For every example which you select, it’s certainly true that some people were taking advantage from it (some people include using PhotoFeeler, some people have read companion, an such like), but there’s no reason exactly why this would translate into the advantages going out, or would automatically trigger everyone for the dating world manageing it. (Indeed, if someone is highly successful at dating, they’re almost certainly going to disappear from the dating world than to remain in they.) Therefore, it is highly disanalogous to efficient markets.
My major aim usually humans are frequently unstrategic and worst, absent a lot of time investment and/or selection impacts, therefore there’s no particular reason to expect them to become fantastic at dating. It could be correct that they’re a whole lot worse at dating than we would expect, but to draw that conclusion, the relevant comparisons are also items that lay people would inside their free time (ryan_b mentions work search, which may seem like a comparison), while theories assuming perfect rationality are unlikely to-be useful.
(Another reason that humans are sometimes great at affairs occurs when these were highly useful for reproduction within the ancestral environment. While finding a partner is certainly useful, most of the mentioned examples concern items that only have become relevant during recent hundred decades, so that it’s perhaps not surprising that we’re perhaps not optimised to utilize them.)