SUN JOURNAL — May 6 — "Imagine if we could lower the divorce rate by 1 percent, all the lives that would be impacted by that," said Galen Buckwalter, a former professor of psychology who is eHarmony's VP R&D. It may take a generation to figure out whether any of the Web sites will succeed, but in the meantime they are collectively engaging in a social experiment of gargantuan size. Ultimately, they may prove whether or not science has a role in the most unscientific realm of all – love. Anthropologist Helen Fisher, scientific adviser to Chemistry.com, said psychologists have understood for years which relationships work and which ones don't. People who share culture, economic status, education and religion fare much better than people who are different. Fisher, a professor at Rutgers, thinks it's genetics. Genes for dopamine are associated with motivation and curiosity, genes for serotonin are linked to stability. Testosterone is related to drive and spatial abilities. She theorized that people have different levels of those body chemicals that put them into four broad personality types. The profile on Chemistry.com is designed to assign people to one of those four. PerfectMatch relies on a combination of similar and complementary traits to predict long-term compatibility, but not instant attraction. The Duet Compatibility Profiler focuses on eight personality characteristics, including romantic impulsivity, energy and outlook. Compatible couples should match on four of them. eHarmony based its matching system on what 5,000 happily married couples had to say about why their relationships withstood the test of time. eHarmony's system does not identify what he called "the click," the spark that leads to romance instead of friendship. They're working on it.
The full article was originally published at Sun Journal, but is no longer available.
Mark Brooks: A top 10 dating site will be launching a personality profiling system to rival Chemistry, PerfectMatch and eHarmony shortly. Email me at mark@onlinepersonalswatch.com for first notification. The announcement is on embargo.
From a company point of view:The more companies get away from being simply a electronic platform to a true conduite that will facilitate happy relationships the better. Happy clients mean more clients.
From a client point of view:’Chemistry testing’ so to speaks gives those who like the idea that ‘they are in control of their destinies’, one more arrow in their quiver.
From a company point of view:The more companies get away from being simply a electronic platform to a true conduite that will facilitate happy relationships the better. Happy clients mean more clients.
From a client point of view:’Chemistry testing’ so to speaks gives those who like the idea that ‘they are in control of their destinies’, one more arrow in their quiver.
“A top 10 dating site will be launching a personality profiling system to rival Chemistry, PerfectMatch and eHarmony shortly.”
Oh, great!!! I conducted reverse engineering over many online dating sites offering Compatibility Matching and I had found a lack_of_precision / lack_of_reliability problem being suffered by them because they are using:
– DISC based personality tests results OR
– MBTI based personality tests results OR
– Big-5/Big-7 based personality traits tests results
in a multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation, so the whole precision is less than you could had achieved searching by your own!!!.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering
DISC tests, MBTI tests are ipsative instruments, meaning that they describe an individual in a self-referential way (i.e.: against themselves). These kind of tests are not suitable at all for high precision compatibility matching, so any serious online dating site willing to launch personality profiling should not use them.
Big5, Big7, 16PF5 are normative instruments, meaning they describe the individuals against a norm group.
If only Big-5/Big-7 personality traits were involved in a multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation, then the whole precision is less than you could had achieved searching by your own!!!
Any serious online dating site willing to launch personality profiling should use the 16PF5 test.
The 16PF5 is a normative & well known test used by job recruiters, ready from 1949, available in different languages and no other actual online dating site is using it!!!
The 5 after the PF means it also includes the Big-5 as well!
Using the complete 16 Personality Factors model, 16PF5 test, the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * E16 == 10,000,000,000,000,000 of different possibilities (personality types), thus each person is really unique.
16 Personality Factors: (A)Warmth, (B)Reasoning, (C)Emotional_Stability, (E)Dominance,
(F)Liveliness, (G)Rule_Consciousness, (H)Social_Boldness, (I)Sensitivity, (L)Vigilance, (M)Abstractedness, (N)Privateness, (O)Apprehension, (Q1)Openness_to_Change, (Q2)Self_Reliance, (Q3)Perfectionism and (Q4)Tension
The World Population (WP) is nearly 6,400 millions persons == 6.4 * E9
16PF’s Ensemble == 1 * E16
WP / Ensemble == (6.4 * E9) / (1 * E16) == 6.4 * E-7 == 64 * E-6
i.e. All World Population is 64 micro part of the Ensemble!!!
If the 16PF5 personality traits were involved in the relationship_satisfaction_equation, it could not be a multiple regression equation, because All World Population is 64 micro part of the whole set of different personality possibilities!!!!!
See:
the paper “METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE”
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/personalrelationships/contentsofissues/pdf_articles/Volume%206,%20Issue%204/Kashy.pdf
At page 413 says: “It is vital for the study of personal relationships, as for any scientific discipline, to develop methodologies that are specifically designed to address the questions posed by the discipline. The articles in this special issue represent an effort in that direction. Perhaps equally important is the need for individuals who are involved in relationships study to learn these new techniques and to apply them in their research. It is also important for investigators to challenge statisticians to create new analytic techniques when existing ones are inadequate. These tasks are left to you, the reader.”
and
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/scientific-papers-t395.html
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
“A top 10 dating site will be launching a personality profiling system to rival Chemistry, PerfectMatch and eHarmony shortly.”
Oh, great!!! I conducted reverse engineering over many online dating sites offering Compatibility Matching and I had found a lack_of_precision / lack_of_reliability problem being suffered by them because they are using:
– DISC based personality tests results OR
– MBTI based personality tests results OR
– Big-5/Big-7 based personality traits tests results
in a multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation, so the whole precision is less than you could had achieved searching by your own!!!.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering
DISC tests, MBTI tests are ipsative instruments, meaning that they describe an individual in a self-referential way (i.e.: against themselves). These kind of tests are not suitable at all for high precision compatibility matching, so any serious online dating site willing to launch personality profiling should not use them.
Big5, Big7, 16PF5 are normative instruments, meaning they describe the individuals against a norm group.
If only Big-5/Big-7 personality traits were involved in a multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation, then the whole precision is less than you could had achieved searching by your own!!!
Any serious online dating site willing to launch personality profiling should use the 16PF5 test.
The 16PF5 is a normative & well known test used by job recruiters, ready from 1949, available in different languages and no other actual online dating site is using it!!!
The 5 after the PF means it also includes the Big-5 as well!
Using the complete 16 Personality Factors model, 16PF5 test, the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * E16 == 10,000,000,000,000,000 of different possibilities (personality types), thus each person is really unique.
16 Personality Factors: (A)Warmth, (B)Reasoning, (C)Emotional_Stability, (E)Dominance,
(F)Liveliness, (G)Rule_Consciousness, (H)Social_Boldness, (I)Sensitivity, (L)Vigilance, (M)Abstractedness, (N)Privateness, (O)Apprehension, (Q1)Openness_to_Change, (Q2)Self_Reliance, (Q3)Perfectionism and (Q4)Tension
The World Population (WP) is nearly 6,400 millions persons == 6.4 * E9
16PF’s Ensemble == 1 * E16
WP / Ensemble == (6.4 * E9) / (1 * E16) == 6.4 * E-7 == 64 * E-6
i.e. All World Population is 64 micro part of the Ensemble!!!
If the 16PF5 personality traits were involved in the relationship_satisfaction_equation, it could not be a multiple regression equation, because All World Population is 64 micro part of the whole set of different personality possibilities!!!!!
See:
the paper “METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE”
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/personalrelationships/contentsofissues/pdf_articles/Volume%206,%20Issue%204/Kashy.pdf
At page 413 says: “It is vital for the study of personal relationships, as for any scientific discipline, to develop methodologies that are specifically designed to address the questions posed by the discipline. The articles in this special issue represent an effort in that direction. Perhaps equally important is the need for individuals who are involved in relationships study to learn these new techniques and to apply them in their research. It is also important for investigators to challenge statisticians to create new analytic techniques when existing ones are inadequate. These tasks are left to you, the reader.”
and
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/scientific-papers-t395.html
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Dear List,
I wanted to piggyback on some of Fernando’s comments. First, Cattell’s 16PF was constructed with a statistical technique called factor analysis and subsequently validated with Classical Test Theory. Professional tests and measurements experts rely on neither for scale development nowadays, but rather use techniques called modern test theory. This is because classical test theory approaches (like factor analysis on its own) are well known to yield spurious results.
To my knowledge, there is no modern test theory validation of the 16PF (and the 16PF5 means the fifth version of the 16PF, not that it specifically incorporates the Big Five traits). Trying to validate the 16PF with modern test theory would be a great doctoral project.
Now, the Big Five model of personality is a modern derivative of Cattell’s 16 factors, which have been distilled into 5 core personality traits:
– Openness
– Conscientiousness
– Extraversion
– Agreeableness
– Neuroticism
The Big Five model of personality has been validated with modern test theory and is to be preferable to the 16PF –first and foremost — on psychometric grounds.
Furthermore, any matching algorithm also should be based in modern test theory and it should predict relationship satisfaction and stability (with a measure also grounded in modern test theory).
Of course I respect Fernando, but talk of the 16PF is moot in my opinion given that personality per se seems not to be a consistent and statistically significant correlate of relationship quality.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Online Dating Magazine
Dear List,
I wanted to piggyback on some of Fernando’s comments. First, Cattell’s 16PF was constructed with a statistical technique called factor analysis and subsequently validated with Classical Test Theory. Professional tests and measurements experts rely on neither for scale development nowadays, but rather use techniques called modern test theory. This is because classical test theory approaches (like factor analysis on its own) are well known to yield spurious results.
To my knowledge, there is no modern test theory validation of the 16PF (and the 16PF5 means the fifth version of the 16PF, not that it specifically incorporates the Big Five traits). Trying to validate the 16PF with modern test theory would be a great doctoral project.
Now, the Big Five model of personality is a modern derivative of Cattell’s 16 factors, which have been distilled into 5 core personality traits:
– Openness
– Conscientiousness
– Extraversion
– Agreeableness
– Neuroticism
The Big Five model of personality has been validated with modern test theory and is to be preferable to the 16PF –first and foremost — on psychometric grounds.
Furthermore, any matching algorithm also should be based in modern test theory and it should predict relationship satisfaction and stability (with a measure also grounded in modern test theory).
Of course I respect Fernando, but talk of the 16PF is moot in my opinion given that personality per se seems not to be a consistent and statistically significant correlate of relationship quality.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Online Dating Magazine
Dear Dr. Houran:
Very pleased to contact you once again!!!
“Trying to validate the 16PF with modern test theory would be a great doctoral project.”
Oh great, Dr. Houran, perhaps Drs. Rense Lange, Glenn D. Wilson, Jon Cousins & you should do that!!!!
See:
http://www.ipat.com/level3/level3.php?Measuring%20the%20Big%205
Measuring the Big 5
For example, Big Five theories and analyses by Costa and McCrae; Goldberg, Fiske, Tupes and Christal; Wiggins; Norman; Digman; and other contemporary researchers are all extensions of Cattell’s work with IPAT’s 16 Primary Factors or based on 16PF data. More than 50 published studies have replicated the basic structure of these traits as consistent, broad measures of normal personality. Although Cattell had an important theoretical difference with more recent researchers (Cattell rejected the assumption that each factor was largely unrelated to the others), there is strong similarity across the three most commonly accepted five-factor models, despite differences in the names of the factors:
Cattell: Extraversion, Stability, Receptivity, Accommodation, Self-Control
Goldberg: Surgency, Emotional Stability, Intellect, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
Costa&McCrae: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
Because the Big Five groups the more specific primary-level factors, feedback organized around the five Global Factor scales is more easily understood. For detailed feedback or predictive purposes, one should assess the more specific primary factors. Research has shown that more specific factors like the primary scales of the 16PF Questionnaire predict actual behavior better than the Big 5 Global Factors. For example, one extravert (a bold, fearless, high-energy type) may differ considerably from another (a sweet, warm, sensitive type), depending on the extraversion-related primary scale score patterns, so deeper analysis is typically warranted.
The 16PF5 also includes the Big-5 as well, but instead of:
Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
it calls them:
Extraversion, Stability, Receptivity, Accommodation, Self-Control
See sample report in English – US (Now with updated norms)
http://www.16pfworld.com/pdf/english-us.pdf
Dr. Houran you wrote “that personality per se seems not to be a consistent and statistically significant correlate of relationship quality.” That is because many researchers used the Big 5 (or Big 7) and I bet they also used a multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation.
Will be interesting to launch an online dating site using the 16PF5 test results and the comparison method I had invented; promoting “meet people like you, with almost complete similar personality” like 92.55033557%. I think a lot of persons could be interested in that proposal and I am moving forward in that direction.
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Dear Dr. Houran:
Very pleased to contact you once again!!!
“Trying to validate the 16PF with modern test theory would be a great doctoral project.”
Oh great, Dr. Houran, perhaps Drs. Rense Lange, Glenn D. Wilson, Jon Cousins & you should do that!!!!
See:
http://www.ipat.com/level3/level3.php?Measuring%20the%20Big%205
Measuring the Big 5
For example, Big Five theories and analyses by Costa and McCrae; Goldberg, Fiske, Tupes and Christal; Wiggins; Norman; Digman; and other contemporary researchers are all extensions of Cattell’s work with IPAT’s 16 Primary Factors or based on 16PF data. More than 50 published studies have replicated the basic structure of these traits as consistent, broad measures of normal personality. Although Cattell had an important theoretical difference with more recent researchers (Cattell rejected the assumption that each factor was largely unrelated to the others), there is strong similarity across the three most commonly accepted five-factor models, despite differences in the names of the factors:
Cattell: Extraversion, Stability, Receptivity, Accommodation, Self-Control
Goldberg: Surgency, Emotional Stability, Intellect, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
Costa&McCrae: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
Because the Big Five groups the more specific primary-level factors, feedback organized around the five Global Factor scales is more easily understood. For detailed feedback or predictive purposes, one should assess the more specific primary factors. Research has shown that more specific factors like the primary scales of the 16PF Questionnaire predict actual behavior better than the Big 5 Global Factors. For example, one extravert (a bold, fearless, high-energy type) may differ considerably from another (a sweet, warm, sensitive type), depending on the extraversion-related primary scale score patterns, so deeper analysis is typically warranted.
The 16PF5 also includes the Big-5 as well, but instead of:
Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
it calls them:
Extraversion, Stability, Receptivity, Accommodation, Self-Control
See sample report in English – US (Now with updated norms)
http://www.16pfworld.com/pdf/english-us.pdf
Dr. Houran you wrote “that personality per se seems not to be a consistent and statistically significant correlate of relationship quality.” That is because many researchers used the Big 5 (or Big 7) and I bet they also used a multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation.
Will be interesting to launch an online dating site using the 16PF5 test results and the comparison method I had invented; promoting “meet people like you, with almost complete similar personality” like 92.55033557%. I think a lot of persons could be interested in that proposal and I am moving forward in that direction.
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com