Basic economic theory is all we need to explain Tinder. Because there's no real investment required on either side, the majority of the "action" will go to highly desirable individuals. Women, having expensive ovaries, are biologically hardwired to be far more selective than men with their nearly-free sperm. Thus women will attract more attention (men being relatively eager to mate with anyone with a pulse) but of course will seek to maximize their utility function by swiping only on the most attractive males (we're assuming heteronormative behavior here, as the article does). Thus the "hottest" males get nearly all the action, while a much broader range of females can be successful (assuming "success" is defined by attention, dates, and perhaps occasionally sexual intercourse). It's the same reason that men exaggerate height and wealth, while females exaggerate youth and pulchritude. We instinctively know what the opposite sex is looking for. And while there are always exceptions, the vast majority are within a couple of standard deviations of the mean because behaviors tend to follow simple Gaussian distributions.

Anyone who enjoys my articles here on Medium may be interested in my books Why Democracy Failed and The Praying Ape, both available from Amazon.