> Given two socially well adjusted participants
So non-socially-well-adjusted, raised-on-the-internet types shouldn't get to date? Your comment is tautological and merely says that people who are good at dating are good at dating.
So non-socially-well-adjusted, raised-on-the-internet types shouldn't get to date? Your comment is tautological and merely says that people who are good at dating are good at dating.
It's 2016, homophobia should be shunned anyway.
"So people who never play football shouldn't get to score goals?"
Similarly, I think there are a lot of people who are bad at flirting but would make good romantic partners for the people they're interested in. But being bad at flirting means they often don't get a chance to demonstrate the other qualities they could bring to a relationship.
There is no IT solution that we could come up with to change this and it wouldn't even be desirable in the first place.
Sexual selection has the purpose to ensure that only people with desirable traits get to breed and while it isn't perfect it is my opinion that it still is the best process known to us.
It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills. If anything, being socially awkward is met with scorn. Maybe we should swap the name to socially poor and people would have some pity
Of course everyone should try hard to do this.
> It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills.
What skills are forcefully shared? And how can you possibly share social skills? Or are you suggesting that government should allocate sexual partners to everyone? I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
The bottom line is that most could significantly improve their social skills and confidence but many chose to live in denial because the first step is frightening and actually the hardest part. You just have to practice this skill like everything else in life and learn to not take judgement of others too serious.
My actual point is that society says we should help those who wasted an education by giving up part of our lives (income tax is a time tax on the average worker), but society says that someone who wasted their teen years not developing social skills is just a loser. This is a troubling view.
If one considers a concept of social wealth then there seems to be a resource transfer from the financially well off to the socially well off without a response in kind.
In the worst case consider a child who was bullied and turned to tech, who gained financially useful tech skills but missed out on social skills. Once they grow into an adult they are then taxed to support those who picked on the 'geeks and nerds' and who scorned education in favor of social standing among their peers. So the bullies get to enjoy financial support and the dividends of their social skills while the 'geeks and nerds' get only the dividends of their financial skills. Seems we should either provide relevant welfare for both or neither... but if one side is going to be better at pushing a position that is to their advancement I can guess which.
And of course this doesn't account for millions of nuances in each individual life that are exceptions, like the child who couldn't learn because they were too focused on their hunger.
Maybe we can start by considering those without social skills as socially poor instead of just losers.
Tinder has worked well for some people I know