Close Menu
Honi Soit
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • Antisemitism review puts universities, festivals, and cultural centres under threat
    • Macquarie University axes Sociology, cuts more jobs & courses
    • UTS elects new Chancellor
    • Out of the Deep: The Story of a Shark Kid Who Dared to Question Fear
    • Prima Facie: Losing faith in a system you truly believed in
    • Jason Clare seeks replacement for ANU Chancellor Julie Bishop after $790,000 expense report
    • ‘If you silence someone or shush someone, you can get out’: SISTREN is an unabashed celebration of black and trans joy. Is Australia ready?
    • Mark Gowing waxes lyrical on aesthetics, time, language, and his new exhibition ‘This one is a song’
    • About
    • Print Edition
    • Student Journalism Conference 2025
    • Writing Comp
    • Advertise
    • Locations
    • Contact
    Facebook Instagram X (Twitter) TikTok
    Honi SoitHoni Soit
    Saturday, July 12
    • News
    • Analysis
    • Culture
    • Opinion
    • University
    • Features
    • Perspective
    • Investigation
    • Reviews
    • Comedy
    • Student Journalism Conference 2025
    Honi Soit
    Home»Misc

    Tinder-nomics

    By Alex DownieMarch 18, 2015 Misc 4 Mins Read
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

    Let’s assume a dated, gendered, heteronormative binary.

    Straight men who use the dating app Tinder are known to ‘swipe right on everyone’; indicating that they want to put themselves inside every woman they could potentially ‘match’ with. Straight women are, anecdotally, more selective, examining men’s profiles in greater detail and swiping right only when genuinely interested in a prospective mate.

    A person as utterly cold and unfeeling as I am would see this as an exercise in single-agent decision theory.

    From a game theorist’s perspective, both the ‘swipe right’ strategy and its female counterpart make sense. If women are picky, men who swipe selectively will waste their time sorting through the profiles of women likely to reject them anyway. They’re better off liking every woman, ‘matching’ with the women who are interested in them (a couple will ‘match’ on tinder if they have each swiped right on the other), and then only talking to the matches who they actually fancy. Likewise, it makes sense for women to be picky when all men are swiping right; otherwise they’d be overwhelmed with matches. In economics, we call this situation a ‘Nash Equilibrium’, as no man or woman can be made better off by single-handedly changing his or her strategy (unless their single-handed strategy involves putting down the phone and using their hand).

    But last week, Tinder introduced a game (theory) changer: a premium service, ‘Tinder Plus’. To encourage users to fork out for the service, Tinder will limit the number of right-swipes available to users of the standard service. Those who exceed a certain number of right swipes—determined by an ‘intelligent’ (and unspecified) algorithm—must wait 12 hours before they can again drag their insensitive genitals across a shapeless sea of presumably human forms.

    These developments mean that the undiscerning (or at least, the poor and horny) will no longer swipe right to everyone. This is because Tinder has effectively increased the cost of swiping right: with a limit, each right-swipe can prevent a person from swiping right on someone better in the future. Tinder has imposed discretion—something they were idiots to initially assume of their users.

    This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Selective Tinder users benefit when their matches are actually interested in them, despite the necessary blow to pride that is the occasional rejection from newly picky creeps. There’s probably also an argument to be made that Tinder becomes a little less gross when men actually consider the profiles of women presented to them; you know, looking at what they like, how they describe themselves, and broadly treating them as human beings, rather than hot rigs to bonk. But these passionate arguments of flesh and personhood do not excite my cold, theoretic soul.

    However, there is also a risk that the limit could prevent ‘good’ matches from forming. A man worried about exceeding his swipe limit may swipe left (reject) someone he considers very attractive, as he assumes that his interest won’t be reciprocated and doesn’t want to waste a right-swipe. This means the app is, to a degree, less ‘incentive compatible’; some agents aren’t truthfully registering their preferences when swiping.

    This technical deficiency could have real consequences for the quality of matches facilitated by Tinder. Let’s take the (rare) scenario that the hypothetical man above has underestimated his appeal to women. By swiping left, he has missed out on a particularly appealing match. The world may have been robbed of something beautiful.

    Of course, to consider this a real, consequential loss is to ignore the fact that Tinder is a loathsome hotbed of meaningless, youthful fuck and that anyone who does think of themselves as worth the affection of more than thirty people per day is probably a piece of shit anyway.

    economics game theory tinder

    Keep Reading

    Ambition Alone: An Economic Analysis of the Women’s Budget

    Dating in Limbo: An Epidemic of Loneliness

    Low-hanging fruit in the Budget’s Higher Ed Portfolio

    2025-2026 Budget Forecast with Greg Jericho

    Chatterbox

    A letter from the future

    Just In

    Antisemitism review puts universities, festivals, and cultural centres under threat

    July 11, 2025

    Macquarie University axes Sociology, cuts more jobs & courses

    July 11, 2025

    UTS elects new Chancellor

    July 8, 2025

    Out of the Deep: The Story of a Shark Kid Who Dared to Question Fear

    July 8, 2025
    Editor's Picks

    Part One: The Tale of the Corporate University

    May 28, 2025

    “Thank you Conspiracy!” says Capitalism, as it survives another day

    May 21, 2025

    A meditation on God and the impossible pursuit of answers

    May 14, 2025

    We Will Be Remembered As More Than Administrative Errors

    May 7, 2025
    Facebook Instagram X (Twitter) TikTok

    From the mines

    • News
    • Analysis
    • Higher Education
    • Culture
    • Features
    • Investigation
    • Comedy
    • Editorials
    • Letters
    • Misc

     

    • Opinion
    • Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Reviews
    • Science
    • Social
    • Sport
    • SRC Reports
    • Tech

    Admin

    • About
    • Editors
    • Send an Anonymous Tip
    • Write/Produce/Create For Us
    • Print Edition
    • Locations
    • Archive
    • Advertise in Honi Soit
    • Contact Us

    We acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. The University of Sydney – where we write, publish and distribute Honi Soit – is on the sovereign land of these people. As students and journalists, we recognise our complicity in the ongoing colonisation of Indigenous land. In recognition of our privilege, we vow to not only include, but to prioritise and centre the experiences of Indigenous people, and to be reflective when we fail to be a counterpoint to the racism that plagues the mainstream media.

    © 2025 Honi Soit
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms
    • Accessibility

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.