@Tipsycaek Well I think you could just not bother showing people others that have disqualified them.
-
-
Replying to @nouswaves
@Tipsycaek Frame change was basically: -1 or +1 (Tinder) vs -1 or 0 (Untitled). And give women more opportunities to -1 after initial.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nouswaves
@Tipsycaek I think there is a different male mindset between knowing she already likes them vs a colder approach.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@Tipsycaek (Not sure if men would ever aggregate agree to filtering. It is completely against our incentives.)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@sebinsua I'm certainly aware of this. It just sucks. It is highly unpleasant to only be pursued because you exist and are open to the idea1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Tipsycaek
@Tipsycaek Solution there, it seems to me to, is for worthy men to prove themselves by going on quests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nouswaves
@sebinsua i don't care as much about worth as i do about someone being interested /specifically in me/1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Tipsycaek
@Tipsycaek 'Worth' is an ugly frame for sure. For me it is 'invested' and 'willing to invest'. Not specific interest but exclusive choice.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@Tipsycaek Exclusive choice is an outcome of deep investment; it has the visage of specific interest but maybe not the intention.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@Tipsycaek I think it's probably very unlikely for two people to get their specific choices; one might have to invest in the other's choice.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.