Posted Thursday, January 22, 2026
8moDating apps
So im a graduate student in philosophy and a lot of my research concerns technology and our well-being. Here are some shower thoughts: Its strange to me that one of the ways we most commonly engage with people now is through apps. This obviously allows us to meet people we would not otherwise meet. Because of that, this kind of technology extends our access to others and expands our individual world horizons. To me, that seems like a real benefit. Then you have this app. We essentially filter people through interests and personality types. On the one hand, being able to filter through things we find problematic is quite handy and I imagine women *might* be able to more effectively reduce the amount of objectifying and weird connections that tend to be everywhere on these apps (let me know). This seems like a real benefit. Of course id rather talk about philosophy, psychology, cats, plants, art, than something like american football. I simply have no interest in the sport. However, this does in some ways serve as an echo chamber. That is, by filtering out people based on what we like and do not like, we are less likely to encounter large differences that might matter. How much does that matter? How much should we be exposed to such differences? As a philosopher, agreeing with someone is actually quite boring. I mean, i hope to agree with someone on human rights and such matters (of course). But differences produce long form conversations full of passion. So much discourse comes from a place of disagreement or a difference of perspective. I love whiskey but maybe you hate it? Why? How does whiskey show up for you in such a way that you dont want it? To me, thats all cause for interesting explorations of how my world is different from someone elses. Where we overlap is often less interesting than where we diverge. This brings me to the "compatibility" thing. What does this mean for any of us? How seriously should we consider that? What does it mean to be compatible with someone? How can we identify productive differences versus unproductive differences? Is it about the way we engage with our differences and does that render the compatibility marker moot? Perhaps not? Is it a benefit that we cannot do this in real life so easily? We get forced to encounter others on ways that are far outside of our control in day to day life. That demands us to perform and act in ways we might not normally (which can be exhausting). However, it can also pull us outside of ourselves and provide a real space for us ro encounter someone else and ourselves in a way we would not have otherwise. Like most philosophers, i have no answers for you. Just questions. I wish you all the best. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and questions with me (should you choose to). (edited)
Philosophy Community
The philosophy community, chat, and discussion.
1.8M SOULS
Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate the exploratory tone, & Thanks for the Q, I’d love to share, too. I agree that exposure to difference is both crucial + nuanced. Differences offer intellectual & emotional growth, as they provoke reflection, dialogue, & empathy. Whilst filtering may reduce friction/make interactions comfortable, it also risks intellectual stagnation + a narrowed moral imagination. Imo, when filtering matters is where it is protective - rather than screening for safety or basic alignment (for eg. eliminates substantive differences that challenge core worldviews or values differences). Matters like taste or hobbies, are often less important than differences in core values, ethical frameworks, or relational needs. Minor differences such as hobbies & impersonal tastes are being operationalised as decisive filters/criteria across many social apps - because they are easy to formalise. However, folk principally have the right to resource preference optimisation, too. IMO, this is where the echo chamber effect is subtle: it’s not that we only filter out moral opposites - it’s that we pre-emptively remove low-stakes difference - the kind of difference that is often the safest training ground for negotiating real disagreement/socialisation. This goes for your last Q, too - unchosen encounters are often where we are most invited to stretch beyond any self-curated identity. They can be exhausting, however, humans develop in relationships - discover limits in our tolerance, empathy & imagination. Apps optimise for comfort & efficienty; every day life optimises for contingency + moral friction. I suspect crucial socialisation is lost when we remove too much friction too early. That said, however, the way individuals behave in response to differences (not differences themselves) determines whether they are productive or unproductive. Exposure to difference is only valuable if we have the cognitive, emotional, & ethical capacity to engage without harm: extreme differences in core values (eg. fundamental ethics) can be unproductive or even destructive, or, they generate conversation/insight, invite curiosity or growth, or reveal new perspectives without repeated harm. Meanwhile, differences in taste, perspective, or life experience tend to be highly productive. Folk can disagree about anything in ways that are either generative or corrosive. The difference becomes unproductive not because of its content, but because individuals cannot tolerate: for ef. ambiguity, self-reflection, regulate defensiveness, or treat the other as an epistemic equal. Compatibility, then, IMO, is less about the differences themselves & more about matching capacity to engage with differences without chronic harm or self-abandonment (ie. curiosity, respect, conflict tolerance & repair). In that way, filtering by similarities risks conflating tolerances with compatibility. However, IMO, this doesnt render such markers moot, as there are differences that reliably become unproductive: differences around children, monogamy, politics, religion, gender roles etc often dont lead to irreconcilable differences due to disagreement - but due conflict of core safety, autonomy or attunement needs. I think the main issue with apps in this regard is that filters preferences rather thaj relational capacities. Regarding “compatibility” + "compatibility markers” + whether it’s meaningful: I resent compatibility as applicable to humans as it tends to treat humans as instruments or a design to fit another’s life, rather than as ends whose humanity precedes fit. The framework is often used to pre-determine who we should relate to, which undermines freedom + the very dignity of relational choice. The expectation that humans should be “compatible” rests on several errors: it treats dynamic, self-modifying persons as static profiles; assumes compatibility is knowable prior to relational interaction; reduces relational outcomes to isolated traits/preferences; & instrumentalises persons treating them as optimisation targets rather than as ends in themselves. IMO, it lacks both epistemic humility + moral charity toward the way human beings actually develop through relationships. Humans are not a fixed, pre-given property, & “suitability” often emerges through interaction, mutual adaptation, & ethical engagement. High differences can be compatible + high similarities can be incompatible thus, I feel the key variable is whether divergence is metabolisable by the relationship over time. Pre-determined compatibility metrics are therefore limited - particularly ones that overemphasise hobbies or minor preference. On apps like Boo, hobbies - which are relatively minor differences in themselves - are often treated as major compatibility filters. This elevates surface-level/trivial preferences into gatekeepers for human connection, potentially narrowing opportunity for meaningful engagement. However, that’s up to individuals - the benefit lies in how apps are resourced: IMO, apps are tools for connection, not substitutes for the serendipity & challenge of unmediated human engagement - it’s just a tool, how humans resource is on them - not the app. So yah, filtering can protect us from repetated harms & over-filtering can recondition us from the kind of socialisation that can teach us how to be better humans: love, argue, develop into less narrow versions of ourselves. I think shared willingness to inhabit differences without trying to eliminate it prematurely, is key. I also wanted to surface a few philosophical tensions in your meditation: I think there may be a soft false dichotomy in the way overlap + divergence are contrasted. Treating similarity & difference as competing sources of meaning overlooks how overlap often provides the safety + trust that make divergence productive in the first place. They are not opposites in value as much as mutually enabling conditions, IMO. Relatedly, the suggestion that overlap is generally less interesting + divergence more interesting feels more like a particular intellectual temperament. Generalising debate or philosophical discussion to all discourse, IMO, neglects the reality that productive conversation can also emerge from agreement, shared curiosity, or cooperative exploration. Many philosophical traditions treat agreement, convergence, & synthesis/learning through alignment as just as philosophically rich as disagreement. Not only does it risk undervaluing consensus-driven or curiosity driven dialogue - it neglects that not all discourse is disagreement-driven - difference alone doesn’t guarantee discourse - people can disagree & remain silent or hostile instead of engaging thoughtfully. IMO, productive discourse fundamentally emerges from *many interacting factors*: curiosity, context, trust, communication skills, social norms, & cognitive engagement. I also feel the echo-chamber concern rests on an assumption that filtering by interests reliably reduces exposure to meaningful differences. However, filtering can also increase exposure to differences in values, culture, life history or life experience while only reducing trivial mismatch. I also feel slightly wary romanticising unchosen encounters. While they can stretch our capacity - they can also generate harm. Unfiltered exposure is not intrinsically more authentic or valuable, IMO - just simply, different in its risk & possibility. No clearer answers lol - just sympathy for your core line of inquiry - not which differences matter - but how do we engage with them & what is becoming of humanity via designing our encounters? Thanks again for the Q's; love a good yarn.
Alex, ahahah, a true lover of wisdom! Unfortunately I'm in a bit of a hurry, but I'll give you something to think about, if I may. We, as humans, are extremely bad at knowing what is good - and bad - for ourselves. So, often, the problem is not in the apps themselves, but how we, as humans, tend to use them. We can be given all the opportunities in the world, but it is up for us to take them - or not. And, too often, we follow the second path. Let me tell you a bit of a silly thing. When I signed up, back in... hum... I think it was the end of 2024 - may Derek correct me later if I'm wrong - I saw an amazing woman. I quoted Cicero to her, in the original Latin, and in less than 20 seconds she identified the work. She truly knew it. I offered to travel to Rome exclusively to meet her and have dinner with her, at which point she told me she only liked women. What does this make you think?
Hello:) A lot of interesting stuff in your post, would be easier to have a discussion over a topic like this, but I'll try to answer some of points in text form. 1. I would say that people can write they have similar interests and still be very different. I've talked to several people who listed same interests as me(some) but upon discussion I learned that they meant totally different things by them. Or, even if they did mean the same things, we are still very different in other aspects, because common interests do not make people automatically similar. 2. I don't filter by interests here, at least not automatically. I set the app to filter age and the type of relationship the person looks for. So I guess I am shown a pretty wide array of people. But also I would say that I have enough of exposure towards people different from me in everyday life. Most people I meet on a daily basis are very different from me, I have enough of feeling alien and enough "psychology research material" about how people differ, so if we are talking dating, I would look for someone if not exactly similar then at least capable of understanding and appreciating what I am. It's healthy to meet different people, sure, but I would assume most people aren't dating to learn more about how different people are, but rather to find someone close to their heart. So, considering that goal, it probably makes sense to filter people in some way, if automatically or if by reading through their bios. That being said I had a few lively conversations here with people with mindsets very different from my own. But I didn't feel like dating them, it was just curiosity on both parts, we talked as one would talk to a visitor from a different world. 3. I liked the tone of your post. It's nice to be presented with topic for thought and discussion rather than with a strongly formed opinion on occasion. (edited)
Meet New People
50,000,000+
DOWNLOADS