You know, there's probably fewer perverse incentives with a government run dating service. Obviously I can imagine ways it could suck, but when I compare them to how commercial dating services are run it's hard to see how they could do a _worse_ job.

I think this would be better than commercial services, which have all the wrong incentives.

I would think just a coarse sorting would do, paired with a free meal. Every couple of weeks, you go for a random date with a somewhat well paired person, and see what happens. Maybe you don't meet the love of your life, but you will meet someone roughly your age living in the same society, a perspective worth having regardless of whether you're compatible.

However, if you know anyone from Singapore, you must think this is a rather small plaster on a gaping wound.

Singapore is like a permanent examination hall. Everyone is competing to do well on exams, and then they try to get the best internships, and then the best jobs. It's not exactly conducive to starting a family. You'll lose a step in the rat race, and then your kid will need to join this rat race.

> In short, stable matches mean nothing when nobody is committed and the best options might exist outside of the matchmaking pool

This is wrong. Stable matches still mean something, and in fact probably mean quite a lot.

You are given a much better match than a random pairing. If you still aren't interested, you can decline. If you go on a date and it doesn't work out, you can decline.

Nothing forces you to use this process, it is just an offer of a significantly better than random matching to what you might prefer.

It doesn't even need to account for preferences not covered by the questionnaire.

The author's final recommendation about investing in offline third places is very true in modern Singapore

Modern dating problem comes from too many online platforms trying to sell you a lifestyle and tell you what you should have. People do not need another online platform to solve the problem caused by online platforms

Gale-Shapley, used in this service, has the property that one side ("proposing" side) is guaranteed their most advantageous stable match while the other side is guaranteed their worst possible stable match.

I've never heard this discussed or mentioned as a drawback because it's Nobel Prize winning and "stable" is a shorthand for "fair". Even though there's many unique stable matches that each offer participants different utilities even if individual participants don't have incentives to change their pairing.

In practice, the more powerful party seems to be the proposing side, e.g. hospitals are the "proposing side" when using Gale-Shapeley to match w/ med school students and get their ideal students.

I wonder if anyone who works on dating apps knows if men or women are the preferred side? And is there any research on stable matching that ensures equity (or ideally arbitrary distribution of utility) between the two groups in their stable matches?

I think the algorithm is almost a distraction here. Gale-Shapley works nicely when preferences are reasonably well-defined and participants are actually committed to the matching process. Dating has neither property. People are terrible at predicting who they'll have chemistry with, and everyone has outside options.

Interesting the different takes different nations take over dropping birth rates. I posted a story here on the Lisdoonvarna dating festival in Ireland. This is a village with a lot of bars wanting to encourage tourism. It has had so much success that the government is now sponsoring it. Quite different than America where the government mandates something as opposed to funding something that has proven successful in a given area.

https://matchmakerireland.com/

Social media had a story on an American lady disappointed with dating choices in her city who went over there for fun, met an Irishman and in less than a year of transatlantic dating got married.

Bet you have just as much a chance of finding a life partner there than any online dating service, probably much better.

Tangent: I’ve often wondered why governments don’t provide a ‘dating’ service for employers and employees, or even better some kind of career development and management service for citizens. Use a bit of institutional wisdom to help people make the best of themselves from school age onwards, help people with similar or complementary skills and interests to connect … that kind of thing.

> with government workers set to be the first batch of daters

Oh yeah, the government workers, a group of people known for their prolific dating and people skills. This will go so well.

"Any hard Nos for you?", well, those who ignored the calls to their number is a no brainer big No, and also those who don't know how to fill their SMFF-29f-A form, which is different from SMFF-29F-A. Everyone here hates people who don't know the difference between SMFF-29f-A and SMFF-29F-A.

Strange how the country that consistently tops the Economic Freedom Index also has a government-run dating service.

There is no weight/debt/tattoos filter... Then again, maybe those are not a problem in Singapore?

Glad to see that it requires cooperative partners, and not just parents. And that the matched partners are not automatically engaged.

Let's see what other, more "progressive" governments will think about that. Lots of possibilities in government-run partner matching for out future AI overlords.

A very interesting solution to the problem. Surely this data will not be repurposed, right?

But if it helps likeminded people to find each other, then it absolutely has some value.

person previously dating in singapore - this is awesome! wish i had

Related:

Singapore govt dating app uses Gale-Shapley stable marriage algorithm

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49906432

Entirely dismissing how important looks, vibes, personality are in relationships. Not even dating -- if someone smells, you're not going to be incentives to make friends with them. This seems to me to just be trodding the same pseudoscientific route as MBTI personality tests, trying to condense a person into a list of multiple choice questions. That will never work. No algorithm can do it. Social interaction is not a solved game.

Thank you

Interesting that when I ctrl-f the linked article and the previous discussion (463 comments), not once is the word "trust" found.

That's the actual problem, though (a lack of it)! Above all else, you'll probably overlook a lot and still commit long-term to someone you can trust.

Welcome to Korea 2.0

I think this is good, yes there can be improve but the idea is good

especially for country like korea and japan ???? Yeah bro they need it

I thought incels are white right wingers, first time I see this term in a non-white context. Southern Poverty Law Center is listing them as a hate group for example so by definition incels can’t be black.

There is an amusing irony in this approach to marriage promotion: who isn't already married in Singapore? I've been told that the city's 30 year old gay and lesbian crowd is treated to a lot of fancy dates at public expense.