Burned Haystack Dating Method™ Critical Discourse Analysis of Successful Dating Profiles:

INTRODUCTION

Pre-reading:

There is a series of 8 posts in the Facebook group that provide a general grounding in Critical Discourse Analysis. Some but not all of that is replicated here. If you’re not familiar with CDA you might want to read these posts first:

1. https://www.facebook.com/groups/9116647515019601/permalink/24857099510547815
2. https://www.facebook.com/groups/9116647515019601/posts/24857147667209666
3. https://www.facebook.com/groups/9116647515019601/permalink/24857179590539807
4. https://www.facebook.com/groups/9116647515019601/posts/24857247057199727
5. https://www.facebook.com/groups/9116647515019601/posts/24857344220523344
6. https://www.facebook.com/groups/9116647515019601/posts/24862366046687828
7. https://www.facebook.com/groups/9116647515019601/posts/24862437050014061
8. https://www.facebook.com/groups/9116647515019601/posts/24862453220012444

What follows is a Critical Discourse Analysis of dating app profiles that have WORKED (have led to successful, committed partnerships).

Caveats:

I am not a social scientist, and there are no hardline definitions around “successful, committed partnership.” Burned Haystack Dating Method™ is relatively new (less than a year old), and no social scientist would consider that an adequate amount of time to establish or even define “successful committed partnership.” Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, we’re studying profiles that were developed and managed in accordance with Burned Haystack Method™ and that led to exclusive partnerships that are ongoing.

I do *qualitative* not *quantitative* research, and this paper falls under that umbrella. Qualitative research refers to case-study style investigations that focus in depth on a small number of cases and extrapolate meaning and implications inductively/outward. This is opposed to quantitative research, which is more formal, requires much larger numbers of subjects, implementation of several control factors, and usually legal parameters (such as governing by an IRB (institutional review board)). That kind of research wouldn’t even be possible with a group such as this one right now (it also simply hasn’t been long enough for a study like that to be valid).

About the specific selections for this paper:

From the Facebook group, I solicited examples of profiles that have led to good matches, and that’s my selection set.

There is no way I could analyze every successful profile I received (though I remain incredibly grateful to every single person who shared one!).

For that reason, I limited my selection set to 5 successful profiles, and I used these criteria to select those 5:

1. I looked for a variety of tones/personality styles.
2. I looked for “transferability.” I have several excellent profiles that, while successful for their person, seem highly specific to that person and therefore maybe not as helpful as general examples. The profiles I selected include rhetorical moves that are identifiable and adaptable to a general audience of profile writers.

I now want to head off a concern that I hear frequently:

“You’re doing all this deep-level analysis of these successful profiles, but it doesn’t matter because men don’t read profiles, and even when they do, they don’t interpret them this deeply.”

My response:

Some men do read profiles. We are ONLY interested in crafting our dating app profiles for men who actually read them. There’s nothing we can do about men who don’t read profiles anyway, so let’s focus on what we can control.

Also:

People (including men!) do not have to be *trying* or intentionally analyzing in order to glean important info from text. They don’t even need to be aware that they’re gleaning any info at all. In the same way that people reveal things they don’t intend to reveal, people also take things in beneath the level of their consciousness. That’s why advertising works. That’s why propaganda works. Because “messaging” is real and people absorb and internalize meanings and messages without interrogating those messages or even being aware that they’re reading for any particular purpose.

Put more succinctly: When you create your dating profile, don’t worry about the fact that most people aren’t going to try to read it closely, or that most people (esp. men) won’t read it at all. People who do read read critically without intending to, and there’s nothing we can do about people who don’t read at all.

METHOD

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA henceforth) has two primary goals:

1. To read text in a way that reveals things “beneath the text,” generally things people don’t even intend to reveal. It can be used to cull meanings, clues, and patterns that can be extrapolated to larger implications and to predict future behaviors/orientations, etc. If this doesn’t make sense right now, don’t worry about it; you’ll see what I mean when you dive into the analyses themselves and see how the questions work to do this.
2. To use the knowledge gleaned from #1 to make the world better. (This is the difference between plain old Discourse Analysis (DA) and *Critical* Discourse Analysis (CDA). It’s the “critical” element I’m most interested in with Burned Haystack Dating Method™; I believe that carefully-conducted and purposefully-applied CDA can literally change the world, and I want to change the world of online dating to make it a better place for women and nonbinary people. I want it to be better for men too, but they’re just not my primary concern.

There are various CDA theorists and various methods of employing it. Of the “famous” CDA theorists (we’re talking a few in the world), I like James Paul Gee the best, and his method is the one I use most faithfully. It’s highly formalized and methodical, and those two qualifiers are my love languages when it comes to academic application. Here’s one of his books:

In Gee's method of CDA, one asks a series of 42 questions about every passage of text being analyzed. These questions are derived from a grid of "tools" and "tasks"; the questions are formed at the intersections of 7 CDA tasks and 6 CDA tools. [Note: this is a WAY oversimplification; there are books written on this alone. I'm just trying to provide background so it makes sense.]

For this particular mission (analyzing successful dating app profiles to figure out what makes them work and to draw helpful conclusions for anyone who wants to write one or improve what they have), I've whittled it down to 7 CDA questions that I'm going to use for this analysis (the 7 I find most germane to dating app text).

CDA Questions Used for This Analysis:

1. What is the significance of what you’re finding “between the lines”? Is there language that appears to be coded in some way?
2. What is the significance of the figured world(s) suggested by the text?
3. What is the significance of allusions/references to other texts/artifacts?
4. What is the significance of the discourse communities that are invoked?
5. What sort of activities are implied by the subtext or allusions of the source material?
6. What identities are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?
7. What sort of relationships/connections are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

Other considerations:

Images are obviously hugely important in dating app profiles as well. However, I am focusing this paper on the words. I’m protecting identities, and sharing images compromises that (this paper contains one image, but I cloaked the poster’s face/identity).

“Semiotics,” which focuses on signs and symbols, is another branch of analysis that could be considered a twinned method to CDA, and it’s hugely important in dating app analysis; even though this paper doesn’t delve into it, I would be remiss not to mention it.

For the sake of dating apps, I would identify meaningful signs and symbols as these things: images, background elements, clothing items, music preferences, etc. -- basically anything *other* than language that signals or signifies relevant information about a potential match. A Burned Haystack group member provided this explanation of semiotics, and it’s an excellent one, so I’m sharing her exact words here, in case anyone is interested in this for further study:

"Thinking back to Jennie Young's apt commentary on analyzing what the profiles say without saying them is quite similar to semiotics. I tend to think of the larger picture as an overarching narrative: what is the story the profile is trying to tell?

In many cases, we're turned off by the fact that not much thought or effort has gone in, and although we may not think of it like this, the story those profiles are telling is one of disinterest and laziness. Is that always intended? Absolutely not, but that's still the message, still the story.

We can also be turned off by the words in the profile. What is the individual saying in order to tell the story of himself and why someone should date him? In the example of the man whose profile communicates anger about women, he may or may not realize that the story he's telling is one of disdain for women AT BEST and much more likely one of rage toward women unless they act exactly as he wants. That's the story/narrative he's telling through the words in his profile.

Semiotics is about visual symbolism. The images in profiles, and I guess we could also think about the emojis as those also qualify as symbols, are contributing to a narrative. We should be putting effort into selecting photos that tell a reasonably thorough story about ourselves, and while we may not require the same of men, they are consciously or unconsciously selecting photos that (best case scenario) tell a story about themselves and what it's like to date them and/or telling a story about how they want to be perceived.

One's entire profile, photos and text, can be considered a multimedia work with a cohesive narrative. When I'm looking seriously at someone's profile, I try to wrap my mind around the narrative.

Although I work in healthcare, I have a couple of decades of qualitative research experience under my belt. Narrative development is kind of my jam.”

RESULTS

This section includes a detailed analysis of 5 successful dating profiles. You’ll see that each analysis addresses all 7 of the established CDA questions. As you look at the profile text and read my responses to the questions, you should begin to see meanings, implications, and ideas emerge that you might not have on first glance.

What usually happens, though, is that slowing down and answering analytical questions such as these doesn’t so much “teach” you anything you didn’t know so much as bring to the surface of your consciousness what you’ve already intuitively recognized.

Put another way: I would bet that the men who were attracted to these profiles were attracted because they perceived the same things the CDA questions are pointing out. They probably didn’t even recognize as they were reading exactly WHY they were so attracted, but that doesn’t matter. The recognition of something or attraction to it can happen just as powerfully without the perceiver intentionally interrogating what they encounter; they might just think, “I like this,” or “I want to know more,” or “This feels familiar.”

The point of reading analyses like the ones you’re about to encounter is that it can help you to slow down and be very intentional and very SPECIFIC and CONCRETE (more on that soon) when crafting your own profile. It can help you to think about the image of yourself you want to create and the ways in which you can create it.

Analysis of Effective Profile #1:

What is the significance of what you’re finding “between the lines”? Is there language that appears to be coded in some way?

The brilliant thing about this profile is that the writer took all the coded words that already exist in online dating and recruited them to craft her own profile. Invoking terms like “passionate,” “stepdad hunter,” “no drama,” “physical touch,” etc., AND doing it with humor, essentially communicates this message: I’m already onto every trick there is. I’m also funny about it rather than angry, though, so I’d probably be fun to hang out with. But you can’t trick me.” Think about what a powerful and appealing stance that is from which to kick off a relationship.

What is the significance of the figured world(s) suggested by the text?

There’s an implied figured world here of “the worst of dating app culture,” which looks something like, “man trying to find woman who isn’t actually a real person but rather a custom-designed trope of what men think they want.” It’s the figured world of “cool girl” being turned upside-down because the writer is cleverly conjuring up Cool Girl without naming her while simultaneously saying, “Yeah, I’m not that.”

What is the significance of allusions/references to other texts/artifacts?

This also works on two levels here. She’s nodding to all the dating app cliches and essentially dispatching the men who play into them, thus precluding wasting her time with any of them. She’s also alluding to interests such as modern art (suggests creativity and a certain level of intellectual engagement), specific music (which could forge connection with someone who likes the same), cultural themes such as intersectionality (suggests “educated and liberal”), true love (suggest romanticism, which is important in this profile since she’s also said, “but I’m not dealing with any bullshit”; bringing “true love” back into the discussion balances that out and restores the tone to romantic hope, which is appealing to most people on a dating app), living alone (which suggests emotional security, financial security, independence, and confidence), and red shoes, which ends the list with light-hearted fun.

What is the significance of the discourse communities that are invoked?

The major discourse communities invoked are “dating app talk” (which she’s *clearly* fluent in) and social progressivism (which will help her attract same if that’s what she wants, and I’m assuming it was).

What sort of activities are implied by the subtext or allusions of the source material?

Intellectual activities, creative activities, family-oriented activities, romantic activities. All of these are strong “pro-date” activities. Even the ones she rules out, like the line that says “don’t go out with me if you’ve got bike or paddleboard pics because I’m already familiar with all the modes of transport” actually creates MORE opportunities for connection, not fewer; here’s why: this writer has done such a good job crafting a tone of humor and directness in her profile that the right guy–one who can match that humor and directness–could easily write to her and say something like, “You sound like an amazing person. Just removed all my bike and paddleboard pics so you’ll talk to me.” Or something like that.

What identities are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

Identity of a strong, funny, independent woman, yet one who is open to love.

What sort of relationships/connections are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

Egalitarian, humorous, transparent, hopeful.

Analysis of Effective Profile #2:

What is the significance of what you’re finding “between the lines”? Is there language that appears to be coded in some way?

Profile text suggests someone who is honest and transparent even when that might work against her; suggests integrity, courage, and realness. Cleary states she’s committed to self-improvement; crystal-clear on the relationship status she wants–communicates confidence and intelligence and firm boundaries — all of this is super appealing to high-quality men; parenthetical in second image conveys sense of humor.

What is the significance of the figured world(s) suggested by the text?

Figured world: modern relationship with two people who are imperfect but working on it; figured world of best friends.

What is the significance of allusions/references to other texts/artifacts?

Using terms like “no filters” and “no situationships” shows that this is a person who’s familiar with contemporary dating dynamics; reveals both with-it-ness and strength.

What is the significance of the discourse communities that are invoked?

See above; writer establishes herself as in-the-know re: contemporary dating norms. The fact that she can engage with relevant/current lingo positions her as someone insusceptible to scammers and others who want to take advantage.

What sort of activities are implied by the subtext or allusions of the source material?

Active life-style, ongoing self-improvement.

What identities are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

Identity of strength, self-assurance, humility, radical honesty, and clarity of intentions. This is achieved without hostility or any other tonal problems.

What sort of relationships/connections are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

Equity, equality, respectfulness, evenness, honesty.

Analysis of Effective Profile #3:

What is the significance of what you’re finding “between the lines”? Is there language that appears to be coded in some way?

Writer conveys intelligence and creativity with a humorous twist. This is someone who knows exactly who she is and states it clearly and directly with no tonal problems or limitations set upon the reader. Foregrounding “Pro choice and proud LGTBQ ally” makes her political orientation crystal clear, and this too is stated declaratively but not provocatively (as in it doesn’t bait anyone or invite fighting).

What is the significance of the figured world(s) suggested by the text?

Interdependent, progressive, hipster creative people hanging out.

What is the significance of allusions/references to other texts/artifacts?

Clearly signaling liberalism, creativity, adventurousness.

What is the significance of the discourse communities that are invoked?

Career unclear, but the fact that writer states she loves hers suggests professional orientation (also use of the word “career” as opposed to “job”).

What sort of activities are implied by the subtext or allusions of the source material?

Interactive activities, outgoing personality, high-energy (“solar-powered early bird”).

What identities are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

Independent, self-assured, happy, quirky, open-minded, cooperative, articulate, creative, energetic.

What sort of relationships/connections are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

Equitable, equal, balanced, supportive, open-minded and accepting.

Analysis of Effective Profile #4:

What is the significance of what you’re finding “between the lines”? Is there language that appears to be coded in some way?

The message I’m getting between the lines here is this: “I’m super smart, but I’m also funny and fun.” Including the word “neuroscience researcher” at the top of the profile is crystal clear here. It’s also concrete in a way that’s visualizable and economical. Here’s what I mean by that: she could have written: “I’m an intellectual person who takes academic work seriously but also knows how to have a good time. I take good care of myself and and I’m funny and fun to be around.” That’s vague, a little cheesy, and not something people can visualize. Putting together the phrases “neuroscience researcher,” “musician,” and “wannabe gym rat” is concrete and specific and memorable, while still taking less time/words to say than my other option above.

What is the significance of the figured world(s) suggested by the text?

Figured world: “Hot Nerd Girl.” I don’t mean this in any kind of derogatory way at all. This is a movie/TV trope that people are familiar with (also you can google it and find pages and pages of memes labeled “Hot Nerd Girl”), and crafting this persona will resonate with the right kind of matches. This, too, is an economical way to quickly give potential matches an image of who you are.

What is the significance of allusions/references to other texts/artifacts?

Standardized test prep tutor/mentor: this does a few things. For anyone who knows about this profession (I do), it’s an immediate flag that this is a SUPER smart person because the test prep companies only hire people who’ve themselves scored extremely high on tests like SAT, ACT, etc. So referring to that covers a lot of ground and actually provides a credential that for the right match does all the informative work on its own. The act of teaching/mentoring also conveys authority, kindness, patience, and perhaps even maternal instincts, all of which could be highly appealing. Additionally, being a “neuroscience researcher” locates this person within the halls of academia/intellectual communities, as discussed above. Nodding toward the gym establishes the writer as someone who is active and health-oriented and takes good care of herself.

What is the significance of the discourse communities that are invoked?

Primary discourse community is an intellectual one, yet the writer makes clear that she functions just as well outside of that community. Specifically *excludes* herself from religious discourse communities.

What sort of activities are implied by the subtext or allusions of the source material?

Intellectual activities, physical activities, nurturing activities with others, general fun (loves to dance).

What identities are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

The identity this piece conveys is: strong, confident, intelligent, fun, clear, and intentional.

What sort of relationships/connections are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

This profile communicates a woman who knows what she wants and isn’t afraid to say it: “I’m seeking intentional connections. If we match, tell me why.” This does a lot to preclude men who haven’t read her profile. I find this interesting too: she mentions, almost offhandedly, that she’s already (successfully) used Bumble to find friends. This tells potential matches that she put friendship in front of romance, which suggests confidence and someone who’s intentionally building a holistic and supportive community around herself, as opposed to someone with single-track vision to “find a man.”

Analysis of Effective Profile #5:

What is the significance of what you’re finding “between the lines”? Is there language that appears to be coded in some way?

This profile is written declaratively and transparently so that reading between the lines isn’t necessary. It features crystal-clear statements such as “pro-choice,” and “doesn’t smoke, doesn’t drink, vegan.” Political liberalism is foregrounded and presented neutrally yet non-negotiably (this is smart; don’t spark political fights [you’ll get them anyway], but if politics are important to you get them prominent in your profile). Instead of “coding” language around this topic, this writer has chosen to state it declaratively, knowing that this will help her weed out matches that won’t work for her.

What is the significance of the figured world(s) suggested by the text?

Can’t identify a specific figured world, but notes toward “sincere, nature-loving, healthy person.”

What is the significance of allusions/references to other texts/artifacts?

Political liberalism as discussed above. Invoking “the threat that conservative right poses to our democracy” reads not only as liberal but as “informed and able to articulate position clearly.” References to 3 specific shows she loves gives potential matches an idea of whether they might be compatible in an economical way. Three is a good number for this; don’t overwhelm the reader. Let me explain how this might work using “Ted Lasso.” Okay, so, “Ted Lasso” is two words, but for anyone who’s watched the show, this is what loving Ted Lasso communicates: “I have a sense of humor, I’m fascinated by people’s idiosyncrasies, and I value human kindness, decency, and strength of character. I can balance sincerity and emotion with humor and a bit of irreverence.” But see how much faster it is to say “I loved Ted Lasso.” This is how nodding to other texts/artifacts works in dating profiles. If you read the profile holistically, everything she says supports the important elements of Ted Lasso: “Everyone is on their own path. Happiness is a choice. I value people. I find them fascinating.” Crafting a cohesive picture of who you are by lining up what you say about yourself with what you like communicates an authentic and honest person who is trustworthy.

What is the significance of the discourse communities that are invoked?

Primary discourse communities: hiking/nature-lover and political liberalism. Both say a lot about who this writer is and what’s important to her.

What sort of activities are implied by the subtext or allusions of the source material?

I think this is pretty well covered above.

What identities are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

Identity: sincere, kind, direct-but-not-fighty, growing-as-a-person, healthy, straight-arrow. Specifically: see her response to the prompt “the last time I was embarrassed.” That response conveys humility, lightheardedness, and resilience — all super appealing to most people.

What sort of relationships/connections are implied by the subtext, figured worlds, or allusions of the source material?

This writer is transparent that she’s new at this and still finding her place in the dating world, which will appeal to the right matches because it’s honest and open and non-exclusionary.

DISCUSSION

If you’ve read through the above analyses, you probably began to detect some commonalities across all of them, regardless of specific approach or tone.

Here is how I would articulate those commonalities (e.g. THIS IS WHAT’S WORKING):

• Clarity
• Directness
• Intentional crafting of appealing tone (in a variety of ways)
• Specificity and concreteness (see analysis for examples and discussion)
• Brevity

So there’s your Top 5. We could break this down further, and we could add more to this list, but I’ve studied this stuff a lot (prior to this paper, obviously), and these 5 are the ones I keep finding over and over and over again.

Put more bluntly:

• Nix the cliches (no “living life to the fullest,” no “loves to laugh,” etc.). Get specific and concrete.
• Delete anger from your profiles. (It’s fine to BE angry; there’s a LOT to be angry about. What I’m telling you is that it doesn’t work in dating app profiles). Ditto for “instructive.” This is one of the Burned Haystack Dating Method™ rules: Don’t tell people what to do or how to be; tell them who YOU are. You can read more here: https://www.burnedhaystackdating.com/blog).
• Don’t try to appeal to everyone.
• Don’t be the “cool girl” or the “pick me girl.” (Google those terms if you don’t know them).
• Set your boundaries (which you can do clearly, politely, and even appealingly; every single one of these successful profiles sets clear boundaries without defaulting to unpleasant tones).

FINAL NOTE:

These last two lists of bulleted takeaways are important, and I hope they’re helpful, but you’ll get MUCH more from going through the analyses above. Sinking into and thinking about words on a granular level will sharpen not only your writing skills but your analytical skills. In other words, doing so will make you both a better writer AND a better reader of dating app profiles/messages (and of everything else :)

*“Burned Haystack Dating Method™,” “Burn the Haystack,” and cover artwork are the valuable intellectual property of Jennie Young and subject to trademark and copyright protection. This report is written by Jennie Young and may not be reproduced or reprinted.