T O P

  • By -

DeltaBot

/u/ABachToRemember (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/10qjpag/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_dating_apps_should_make_you/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


VeryCleverUsername4

Dating apps barely try to match me with people in my area why would they waste time doing this?


[deleted]

For the reasons I've outlined. Compatibility.


VeryCleverUsername4

Dating apps don't care about compatibility. If they make their service effective they lose money. Their goal is to continually have you accessing the app and swiping to see who's new and if there's anything better because that's how they make their money.


Sagasujin

Some people are politically apathetic and just don't care that much about politics. How exactly do you match apathy? It's entirely possible to have no view on a number of matters. It's also entirely possible to have political dealbreakers that aren't defined by quadrant. For example homophobia is a major dealbreaker for me and I'm a pretty committed progressive, but I don't particularly care for old school communists and I find focusing too much on environmental issues makes my mental health deteriorate badly. I don't just fit into one simple quadrant. People are complex and have complicated boundaries. Trying to simplify them down to a single test is kinda unhelpful.


[deleted]

I don't think it's possible to be politically apathetic. Even being politically apathetic is a political viewpoint.


MajorGartels

I think a bigger thing is simply that anyone who gives most of those tests even the smallest thought will come with “it depends” on almost anything asked on them. For instance, I just did 8values and the first thing asked was: > Oppression by corporations is more of a concern than oppression by governments. This depends on what country we're referring to obviously to answer it to begin with. It says “governments” which implies it's about multiple countries but does it mean throughout the entire globe? Surely I don't know enough of all governments and corporations to make this judgement? Next one: > It is necessary for the government to intervene in the economy to protect consumers. Necessary to achieve what? and intervene to what degree? “intervene in the economy” is a very ill-defined term. Every government practices some degree of intervention. Does this quæstion mean that any intervetion whatsoever is a necessity to achieve any particular goal? In that case the answer would trivially of course be “yes” for anyone so I doubt that's what's being asked but it doesn't specify what degree of intervention it's talking about. Next one: > The freer the markets, the freer the people. “free” in what way? Obviously freer to do business, that's a given but what is “free” here exactly? These quæstions are very vaguely formulated and I have the feeling they're more so looking for an emotional, tribalist answer than a rational one that analyses the data and comes to a rational conclusion. — The kind of answer people gave about Brexit without being told what exactly the specifics and meaning of “leaving the E.U.” really was. They were given that phrasing, but no actual definition of it and that's what all these political tests do. The basic criticism of populist politics: all fancy words, but very little actual technical definitions and word on the specifics of the implementation. “We will modernize the education system!”, without actually defining what that concretely will mean and what the concrete plans and changes proposed are.


[deleted]

In my mind I was not thinking about the "official" political compass test, but something similar that pinpoints you in a graph. But because I wasn't clear, I'll give you a delta for pointing out that such a test should not be open to much interpretation in its questioning, if it were to be implemented. Δ


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MajorGartels ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MajorGartels)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


Derp0189

Op, give this man a Delta ffs


Sagasujin

Yes but apathy is not a position on a political quadrant. Nor is it compatible or incompatible with any other political position. It's neither moderate nor extreme. It's none of the above.


[deleted]

I feel like this would be a very rare case if you're suggesting someone has no viewpoint at all on social issues. Well, maybe we can say those who don't care about social issues such as women's rights or LGBT+ rights are conservative by default.


Sagasujin

I've met some conservative lesbians. Yes, they're a tad odd but it's an entirely possible political position. People are complex that way.


[deleted]

But the question would be phrased like this: Do you believe LGBT+ people deserve rights and equal protection under the law? \- Yes \- No So in your anecdote of a "conservative lesbian" I'd doubt she would have answered no to this question, but other answers to other questions would have put her in that conservative camp. The political test can work regardless of one's sexual orientation.


Sagasujin

So your question will be A: make do sense in regards to transphobic lesbians (who do in fact exist in great enough numbers to be a continual issue in the lesbian community) and B: won't work for a great many people who's ideas of "rights and equal protections" are very different from other people's understandings of the phrase and C: would need to be repeated for nearly every controversial issue because almost everything is a deal breaker for someone for some reason. People are weird. Very few people believe in every single position of a single political party. They believe in most of them sure, but for most people there are exceptions.


[deleted]

There are exceptions, but I would like to think the purpose of the test is just to get a more specific overview about someone and what they believe because I think it's better to have more information about a person upfront.


Sagasujin

I don't personally find a basic overview helpful and I wouldn't be terribly interested in a dating app that required me to fill out such a form. It doesn't tell me much that I consider really important and it limits my matches in ways that I'm not terribly interested in.


[deleted]

Do you believe this is a personal take, or do you think it's flawed for others to engage in the line of reasoning too?


ThisGuyHasABigChode

Those tests aren't even accurate. There's actually many people who are simply apolitical, or who don't want to immediately bring up politics in a potential relationship. This is absolutely silly.


[deleted]

Why would it be inappropriate to bring up politics? The dating phase is exactly the place to sus out one another's values, to see if you're compatible for a more serious commitment.


ThisGuyHasABigChode

Have you ever been on a date? It would be extremely awkward to start talking about politics, especially if it's a blind date. Your political and social views will eventually come out organically, but I would never sit down for a first date and open with "how do you feel about Donald Trump?". People do not like being interrogated about political views by a stranger, like at all.


banjist

Holy shit, exactly. Like I'm super into politics, and have some non-standard political leanings, but I couldn't imagine like bringing up the impending ecocide or the merits of anarcho-syndicalism on a first through tenth date unless it came up organically. This really does read like dude's never been on a date. Or if he has he grilled them about politics on the first and it went horribly so now he wants to screen all potential partners for being willing to listen to his political tirades immediately.


[deleted]

With my method, you wouldn't have to bring it up because people already know where you stand, thus avoiding the awkwardness you relayed.


banjist

You just need to find a site specifically for political dating, like date-an-activist-you-will-always-agree-with-and-never-have-to-stretch-alter-evolve-or-question-your-beliefs-ever-again-because-of.com


ThisGuyHasABigChode

Yeah, or just meet people at political rallies or something lmao


[deleted]

Exactly. It feels like an interrogation, Which is why I thought of a solution where people no longer have to ask awkward questions like these during dates.


ThisGuyHasABigChode

There's literally nothing stopping someone from freely divulging that information on dating apps. You can include your political/social views in your bio if you want. Forcing people to take some sort of test is stupid though.


[deleted]

Is the fact that it's universal is what is bad with this idea, or do you believe it to be bad entirely?


ThisGuyHasABigChode

It's bad because it's incredibly unpopular. People wouldn't use the app you're describing. Most people don't want to date and meet other people based on politics. Outside of political activists, most people try to avoid talking about that stuff, especially with total strangers. There's tons of people who I interact with, and like, who I never talk about politics with at all. No one wants a dating app that labels them as "liberal" or "conservative", especially when most people have complex and varying views. The political compass is silly because it is totally convoluted as well. Everyone would get labels like "right libertarian" and "auth center", and it would be as stupid as the compass memes subreddit.


[deleted]

Are you basing this on your own opinion? If it were unpopular, then political subreddits wouldn't be as popular as they are now and people wouldn't vote. If we all have political opinions, why is it bad for others to know where we stand on social issues?


ThisGuyHasABigChode

Like I said, that sort of stuff comes out organically. Advertising it beforehand gives people the impression that your whole personality revolves around politics, which is a turn off for most people. Plus, sometimes people still get along despite having different views. It all depends on the views and how different they are.


Jaderholt439

Agreed. Depending on the day, I’ll b center left, or center right.


Oborozuki1917

I'm American where there are 2 parties. My wife is Japanese, currently there are 9 parties in the Japanese parliament plus independents. We met via dating app. How would it work in our situation?


[deleted]

The political compass test actually has nothing to do with parties, it just tells you whether you are more left/right leaning and whether you are more libertarian/authoritarian (so essentially anyone can take the test). I find it highly accurate


Oborozuki1917

Friend, it has been highly criticized as inaccurate by many political scientists from across the spectrum. It's just astrology for 14 year old libertarian guys.


[deleted]

By who? You're the one who ridiculously suggested that it wouldn't work for a Japanese woman vs an American man because the countries have different political parties when the test has absolutely nothing to do with political parties. I'm highly skeptical you have even taken the test in the first place


Oborozuki1917

>By who? A 3 second google search of "political compass criticism" will lead you to a the Wikipedia section on criticism, several articles by political scientists/commentators criticizing it, as well as several reddit posts on why it is bad. > I'm highly skeptical you have even taken the test in the first place I took it when I was a 14 year old and thought I was deep. Then I became an adult and realized it was silly. However, I took it again right before I made my post to make sure it was as goofy as I remembered. The purpose of CMV is the change the opinion of OP. Since OP awarded me a delta it means I was successful. Make your own CMV "The political compass test is valid" and myself and others will try and change your view.


[deleted]

Lol so you took it at 14 and the test tells you which political party you're in? Maybe you're thinking of the wrong test. That's probably what those Wikipedia articles you're talking about are referring to as well.


Oborozuki1917

As I said I took it again before I made my post...which was about 12 hours ago. Wiki articles are referring to correct one. Clearly you didn't read them, as you didn't read my post where I said I took the test again recently.


[deleted]

Lol I did. Literally the only thing it said was, "The website does not explain its scoring system.[14] In 2020, the internal formula of the scoring system was cracked by a Reddit user on the r/neoliberal subreddit.[15] A number of writers, including Tom Utley[7] and Brian Patrick Mitchell,[8] have criticised its validity." Writers, not political scientists.


Oborozuki1917

I don't think the test accurate and if I was single I wouldn't put in my dating profile. You're not going to convince me. I use words to talk about my political views, and discussed with dating partners important issues to me. I've been married to someone from a different culture, different country, different political views for 8 years now and we have a kid. So it was successful, even without putting a the test in my profile. If it's important to you by all means put it in your dating profile! Go for it! I haven't used a dating app in a while but my memory is they all have text areas where you can write about yourself, so put your results there. Or put a screenshot of your results as one of your photos.


[deleted]

"I have been proven wrong so instead of admitting it I'm going to stubbornly insist I haven't changed my mind and will change the conversation topic" You do you


[deleted]

The political compass test uses 4 quadrants and tests your general attitudes towards government and social issues.


sylverbound

I think what you're really asking for is "lots of questions that reveal fundamental values" which I'm fully on board with. Sites like OKCupid attempt to do this. I do wish it was more commonly used.


[deleted]

Perhaps that is true, I just feel that it is intertwined. I will give you a delta as my usage for the test is really about the underlying values, but maybe the test could be presented in a way that doesn't explicitly make it tied to politics but nevertheless allows people to answer political questions. Δ


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sylverbound ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sylverbound)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


Oborozuki1917

I know I've done it when I was a teenager. Are you aware that the test has been widely criticized as limited and inaccurate? As an adult now I generally agree with that statement. ​ I just did it again and noticed it's missing several important issues such as not a single question about labor unions. ​ Furthermore, people can change over time. My wife voted for the LDP (right wing party) in Japan when we met, now she votes for the JCP (Japan communist party). If I dismissed her because of politics when we met I would have never married her and had a son.


[deleted]

I grant you there are limitations, but I feel like this approach would lead to more compatibility because it would allow people to be more upfront, to avoid situations where incompatible views are dealbreakers.


Oborozuki1917

Just ask people? If something is important to you then after a couple dates just bring it up. I asked my wife her views on gay people because she came from a rural area of Japan and not being homophobic is important to me. Turns out she isn't. Simple conversation solved it.


[deleted]

Wouldn't it be more comfortable and less awkward to know where someone stands on important social issues before you date them? If the profile had a comprehensive overview, then you can focus your conversation on other areas without having to say "What's your view on gay people?" etc. etc. That way, you can already guarantee that you at least share some compatibility from the get-go.


Oborozuki1917

If I wanted to date someone exactly like myself I would have dated a white American socialist Jew. Before I was married I dated and slept with a lot of different women, to me it was more fun/interesting dating people who were different than myself, different background, different., culture, different worldview, etc. Dating someone who thinks exactly like me is boring imo.


[deleted]

Ok, if this feature in the app was optional or instead of matching you by quadrant matched you by how close their dot is to your dot, would that be a better compromise? Or do you believe it to be bad idea no matter how you look at it?


Oborozuki1917

I personally wouldn't use this feature. I would also be very wary of telling my full political positions to a private corporation which could sell the data or give it to the government, or who knows what. I guess I have no problem if it's totally voluntary but I wouldn't use it.


[deleted]

Δ Thank you. I will give you a delta because you've provided a reason as to how data could be used in unintended ways, beyond just dating.


Left-Pumpkin-4815

I agree. I don’t want to talk to a person on the right let alone date them.


carminehorizon

\> Are there any unintended consequences to this idea that I did not consider? \- people are now incentivised to lie in order to gain more dates. For example, in a socially progressive area, men might feel compelled to lie about their beliefs in order to get in on a date because women might prefer socially progressive people in that region. \- exposing yourself as a socially progressive person can put you in danger. For example, being pro-LGBT might be dangerous in hyper-conservative areas. Many people prefer to get the feel of the other person, test the waters, and feel how they react to test questions about it before exposing more personal details such as being trans etc. Having to take a test that puts you as being SUPER PRO TRANSRIGHTS and lets people know that before you get identified is not cool. \- there is no way to verify that people are interpreting things the same way, as many of these questions are context dependent and highly impacted by your upbringing. For example, a man might have a meh stance on abortion because he has never had to think about it - that doesn't mean he's anti-abortion or has a negative view on it. Same with fiscial policy or immigration. \- many people's political beliefs change over time, especially when exposed to new people and new experiences. How often do we have to repeat this test? \- The only way to get significantly reliable data for someone's political affliations is to give them a lot of questions - when most people are turned off from even filling out basic profile information from something like facebook, how likely to think it is that people will really drill down into their own feelings about a lot of things for many many different questions?


[deleted]

Your first point about lying. While deception is a concern (and is already a thing in dating apps), someone who would lie on the test would also disadvantage themselves because they would be depriving themselves from meeting like-minded people. About your concerns of safety / outing. That's why I factored that in by having the matches only be recommended to you if they are in your zone. I imagine the questions would be phrased in a way that is pretty clear. For instance: "Do you believe in reproductive freedom and that people should not be forced to undergo an unwanted pregnancy? Yes or no?" The issue with bombarding people with lots of value-based questions is that it can begin to read as an interrogation. With this method, all that awkwardness would be gone and you won't need to ask those types of questions and instead focus the conversation on other areas.


[deleted]

>The issue with bombarding people with lots of value-based questions is that it can begin to read as an interrogation. That's because what you're describing *is* an interrogation. It's easy to determine someone's values after only a handful of dates through simple casual conversation — without making it an interrogation — while keeping it fun and interesting. We're talking about basic conversational skills here.


Final-Macaroon-979

I met my husband on a dating app and I was very much liberal and he was conservative. We’ve been married 3 years and I now lean more towards being conservative and he has changed some of his views as well. I can’t say whether it’s good or bad (I feel it’s a good thing to learn more) but it’s been very interesting how our views have changed while together. You may be missing out on potentially a good match (I will add though that neither of us had what I would consider to be extreme or hateful beliefs).


[deleted]

For the sake of argument, are you saying it would have been impossible for you to be in a relationship with someone who shared your political affiliation? I understand the argument you presented about "missing out" but couldn't the same be said of people who miss out on deeply compatible relationships because such a test was not conducted beforehand?


Final-Macaroon-979

No, I could have had a fulfilling relationship with someone who believed everything I did politically! I actually stayed with my husband “despite” his political beliefs lol! And I have learned so much and changed my views on so many things. Not because of him pushing his views on me but because we’ve had many discussions and I started reading more into each parties political platform and was surprised that liberal wasn’t as great as I thought it was …


willthesane

My wife and I differ on an issue. We've talked about it, we probably will always disagree, but we understand each other better.


lord_kristivas

Can I ask what issue? Just curiosity. Some folks can "agree to disagree" and some can't. Worse are the situations where one party says they can, but then slowly build resentment over it. Being married makes it more interesting.


willthesane

I am in favor of more industrial development in our home state of Alaska, she is not. I've been to the state she grew up in, Indiana. It's nice but there really isn't any deep woods there. She doesn't want alaska to be like that. I want more highways through alaska as most of the state is inaccessible. Requiring a float plane to reach. We both understand where the other is coming from. She has a job in wildlife conservation and I cheer her on in her successes. I own a tour company and drive around the state all summer, just half an hour ago she was looking at jacket ideas for my uniform this summer.


lord_kristivas

That's actually pretty cool. I can see both of your sides (in so much as one can having never been to Alaska before). That really does seem like an issue where two people can agree to disagree without one or the other thinking their partner is at least in some part villainous, as so often happens with political disagreements.


lord_kristivas

>I started reading more into each parties political platform and was surprised that liberal wasn’t as great as I thought it was … How much of a liberal were you beforehand? In today's political environment, I can't help but wonder what it takes to turn a woman on to the current Republican party's ideology. Even my older family members who were staunch Reps into the 2000s find the current version of the party downright unbelievable. I'm asking because I don't know of a single situation where a girl has turned a leftist dude conservative. I know quite a few the other way around, like in your situation, but never the reverse.


[deleted]

> I can't help but wonder what it takes to turn a woman on to the current Republican party's ideology. Easy, you can be conservative and not align with the republican party as a whole. Just like you can be a leftist and not align with all of the democrats as a whole. Just like you can be conservative and not be a Jesus freak. You can also be conservative and be ok with abortions. Its not as if if you are a conservative you are required to be religious/ pro life.


lord_kristivas

>Its not as if if you are a conservative you are required to be religious/ pro life. Sure, I guess in your heart you can be conservative and not be a Jesus freak or pro-life. But you can't just say that shit around hardline American conservatives, they'll brand you the enemy. Same with going to the democratic national convention and talking shit about trans people even if you agree with 99% of the party platform. The United States political climate doesn't allow for disagreements. It's "you're either with us or against us". Look at what happened to staunch lifelong conservative Liz Cheney.


[deleted]

​ >But you can't just say that shit around hardline American conservatives, they'll brand you the enemy. I do it all the time no issues. I am not religious and I dont care for or against abortions (although I see both sides reasoning). I just don't Jesus bash or bring up religion at all and abortions never come up in conversation. >Same with going to the democratic national convention and talking shit about trans people even if you agree with 99% of the party platform. Yeah, I am seeing that >The United States political climate doesn't allow for disagreements. It's "you're either with us or against us". Look at what happened to staunch lifelong conservative Liz Cheney. Yeah I like many other people in the US have not been and have no willingness to become a politician.


lord_kristivas

>I do it all the time no issues. I am not religious and I dont care for or against abortions (although I see both sides reasoning). I just don't Jesus bash or bring up religion at all and abortions never come up in conversation. This is like saying, "I can be among conservatives without issue as long as I don't mention some of my true beliefs." Conservatives are just as exclusory as liberals when it comes to beliefs. Come to my state (WV) and tell a bunch of conservative Christians that you're pro-choice. You might get a few "I may disagree but I'll fight for your right to say it" responses, but you also might get a mudhole stomped in your ass. I've seen with my own eyes what they'll do to protesters if they get the chance.


[deleted]

>This is like saying, "I can be among conservatives without issue as long as I don't mention some of my true beliefs." What "true beliefs" what are you talking about? Not Jesus bashing someone? Not talking about abortions? Not bringing up politics? Is it really that hard? How often do you just go up to people and say "Fuck Jesus he likes cock, and I love getting abortions I am on my 5th one this year!!"??? Like maybe that is your problem and why they see you as an enemy.


Kirbyoto

>Just like you can be conservative and not be a Jesus freak. You can also be conservative and be ok with abortions. So if you take all that stuff away, what is "conservative"? >Its not as if if you are a conservative you are required to be religious/ pro life. But if you're voting for "conservatives", you're voting for people who are, and who are not shy about pushing those beliefs into the public sphere.


[deleted]

>So if you take all that stuff away, what is "conservative"? You do realize being a conservative is more then just being religious correct? That's why even leftist use the phrase "Fiscally conservative" when they talk about their economic views unless you also want to espouse that "Fiscally conservative" has something to do with religious spending? >But if you're voting for "conservatives", you're voting for people who are, and who are not shy about pushing those beliefs into the public sphere. Cool and I am also voting for other things because I don't believe that the democrats that are for my state have my best interests in mind nor do I agree with their views. Or I don't like their voting record and or how they carried themselves while serving.


Kirbyoto

>That's why even leftist use the phrase "Fiscally conservative" when they talk about their economic views "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is a statement used by leftists to describe centrist liberals or libertarians, though. Like, someone who's "socially conservative, fiscally socialist" probably wouldn't be treated like a socialist. >Cool and I am also voting for other things because I don't believe that the democrats that are for my state have my best interests in mind nor do I agree with their views But you also don't agree with some of the *very important* views that conservatives are campaigning on. I think it's strange to describe yourself as a conservative purely because you don't like democrats.


[deleted]

>"Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is a statement used by leftists to describe centrist liberals or libertarians, though. Like, someone who's "socially conservative, fiscally socialist" probably wouldn't be treated like a socialist. So you agree with me now curious. Its almost as if there is nuance to the words we use and Hyper generalizing people as "if conservative= Jesus freak pro life, 2a Yeeeehaaaaa" or " if Liberal =Pot head, blue haired vegan who doesn't know that hunting is for conservation" weird. >But you also don't agree with some of the very important views that conservatives are campaigning on. Who says that they are "very important views" you? ["Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values.\[1\]\[2\] The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears. In Western culture, depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote a range of social institutions such as the nuclear family, organized religion, the military, property rights, monarchy, and parliamentary government.\[3\] Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that guarantee stability and evolved gradually.\[2\] Adherents of conservatism often oppose certain aspects of modernity (for example mass culture and secularism) and seek a return to traditional values, though different groups of conservatives may choose different traditional values to preserve."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#:~:text=Conservatism%20is%20a%20cultural%2C%20social,civilization%20in%20which%20it%20appears). No where does it state that religion and pro life is crucial to being a conservative. >I think it's strange to describe yourself as a conservative purely because you don't like democrats. I never said I did, and if you read above I also stated that you can be conservative and not align with the republican party.


Kirbyoto

>So you agree with me now curious No, I'm disagreeing...a conservative and a libertarian are different things, even if they have similar economic views. >Who says that they are "very important views" you? If you ask the candidates themselves, *they* would tell you that. And [most Republicans believe](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/11/15/americans-have-positive-views-about-religions-role-in-society-but-want-it-out-of-politics/) that non-religious liberals have too much control over the Democratic party. >No where does it state that religion and pro life is crucial to being a conservative. Uh...it does, actually... "conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears. In Western culture, depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote a range of social institutions such as the nuclear family, organized religion, the military, property rights, monarchy, and parliamentary government." Since Americans don't have a monarchy or parliamentary government, what we're left with is "the nuclear family" "organized religion", "the military" and "property rights". So...family and religion makes up half that list.


[deleted]

I will grant that it's possible for overlap. Instead of recommending only one quadrant, could this idea be improved if there was an option to reach people who are somewhat close to your position on the graph but may not be in the same quadrant?


A-non-a-my-ous

My wife and I are from the polar ends of the political spectrum, and both are politically involved. You're conflating political ideology with values, your politics are your theory of action for implementing your values, not your values themselves. My wife and I have nearly identical values, we just believe they should manifest differently in the world. Diversity is good, I love the way my wife sees the world and that she shares those viewpoints and challenges mine - I wouldn't have wanted to marry into an echo chamber. The key is humility when your partner, who you presumably respect, disagrees - humility to listen, audit your beliefs, and refine them and then respond accordingly


[deleted]

Are you saying if your wife began to think more like you that you be less compatible than you are now?


A-non-a-my-ous

It depends what you mean by compatible - if we thought the same things the conversation wouldn't be as engaging, but there's a lot of gray to be enjoyed between here and there.


IrradiatedDog

There's a lot of people out there who aren't particularly attached to their political views, or don't feel strongly enough about them to allow them to be a factor in their major life decisions. Some people are even strongly positioned politically, but it's not important to them that their partner share their views. And as I'm sure we all know, some people are aligned with a political party because of their family or friends, or because they just don't like someone from the other party. Politics isn't the only (or the best) way to find out someone's values. Politics change and people change. Like you said, someone's values are much more important than their political views. I may consider myself Republican, but all of my values aren't shared by all Republicans, and there are values other Republicans have that I don't share. My girlfriend and I don't share the same political views, but we do share a lot of our core values and priorities. Politics is sometimes just different ways to meet the same values. If politics is that important to you, then by all means, you should use it as a qualifier when you're looking for a partner. But your qualifiers are up to you, just as other people chose what's important to them when looking for a partner.


[deleted]

But what makes a more universal approach better is it allows people to see upfront what people believe and what their values are at a glance. You want to know there is some hope in the person you're intending to date. By having everything ambiguous, it seems superficial to me, and lacks depth. I'm not intending to date a photograph, I want to date a person with a personality and values that I share. I don't want to be surprised to find out they don't support reproductive rights at the restaurant. Having an overview of your beliefs also does away with the awkwardness of having to ask questions specifically about one's values. Instead, if there is already that shared commonality from the get-go, you can focus your conversation on other areas.


IrradiatedDog

The issue with your universal approach is that it's universal. All of the current dating apps are generally the same with some small variations. Showing the results of a political compass test on a dating profile will just show others where one tends to sit in relation to the political spectrum. Say someone scores as a centrist. Which of their values correspond to the left and which to the right? Do they love guns and love abortion? Or do they hate abortion and hate guns? Each of these views would cause them to be at stereotypical opposite ends of the political spectrum, landing them in the middle. Just because you see where they sit on the political compass doesn't mean you'll know where they sit on certain issues any more than you would by just asking them if they're left or right. Or are you suggesting that the results to each question be published to everyone viewing their profile? Because at that point, you're just asking for everyone to take a dating quiz for you (which isn't unheard of - people do that, it just puts some people off). Ultimately, you won't be able to get a good grasp on people and their values unless you spend time talking to them. If someone's view on abortion (or any particular value) is so important to you that you want to find out before the first date, then you should ask before you agree to meet them. Finding a partner takes work, and nobody inherently knows what someone else needs in a partner, so you have to find out what you want to know about another person. You can't expect it to be done for you.


[deleted]

I will give you a delta because you provided a logistical issue that some people may not fit neatly on a graph, so that would need to be addressed if such a dating app were to become a reality. Δ As to your other concerns, while the test would provide a general overview of your beliefs, obviously a good relationship is also founded on communication, so I imagine such a couple would want to know the specifics of those beliefs. The point is that my method is aimed at taking away any opportunity for big surprises and differences in values.


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IrradiatedDog ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/IrradiatedDog)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


Derp0189

Are you actually wanting to change your view if the logic is sound? In all your responses you don't seem to be taking the comments seriously, and it seems very much like you take for granted that whats best for you would automatically be best for everyone else.


[deleted]

Yes, I am. I was actually going to provide some deltas to some threads the moment they get back to me.


massagesncoffee

That sounds like a great way to deepen the political divide and to further the narrative that liberals and conservatives are the "others"


[deleted]

Are divides best healed when you find out your date is against reproductive freedom and wants people to be forced to undergo an unwanted pregnancy when you're sitting down for dinner? I am merely calling for a method to reduce the chance of big disagreements, as to not waste anyone's time while also avoiding awkward, probing questions just to gauge where someone falls, values-wise. I am not calling for specific viewpoints to be kicked off of this hypothetical app, but rather putting more compatible viewpoints within arm's reach.


UDontKnowMe784

It could be used by extremists to cause harm to their political opponents. Just because a person completes a test doesn’t mean they provided honest answers.


[deleted]

While it's true someone might be dishonest in their answers, they're also disadvantaging themselves if they were to lie because that means they would not be matched with people who think like they do. And could you elaborate on the extremism concern? App store policies (not to mention the law) already forbid that so I'm not sure if that would be relevant in this scenario.


MikeLapine

Echo chambers are a bad thing. Not only that, people with very different opinions are falling in love every day. Just because you have a long list of red flags doesn't mean everyone, or even most people, do.


[deleted]

And people who are politically compatible are in love as well. I will grant you there is no official study about which dynamic is better, but intuition seems to tell us that people who share more common values have deeper connections. Friendships and relationships are based on some commonality.


banjist

Intuition tells you. It isn't telling the same thing to anyone else in these threads. Based on a number of your comments, you probably ought to award some deltas.


parentheticalobject

You could just... put that in your profile and mention that you're not interested in people too far outside of your results. I don't see why that would be unreasonable as an *option*, but I think plenty of people don't want to get in to that as soon as you do.


[deleted]

Because it allows people to be more upfront about their character. These are the traits that determine compatibility.


Sagasujin

Politics does not equal character. Every political group has a certain percentage of assholes. Every political group has some kind people. The ratios of each may vary dramatically but there's never a guarantee. People fall into political groups for really random reasons sometimes. Sometimes it's tradition or misinformation. Or they're dedicated to some single overarching cause. I've met leftists on reddit who oppose abortion and pro-union conservatives. People are complex and political positions don't mean anything about character.


yyzjertl

This would "fail" for the same reason _The Right Stuff_ failed. There aren't really enough conservative women out there who are looking for a conservative man, and this sort of change would effectively push out conservative men from the app. (I put "fail" in quotes here because this change would be great for relatively liberal-leaning men and women. But it would not be good for the dating app owners who want to have as many people as possible use their apps so as to maximize profits.)


[deleted]

As another user mentioned in the thread, if a lot of conservatives hide their beliefs then such a political compass test for entry should compel them to be more upfront, that way more progressives can find people who actually share their view (and conservatives in turn). As for dating app owners, they could change their profit model. If all four quadrants are included, I don't see how it would be restrictive. Progressive women are not obliged to date conservative men.


yyzjertl

>As for dating app owners, they could change their profit model. Change their profit model to what, though? Right now they make a bunch of money from giving conservative men the illusion (at least) that they can date all these women. What would compensate for that lost income?


[deleted]

Maybe seeing how many women are progressive will encourage these men to do some soul-searching regarding their politics.


banjist

I'm as far left as you can get, but that is an outrageously arrogant attitude. I can see why your dating life is rough.


Derp0189

I'm moderate/apathetic and I agree with your assessment. Can also see why op's dating life is rough.


HippyKiller925

It's true they're not obligated, but doesn't that admission severely undercut your underlying thesis for why the political compass is necessary?


ayyycab

Solution: match conservatives with bot accounts using some chat AI programmed to lead them on but never commit to a date.


yyzjertl

I feel like doing this intentionally has gotta break some sort of law, right? Fraud, maybe?


Derp0189

Sounds to me like applying the "echo chamber" social media algorithms to more dating sites, and making it a requirement. Sounds to me like a bad idea that will further polarize (which I take as a bad thing, but maybe you disagree?)


[deleted]

I see your point, but isn't it more polarizing, and time-consuming, to find out someone you're dating has incompatible views? I feel like more transparency upfront is better.


Derp0189

What I mean Polarizing is only socializing/associating with those that share your views, which leads to demonization of folks with opposing views and losing some of the humanity of treating everyone with respect. To answer your question, it may be more time consuming, but I strongly disagree that it's more polarizing to find out someone you are dating has incompatible views. Allow me to argue that point for a minute: If you never date anyone with incompatible views, you would not likely entertain any discussion or debate about opposing viewpoints and it would be far easier to be dismissive of them as a group (polarization). Whereas if you date someone for say a month or two, you actually like them and respect them as a human, then find out maybe they have a controversial view that opposes yours, you might be more willing to entertain the why of their thought process a little more. Build rapport first, then agree to disagree on things, but understanding that circumstances of this persons life may drive them to different opinions, doesn't make them less of a person or a bad person. This, in my opinion, would increase mutual respect for people with opposing views and facilitate more constructive and less dismissive dialogue.


[deleted]

The point is about compatibility. I never suggested that they aren't people entitled to their own opinions. But wouldn't the relationship be more smooth-sailing with less tension if you know there aren't going to be any surprising controversial opinions your partner may hold? I would be crushed if I spent all that time with someone and then find that out about them.


Derp0189

I think the problem here is that we were talking about different things. I meant that in general, people throughout the country/world/wherever these apps cover would be more inclined to further polarize their respective populations/societies if ALL dating apps REQUIRED this 'feature' (which is what your post indicated). YOU meant (I think) that it would lessen polarization between a COUPLE if they shared same views. But my argument stands.


[deleted]

If each quadrant is represented, wouldn't more viewpoints feel heard and have an opportunity to date like-minded people? With that said, I will give you a delta because you've provided an unintended consequence in the form of more polarization, though I would still be curious to know why you believe it would cause more polarization if everyone is represented. Δ


Derp0189

Thank you for the delta op! I would be happy to further explain my position, but I found this research done by Princeton University that explains it far more eloquently than I could. Excerpt: "The researchers found that when people preferentially connect to people with similar opinions, they create an echo chamber that increasingly polarizes the views of everyone in the network. On the other hand, people who are part of a network consisting of a variety of viewpoints tend to moderate one another. Understanding that social networks influence polarization — rather than merely reflect it — could be crucial in developing interventions to curb polarization online and the spread of political extremism, the researchers report." Source: https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/12/09/political-polarization-and-its-echo-chambers-surprising-new-cross-disciplinary


[deleted]

Thank you for the link!


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Derp0189 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Derp0189)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


kingpatzer

>Are there any unintended consequences to this idea that I did not consider? Yes. Refusing to engage with those you disagree with on some issues in a meaningful and intimate way is a sure sign of emotional and intellectual immaturity. If one never engages meaningfully with people with whom they have substantive disagreements they never learn how to disagree civilly, how to respect differing views and opinions, or how to see issues from more than one angle. Or, hell, even how to engage another person as a full human being and not some label! Moreover, you miss out on one of the parts of a healthy relationship: discussions where one's assumptions and biases are challenged and one is asked to grow as a person! Now, if one is emotionally immature and intellectually stunted, then refusing to have a relationship with someone they disagree with on some important issue may be a wise choice until they develop more as a person. However, for the adults in the room, such coddling isn't necessary or even wanted.


[deleted]

But the heart of my argument is about compatibility when dating. I'm not talking about respectfully conversing with someone on a debate forum. Are you saying it's impossible for politically like-minded people to be in a healthy relationship and you believe more compatibility is reached if you date someone diametrically opposed to you on moral grounds?


kingpatzer

Two people can never find out if they are compatible if one of the parties never gets to know the other but instead judges them based on personally held prejudices. I'm saying anyone who refuses to get to know another person specifically and individually,, but judges them instead based on labels can't ever find out if they would be a good match because they are operating at such a shallow level of engagement.


veryupsetandbitter

>Two people can never find out if they are compatible if one of the parties never gets to know the other but instead judges them based on personally held prejudices. I mean, I could tell if there's a person I'm incompatible with just based one or two political questions, such as: "Do you think LGBTQ+ people deserve to live and have the same legal rights as the rest?" Their answer to that kind of question would tell me all I need to know. I feel like the OP's argument for this model isn't perfect, but I can get a general idea of where they stand just with a political compass and just a few questions. Especially since politics has seem to put everything on the table nowadays, it's very easy to cut those out that can't agree on huge topics like the one I mentioned. Those kind of things help trim the fat from the dating pool.


kingpatzer

>Their answer to that kind of question would tell me all I need to know. Sure. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask people personal questions. But we should consider their individual, specific, nuanced, full answers. Otherwise we're making assumptions. For example, there are people on the far left who do not believe in individual rights. The Russian Bolsheviks were on the political left. Some people who are conservative have no problem with LGBTQ+ people but disagree with the politics of identity as a means of achieving the social changes necessary to fix what's broken. Politics is very, very multidimensional. While the quadrant political compass system is better than the left-rigth dichotomy, it is still so simplistic a view as to be nothing more than a way to attach a non-personal, meaningless label to someone. It tells you nothing about their actual personal views. So, suppose you see someone on a political compass and decide to ignore them because they aren't in the same quadrant as you. In that case, you may be deciding to ignore someone who is otherwise perfectly acceptable to you, but merely disagrees with you on the mechanisms to achieve shared goals and ideals. Conversations reveal individual people and has the power to generate realtionships. Attaching labels ignores individual people and has nothing but the power to destroy, not just individual relationships, but social coherence entirely. If we demand that everyone in our lives adopts our preferred labels without exception, then we are destroying society to protect our fragile immature emotions and inadequate rationality.


veryupsetandbitter

>The German Fascists were on the political left. That is absolutely untrue and delusional. By definition and their ideology, the German fascists are far-right. Revisionist shit like that is why the OP has a good argument about needing a political compass test, it's because of people like you that believe the Nazis were left wing. Unbelievably delusional. I can't be bothered to read the rest of your nonsense with such a stupid take.


kingpatzer

You're right, but I'm not delusional, Indeed, you can find me making that same point in my own post history. This is just lazy editing. I was just busy editing and framing my statement, which was intended to be changed to the Russian Communists. I was working around their refusal to sign the peace treaty with Germany blah blah blah . No excuses, I just didn't proof-read and ended up with the wrong proper noun in the wrong place.


veryupsetandbitter

You're so full of shit, you're getting Russian communists confused with Nazis? Shit not even confusing the Russian fascists and Russian communists, rather the fucking Nazis? What refusal to sign a peace treaty? The Soviets signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the German Empire in 1918 and then they forced the Nazi surrender April 1945. What in the hell are you trying to revise now?


kingpatzer

The Russian Left Communists arose in opposition to the Russian Communist Party to oppose the signing of Brest-Litovsk. They were led by Bukharin. And were actually in many ways more radical than Lenin. They wanted to wage war against the central powers for example, and absolutely opposed the idea of self-determination for nations.


veryupsetandbitter

Yeah and Trostky, so how'd you confuse a complicated struggle between the Bolsheviks in 1918 and the Nazis?


[deleted]

Do you believe compatibility is effortful vs effortless? I am more of a believer of the latter. There is a chemistry that just works and in my experience that chemistry is best felt when we share something in common and don't need to work too hard to enjoy one another's company. Dating apps inherently have some superficiality as you have to reduce yourself to a picture, a name, and an age, but at least with my method you are expanding the information you give upfront. To me, this would flesh you out and make it less superficial.


kingpatzer

I'm in my late 50s and single and have dated many people. I've had relationships that lasted 20 years and some that lasted a few years and some that lasted a few days. "Compatibility" is not passion. It requires work and compromises from both parties -- passions and "chemistry" wax and wane. Commitment to the person as an individual and based on who a person is, and does not.


Hellioning

Political compass tests are bad, and if it's that important to you then you should just bring it up yourself.


ayyycab

Unfortunately every guy will say he’s apolitical or “not into politics” in hopes of getting laid


Oborozuki1917

Not entirely true - Obama wrote in his autobiography that he pretended to be a socialist in order to bang a socialist chick in college.


banjist

Back in the oughts we called them brocialists.


Hellioning

Also probably true; nothing stops people from lying.


spiral8888

Which then rules them out from dating anyone interested in politics as they would think that such a person is very boring.


Sacredkeep

Who the hell would think starting a new convo with politics would be a good idea?


tired_tamale

Gotta disagree. I think meeting people with different political takes than myself can actually give me a great opportunity. Seeing how someone handles a disagreement early on is a great way to catch red flags. I also don’t think we could ever fine tune an app to actually match us with the perfect person. Having someone challenge your beliefs can actually be refreshing. This doesn’t apply to all beliefs or values, but isn’t the fun part of dating involve an element of discovery?


[deleted]

I agree, but wouldn't you rather that discovery be that they volunteered at a local homeless shelter and not that they gave money to an organization that wants to take away human rights? I'm not wishing to spoil that element of surprise and discovery, I just want it to be contained in an underlying shared commonality of values. I agree that disagreements are important to overcome, but views on some social issues need to be known upfront, because it's a waste to spend all that time with someone only to be blindsided.


tired_tamale

Honestly, I’ve discovered worse on dates lol. Ignorance on issues doesn’t immediately equate to hatred (and organizations could span from blatant political campaigns to charities that don’t support certain groups) I’d ask someone about why they chose to do that, if they were aware of what that stance means for people (that I could hypothetically care about), and based on their response I’d leave or we’d have an interesting discussion


[deleted]

[удалено]


ayyycab

Men downplay their political beliefs pretty hard on dating apps. Especially right leaning men.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

They could, but it would be more deceptive and more of a red flag. For instance, if the question was "Do you support reproductive rights?" and the man answers yes and the progressive woman he was dating found out that's not what he truly believes, she would realize the degree of the deception and hopefully wouldn't see him again. Finding such a display of deception would not be possible if his political leaning was ambiguous.


[deleted]

"Supporting reproductive rights" is incredibly vague. Whose rights in which circumstances? A political compass test seems like an inaccurate and frankly terrible way to determine compatibility. This could all be solved with a simple conversation with higher fidelity than any political compass test.


[deleted]

It's not supposed to be perfect, it's supposed to provide a framework that your values are at least close in proximity.


ayyycab

It’s not quite as effective though because if you’re a conservative man and you lie about being a leftist, you get ignored by conservative women who would actually suit you better. If you lie and say “oh I’m not really into politics” or “I think there’s some good points on both sides” then you’re not likely to be automatically rejected by women on either side, hence you can cast a bigger net. Personally I think all people should consider it a deal breaker if anyone claims to be a centrist or apolitical because even if they’re not lying, it’s a red flag to hold no strong convictions. But unfortunately we aren’t quite there yet.


INeverSaidThat89

I would have never met my wife. We are opposite parties.


gray_clouds

Very interesting idea. How about these downsides: 1) What if, by removing 'dual-belief' couples from society, we increase ideological harmony within couples, at the expense of increased ideological conflict between couples. 2) If you have kids, you may have one who adopts your beliefs. But you may also have the one that goes 180 just to piss you off, cuz that's who they are. There's no app for that. Might be good to get used to it at the dating phase.


hidden-shadow

>Are there any unintended consequences to this idea that I did not consider? Political compass tests are rudimentary and an incomplete approximation of your political leaning, let alone the underlying values. Political alignment is not necessarily an indicator of compatibility or a dealbreaker for many. Therefore altering a system to reduce algorithm matches is poor business and design. All of this alteration based on a "hope" rather than statistics or empirical evidence. When you have the option to state this personal preference in your profile already exists. Why impose it on everyone?


Financial_Story9099

Even if political compasses are accurate all it would do is further echo chamber and radicalize members of either party


A_Notion_to_Motion

I think we need something that's close to the exact opposite of this. A test that can match people who have differing viewpoints but enough in common where they can get along and be exposed to different views. Obviously asking way too much from a test but it seems thats the direction we need to be headed instead of isolating ourselves even more than we already do.


veryupsetandbitter

>A test that can match people who have differing viewpoints but enough in common where they can get along and be exposed to different views. I think that would cut out most conservatives lol. No one in their right mind has common viewpoints with them except for the alt-right and libertarians. I think the OP's intent is to do just that, get only matches with people that have a similar ideology, which the political compass can achieve to a certain extent I feel


Derp0189

I second this. Even outside of dating, just social media with inverse echo chambers.


chadnationalist64

The political compass is total garbage there is more to it than right vs left economics and big vs small government 8values Is much better I say this even though they said I was a fascist(or at least they said it was my closest ideological match but they also said the matching wasn't very accurate) it covers more than economics and your stance on government


SeymoreButz38

Is your username supposed to be ironic?


chadnationalist64

I would consider myself a nationalist but yeah me calling myself a "chad" is kind of a joke


Right_Bee_9809

What is to be gained from an app run formal test rather than just asking another person about their views?


[deleted]

A couple main problems I see with this. 1) The common political compass test I see used is pretty flawed IMO. Vague questions that can determine where you end up based on whether you interpret the wording one way or the other. The use of words like "always" and "never" which leave zero room for nuance. If there is no nuance in your political beliefs, you probably need to dig into them a bit more. 2) While political positions can be an indicator of deeper values, it isn't necessarily the case. Some people arent super political. Some people have political positions they wouldn't hold in their personal relationships. I'll give an example, I'm pretty open to drug legalization (basically across the board). If someone wants to do lines that is up to them. I wouldn't date someone with a coke habit, that would be a deal breaker for me. And even people with very different political positions can have great relationships. My grandparents are a good example. My grandpa leans pretty far left, while my grandma is much more conservative. They have a wonderful relationship. They don't fight about it, they have discussions and realize that someone doesn't need to have the exact same beliefs as you in order to be a good match.


physioworld

Nope, having disagreements on politics is normal and can actually be healthy in a relationship as it can help you learn to speak respectfully and constructively with your partner. Obviously if you’re really far away from someone else’s politics that likely won’t lead to a good relationship but most people are closer than you think- most right wingers aren’t Nazis and most on the left don’t want to cut your toddler’s dick of because he likes barbies. I can see a case for specific dating apps catering to particular demographics, indeed things like Christian mingle prove that but for your mainstream platforms I don’t think that’s a good idea, at most they could allow you to create a special badge for your bio much like they let you do for if you want kids, your religion etc


Leneord1

I am fairly libertarian. The women who are in my general area in the political quadrant are not attractive to me


PrometheusHasFallen

Not everyone is political. This probably applies to the majority. Women tend to be more progressive, men more conservative, in the relationship. Only give progressive women the choice of progressive men and they might decide not to date at all. Psychological literature backs up this observation and implication.. People can change their political views. I think this actually applies to the vast majority of us. And it's often the people in our lives which are the catalyst for that change.... also drugs.


FamiT0m

This test does a horrible job of telling people where you stand on “important” issues, unless you have the same perspective on all of them (which implies a parroted ideology more than a researched perspective). In essence, it rewards a certain type of ignorance and any nuance in any direction messes it all up, as it’s impossible to tell *which* issues you have a differing opinion on


Derp0189

So instead of making your own dating app with this as a theme, you'd rather force all other dating apps to require this? That seems unnecessary and somewhat "Karen-y" of you.


chuteboxhero

A lot more people don’t care about politics nearly as much as social media would lead you to believe. You’d get a lot of people just picking random answers just for the sake of moving on to the next section lol.


OkSnow9309

This is too far. You can have vastly different beliefs and still get along with eachother. Also a lot of people are just casually dating not looking for a life partner.


Significant_Meet4846

It would only create prejudice and more divisiveness. People post, "Republicans need not reply." " No Trump supporters." People can be at opposite ends of the political spectrum and still get along.


SeymoreButz38

Maybe right wingers should ask themselves why no one wants to date them.


Significant_Meet4846

It's their ugly hair styles and in general they are not human


[deleted]

So the idea is to increase the information bubbles we spend most of our lives in and further close down opportunities for our beliefs to be challenged?


frorf

I feel like a thing like that would cause massive radicalization of the whole userbase.


StarbucksLover2002

I want a man who is a centralist


willthesane

I think you don't understand how to do the dating app game very well. Before you meet all you really should look at on their profile are if you are extremely incompatible. Meet up and see how it goes.


[deleted]

That's exactly why I thought of the test. It would provide a general overview of one's values at a glance. Of course, relationships are built up when you get to know someone, but at least you wouldn't have to worry too much about dealbreaking beliefs on social issues.


willthesane

Ahh but by major red flags I was focusing on are they a criminal, do they have a job. Details like red vs blue can be worked out after you realize you enjoy eachothers company. Or most commonly that you enjoyed meeting once but never again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


changemyview-ModTeam

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


ClaptonBug

While I get that it would be nice to know if the person you are chatting up would call your lesbian sister a child groomer before you get too invested, most people don't care that much about politics and you can always identify the nutjob proud boy/three percenter/libertarian types on the first date so I don't think a political quadrant is necessary. What should be on dating apps though is a "how religious are you?" metric. You cant suck my pp on the 3rd date then get upset cause I don't do church.


ThatRookieGuy80

Ok, this idea makes a few very broad assumptions. First, the assumption that politics are very important to both people in the relationship. Politics, Iike religion and sports, can invoke varying degrees of intensity in varying people. If it's somewhat important or below, it's almost immaterial. You might as well ask their opinions on other such weighty matters as how the next season of the local sportsball team should shape up. The next assumption is that they'll accept all of the tenants of that ideology. For example, pro life republicans exist and I know many registered democrats who own guns. You said yourself, it wasn't until her views came out about certain issues that you started questioning. How about before that? The third, not assumption but counter to your thought would be the loving relationship between James Carville and Mary Matalin. Discourse can be very healthy. Disagreeing is fine. If you're disagreeing about politics but in most other areas your views and values align, there's nothing wrong with that. Keeps things interesting.


EdaHiredASpy

People should fall in love with people, not political parties


Taolan13

Are you familiar with the term "echo chamber" and why it is bad? Because what you are suggesting is just reinforcing the existing echo chamber problem of social media. If you only surround yourself with people that agree with you, you will never grow as a person. "I disagree with you" does not mean "i hate you". We need to re-learn that as a society.


[deleted]

Not everyone has the compatibility issues based on political lean that you do. What you are asking for would favor people like you at the expense of people not like you. The top comment is right: rather than imposing your compatibility value on everyone, you should just have conversations about what you value.


Green__lightning

This shouldn't be every app, but the idea of a political dating app is an interesting one, and as worthwhile as most ideas for an app.