaos of dense urban environs (without leaving your country) the way that you can in places like Hong Kong.
Tell me you don’t know anything about either nature or Singapore without saying so. Also, as a local, it would behoove you to keep your mouth shut about what we should or should not be proud of about our own country.
I’m not Singaporean. I grew up in Bangladesh and spent my twenties in Australia, so my perspective is admittedly an outside-in one. But I want to push back on the idea that there’s something inherently unnatural about the gamification of love. The overly sentimental notion of love marriage as the only authentic path is a very Western Christian phenomenon. For most of human history, and especially across Asia, marriage was arranged by parents. Growing up in an arranged-marriage society, the pre-marriage ritual often looked like an interview—families meeting, criteria compared, expectations negotiated. So the whole gamification of modern dating doesn’t strike me as a betrayal of some natural order; it often seems like the way it always was, just with apps and algorithms instead of aunties and matchmakers.
I’d also say the long-term outcomes of love in arranged and love marriages are broadly similar, presumably because parents are reasonably good at picking partners for their kids when hormones aren’t getting in the way. That’s why I think algorithmic matching would actually work better in an arranged-marriage context. The matching algorithm assumes both parties are looking to make long-term commitments, with penalties and costs for defection. Dating doesn’t have that background context. The mismatch in desire for long-term commitment and the lack of enforcement against defection is the primary problem with using algorithmic matching in a dating market. In an arranged-marriage context, the algorithm would work better because both parties are expected to commit long-term from the get-go. Men especially can’t pretend to want long-term commitment while actually seeking a short-term fling in an arranged-marriage context.
As for the “third spaces” idea, I’m less optimistic. Religiosity seems to be a better predictor of fertility—specifically belief in an Abrahamic God. High religiosity among Buddhists and Hindus doesn’t seem to increase fertility at all. So pushing for more church or mosque attendance might be a more effective means of increasing fertility, though as an atheist I find that proposal incredibly undesirable.
Finally, I’d be curious to know how prevalent arranged marriage actually is in the Singapore context. Is it the norm, or less common? Does it self-select for people who couldn’t get a date themselves? In Bangladesh, I’m somewhat suspicious of arranged-marriage statistics, because people clearly categorise their marriage as arranged even when the couple had been dating for a while beforehand, simply to avoid social stigma. That makes me wonder what the real picture is in Singapore.
really interesting, kai. thanks for writing this :) i was wondering if there's generally a misalignment in understanding when online dating really...works. in my opinion, the most successful use cases have been for gay people, or people in kink/non-monogamous spaces (i.e. where it's difficult to find like-minded people in the mainstream).
i don't think contemporary online dating (with the swipe patent, and the elo ratings, or the gale-shapely algo) has been particularly successful - but that's also because these innovations have coincided with massive consolidation of the dating app industry under the match group monopoly.
i think of okc when it first came out, how you could look at all the singles and then just send the ones you're interested in a message. and how grindr works in a similar-ish way. i do think more efficient algorithms existed in the past - but that was before the apps got so obsessed with "compatibility".
me, personally, i think there was a very short period of time in the 2010s to early 2020s where online dating was very novel and a fun way to meet new people in heterosexual spaces, but it has passed its saturation point (and enshittified itself, like you said). now i think most of the value and innovation is happening where these communities first originated - in gay and kink spaces.
one indicator of this - out of all the bigger players in the dating app industry - only grindr stock has maintained long term profitability. match group (tinder, hinge, okc) and bumble inc. have fallen rather drastically over the past 5 years. so to me, firstdate is adopting a model that the free market has already rejected...
i have a lot of other thoughts (like how SDU and dating services are not spiritually accurate predecessors of online dating, and i think that's part of the problem on how the government is viewing this project) - but might write about all of that on my own because this is getting a bit too long now.
Very disappointed there was no sugar mommy option in the questionnaire.
**in all seriousness though, thanks for the fascinating deep dive. However, I'm doubtful that proliferating third spaces will lead to more action in small spaces. The financial cost of socialising isn't nearly steep as the emotional or energy cost, especially when you've spent a lifetime interfacing with frictionless platforms. Clarke Quay bridge was the ideal third space born of zero government intervention and an abundance of horny desperation, but I'd wager that it would struggle to compete in the present day, if revived.
Disagree! That sober rave co-organised by the government had the same frantic and chaotic energy you’d find on a clarke quay bridge pre-covid. Even rizzless people can put together the conditions for other people to have fun. And imo, the most important condition is really an accessible and intriguing third space (which is probably why the ministry that co-organised it was so discreet about its involvement).
This is the most hilarious thing I heard the whole week. I don’t know whether this is a brilliant or terrible idea.
What a horrible, boring mess, most normal people would just give up meeting the opposite sex if it involved all that complexity.
All I can think of reading about the algorithm is: sweet oblivion take me
Genuinely all valid criticisms. But also I do understand the governments dilemma right now. At least as a temporary measure, the dating app is at least practical method to try to coax the TFI to increase (or at least stop decreasing so much). Quite sad that they did limit it to below 35 which makes the attempt look kinda shallow but i suppose it targets the TFI problem so excusable (and maybe if demand is high after the app picks up speed they’ll widen the age range) also thanks for mentioning the lack of same sex couple arrangements. As a queer person myself, yeah it was instantly exclusionary but again, doesn’t serve their intended purpose so whatever
Interesting piece. I think the fundamental problem is that we are trying to find a simple solution to something inherently complex. If one size really fitted all, we wouldn't need different educational streams, specialised schools, and different pathways for different students.
Likewise, if the underlying mindset is that marriage or relationships are simply too much work, then it probably doesn't matter how sophisticated the algorithm is at matching two people.
Assuming that someone who takes the time to complete the questionnaire genuinely wants a relationship, perhaps the next challenge is creating more opportunities for people to actually meet IRL, rather than relying on the social media and virtual interactions we've become so accustomed to.
People also look for very different things in a partner. Some prefer someone similar to themselves, while others are drawn to people who are quite different. And sometimes it takes time and experience for us to understand what we actually want. I'm not convinced that this is something an algorithm or AI can easily solve.
great piece, kai! Loved and agreed with many of your opinions ;-) esp funding parties, festivals, clubs. I also do wonder, how can we attract demand and attention to these things from people - and for them to play for play/pleasure's sake? (Maybe they make babies after, if they want to). But i'd argue that the erasure of avenues of play in Singapore is also contributed by people who have lost the desire/ability to play. I'd love to be part of the conversation that helps people to get back to that side of them!
You hit the nail on so many fronts. The investment in third spaces and the chance for people to interact in person is what the country desperately needs if they're serious about solving the problem. Alas, the government will never do it for those purposes because (gasp shock horror) the efficacy of that method is unquantifiable and therefore DOA.
Also, people filling in this form when using the app will totally not game it at all. No way.
> the incel problem
How can anyone take this seriously when you start by dehumanizing an ever-growing disenfranchised portion of the population using such a polarizing term?
You should really look within and try to expunge this moronic side of yourself, although don't be surprised if there is nothing left afterwards.
The annectode that claims "[Singapore] has no nature" really confuses me. In all my travels so far, I'd say that Singapore has the best cityscape in my eyes purely because of how well it blends with nature.
Although I speak as a tourist, I do think that you should be proud of the fact that there are plenty of spaces over there where you can see lines of trees, gardens, and even vines growing up sides of the building.
I think you’re conflating greenery with nature that people can meaningfully engage with. There’s a difference between gardening incorporated into the cityscape and having nature you can go to to escape the noise and chaos of dense urban environs (without leaving your country) the way that you can in places like Hong Kong.
Tell me you don’t know anything about either nature or Singapore without saying so. Also, as a local, it would behoove you to keep your mouth shut about what we should or should not be proud of about our own country.
Really loved how you broke this down! Especially the part of about how its a revival of SDU policies. It was the first thing i thought of!
I’m not Singaporean. I grew up in Bangladesh and spent my twenties in Australia, so my perspective is admittedly an outside-in one. But I want to push back on the idea that there’s something inherently unnatural about the gamification of love. The overly sentimental notion of love marriage as the only authentic path is a very Western Christian phenomenon. For most of human history, and especially across Asia, marriage was arranged by parents. Growing up in an arranged-marriage society, the pre-marriage ritual often looked like an interview—families meeting, criteria compared, expectations negotiated. So the whole gamification of modern dating doesn’t strike me as a betrayal of some natural order; it often seems like the way it always was, just with apps and algorithms instead of aunties and matchmakers.
I’d also say the long-term outcomes of love in arranged and love marriages are broadly similar, presumably because parents are reasonably good at picking partners for their kids when hormones aren’t getting in the way. That’s why I think algorithmic matching would actually work better in an arranged-marriage context. The matching algorithm assumes both parties are looking to make long-term commitments, with penalties and costs for defection. Dating doesn’t have that background context. The mismatch in desire for long-term commitment and the lack of enforcement against defection is the primary problem with using algorithmic matching in a dating market. In an arranged-marriage context, the algorithm would work better because both parties are expected to commit long-term from the get-go. Men especially can’t pretend to want long-term commitment while actually seeking a short-term fling in an arranged-marriage context.
As for the “third spaces” idea, I’m less optimistic. Religiosity seems to be a better predictor of fertility—specifically belief in an Abrahamic God. High religiosity among Buddhists and Hindus doesn’t seem to increase fertility at all. So pushing for more church or mosque attendance might be a more effective means of increasing fertility, though as an atheist I find that proposal incredibly undesirable.
Finally, I’d be curious to know how prevalent arranged marriage actually is in the Singapore context. Is it the norm, or less common? Does it self-select for people who couldn’t get a date themselves? In Bangladesh, I’m somewhat suspicious of arranged-marriage statistics, because people clearly categorise their marriage as arranged even when the couple had been dating for a while beforehand, simply to avoid social stigma. That makes me wonder what the real picture is in Singapore.
Great piece!!
Enjoyed this, thank you Kai!