LA TIMES — Dec 29 — A Scottish university issued an alarming news release warning that romantic comedies "may actually damage your love life" by raising unrealistic romantic expectations and setting them up for a lifetime of disappointment. In the movies, new relationships are portrayed both as exciting, as most tend to be, and offering the intimacy that usually takes years to develop in real life. Past transgressions are easily forgiven. (You cheated on me with the mailman? Big deal! I still love you; let's live happily ever after!) And finally, older, more committed relationships are frequently portrayed in a negative light, with couples bickering and backbiting. More often than not, married couples are depicted as long-suffering. FULL ARTICLE @ LA TIMES
Mark Brooks: Internet dating sites can help the cause by educating users, resetting expectations and making better matches. There are a host of dating sites offering up personality and compatibility profiling tests now. They use a range of sciences to do so. eHarmony is led by a clinical psychologist, PerfectMatch by a sociologist, Chemistry by an anthropologist and even Plentyoffish.com has jumped on the bandwagon and has recently started having all new users go through a page of profiling questions. (Full Disclosure: POF is a client of Courtland Brooks)
“Internet dating sites can help the cause by educating users, resetting expectations and making better matches. There are a host of dating sites offering up personality and compatibility profiling tests now. ”
* educating users
* making better matches
* personality and compatibility profiling tests
But eHarmony, PerfectMatch, True, Chemistry and others are relying only on big marketing budgets!!!
No one [eHarmony, PerfectMatch, True, Chemistry, PlentyOfFish and others] has published any Scientifc Paper peer_reviewed showing its method matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other typical type of compatibility test (like Wilson & Cousins) as the control group; with low ‘divorce rates’ (e.g. after 2, 5, 10 years of ‘marriage’).
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
“Internet dating sites can help the cause by educating users, resetting expectations and making better matches. There are a host of dating sites offering up personality and compatibility profiling tests now. ”
* educating users
* making better matches
* personality and compatibility profiling tests
But eHarmony, PerfectMatch, True, Chemistry and others are relying only on big marketing budgets!!!
No one [eHarmony, PerfectMatch, True, Chemistry, PlentyOfFish and others] has published any Scientifc Paper peer_reviewed showing its method matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other typical type of compatibility test (like Wilson & Cousins) as the control group; with low ‘divorce rates’ (e.g. after 2, 5, 10 years of ‘marriage’).
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Fernando wrote:
“No one [eHarmony, PerfectMatch, True, Chemistry, PlentyOfFish and others] has published any Scientifc Paper peer_reviewed showing its method matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other typical type of compatibility test (like Wilson & Cousins) as the control group; with low ‘divorce rates’ (e.g. after 2, 5, 10 years of ‘marriage’).”
Actually, that statement is inaccurate. There are at least two compatibility matching methods that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and which predict relationship quality to a statistically significant degree. Another method has been published in a chapter in an academic textbook, whereas another method is in the process of being published.
Reliable and valid longitudinal data on couples matched by systems is nearly impossible to obtain, so no one has any quality data about subsequent divorce rates, etc.
However, to my knowledge, Fernando has neither published any of his methodologies in peer-reviewed journals nor shown that couples matched by him “will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other typical type of compatibility test (like Wilson & Cousins) as the control group; with low ‘divorce rates’ (e.g. after 2, 5, 10 years of ‘marriage’).”
In fact, precision in matching has never been the problem as he asserts. The issue has been on what variables to match in order to maximize psychological and physical compatibility. The truth is that matching to the “nth” degree as claimed by Fernando is not possible — measurement error causes scores to have standard errors of estimate of at least “+ or -” one point, so producing a highly specific matching “percentage” of say, 98.666554% is inherently unobtainable.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Fernando wrote:
“No one [eHarmony, PerfectMatch, True, Chemistry, PlentyOfFish and others] has published any Scientifc Paper peer_reviewed showing its method matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other typical type of compatibility test (like Wilson & Cousins) as the control group; with low ‘divorce rates’ (e.g. after 2, 5, 10 years of ‘marriage’).”
Actually, that statement is inaccurate. There are at least two compatibility matching methods that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and which predict relationship quality to a statistically significant degree. Another method has been published in a chapter in an academic textbook, whereas another method is in the process of being published.
Reliable and valid longitudinal data on couples matched by systems is nearly impossible to obtain, so no one has any quality data about subsequent divorce rates, etc.
However, to my knowledge, Fernando has neither published any of his methodologies in peer-reviewed journals nor shown that couples matched by him “will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other typical type of compatibility test (like Wilson & Cousins) as the control group; with low ‘divorce rates’ (e.g. after 2, 5, 10 years of ‘marriage’).”
In fact, precision in matching has never been the problem as he asserts. The issue has been on what variables to match in order to maximize psychological and physical compatibility. The truth is that matching to the “nth” degree as claimed by Fernando is not possible — measurement error causes scores to have standard errors of estimate of at least “+ or -” one point, so producing a highly specific matching “percentage” of say, 98.666554% is inherently unobtainable.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Dr. Houran!
Very pleased to contact you once again!
I always enjoy our debates and discussions because you are definitely the Researcher the Online Dating Industry needs.
Dr. Houran you are right when you said:
http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2005/09/personality_pro.html
“we’re in the infancy of compatibility testing.”
http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2005/10/cmon_baby_light.html
“Compatibility testing, indeed all online testing, is still in its infancy — but just wait and see what’s coming to the right company that’s seriously interested in the state-of-the-art of applied psychology 🙂 !!! Thx, Dr. Jim”
but unfortunately you are wrong when you said:
http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2007/09/eharmony-the-so.html
“The issue has never really been the mathematical ‘accuracy’ or precision in matching algorithms as Fernando suggested. The primary issue is what relationship variables those algorithms are using in the first place — and most models focus too heavily on similarity in ‘personality’, which is an approach that experts know is misguided.”
High precision in matching algorithms is precisely the key to open the door and leave the infancy of compatibility testing.
As you know many actual online dating sites (eHarmony, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, PlentyOfFish, OkCupid, Yahoo!Personals, etc) offering compatibility matching methods could reach “as low as” 3 / 4 persons high compatible per 1,000 persons, so in a 10,000,000 persons database, there are as many as 30,000 / 40,000 persons to contact/date, that means a whole precision less than anyone could achieve by searching on one’s own!!!! (30,000 persons is the population of an average small city!!!)
It is all about high precision.
It is all about jet engines to break sound barrier.
It is all about the eighth decimal!
With 8 decimals, you have more precision than any person could achieve by searching on one’s own, you break sound barrier with a jet engine.
—————
LIFEPROJECT METHOD: High precision matching algorithm: high precision quantitative method to assess similarity between quantized patterns.
“compatibility”, “similarity” and “personality” are words that have different meanings for different persons.
For LIFEPROJECT METHOD:
compatibility is a high percentage of similarity between personality quantized patterns.
personality is measured with normative 16PF5 test or equivalent.
similarity: with quantized pattern comparison (a part of pattern recognition by correlation)
TWO STEPS:
STEP ONE: personality measurement. (more than once)
#1 measurement compared to #2 measurement should be similar in more than 97.00000000 +/- 0.00000001%
STEP TWO: calculation with a proprietary quantized pattern comparison
eg:
Person #X: 16PF5 Profile: A:6.B:7.C:6.E:8.F:9.G:6.H:7.I:7.L:8.M:7.N:2.O:5.Q1:8.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4
as if it were 16 distinguishable particles in a one_dimensional box of length L and infinite outside the box with 10 quantized levels of energy (named box X)
distinguishable particle (A) Warmth at level “6”
distinguishable particle (B) Reasoning at level “7”
distinguishable particle (C) Emotional Stability at level “6”
distinguishable particle (E) Dominance at level “8”
distinguishable particle (F) Liveliness at level “9”
distinguishable particle (G) RuleConsciousness at level “6”
distinguishable particle (H) Social Boldness at level “7”
distinguishable particle (I) Sensitivity at level “7”
distinguishable particle (L) Vigilance at level “8”
distinguishable particle (M) Abstractedness at level “7”
distinguishable particle (N) Privateness at level “2”
distinguishable particle (O) Apprehension to Change at level “5”
distinguishable particle (Q1) Openness at level “8”
distinguishable particle (Q2) SelfReliance at level “7”
distinguishable particle (Q3) Perfectionism at level “3”
distinguishable particle (Q4) Tension at level “4”
And
Person #Y: 16PF5 Profile: A:5.B:7.C:4.E:8.F:7.G:4.H:5.I:6.L:4.M:6.N:8.O:9.Q1:6.Q2:8.Q3:4.Q4:4
as if it were 16 distinguishable particles in other one_dimensional box of length L and infinite outside the box with 10 quantized levels of energy (named box Y)
distinguishable particle (A) Warmth at level “5”
distinguishable particle (B) Reasoning at level “7”
distinguishable particle (C) Emotional Stability at level “4”
distinguishable particle (E) Dominance at level “8”
distinguishable particle (F) Liveliness at level “7”
distinguishable particle (G) RuleConsciousness at level “4”
distinguishable particle (H) Social Boldness at level “5”
distinguishable particle (I) Sensitivity at level “6”
distinguishable particle (L) Vigilance at level “4”
distinguishable particle (M) Abstractedness at level “6”
distinguishable particle (N) Privateness at level “8”
distinguishable particle (O) Apprehension to Change at level “9”
distinguishable particle (Q1) Openness at level “6”
distinguishable particle (Q2) SelfReliance at level “8”
distinguishable particle (Q3) Perfectionism at level “4”
distinguishable particle (Q4) Tension at level “4”
Each quantized level is associated with a probability density function.
(#X|CQ|#Y) is the sum of the comparisons between different states, the sum of partial probabilities.
(#X|CQ|#Y) == 74.79865772%
Read as
the pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 74.79865772% similar to
the pattern 5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Dr. Houran!
Very pleased to contact you once again!
I always enjoy our debates and discussions because you are definitely the Researcher the Online Dating Industry needs.
Dr. Houran you are right when you said:
http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2005/09/personality_pro.html
“we’re in the infancy of compatibility testing.”
http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2005/10/cmon_baby_light.html
“Compatibility testing, indeed all online testing, is still in its infancy — but just wait and see what’s coming to the right company that’s seriously interested in the state-of-the-art of applied psychology 🙂 !!! Thx, Dr. Jim”
but unfortunately you are wrong when you said:
http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2007/09/eharmony-the-so.html
“The issue has never really been the mathematical ‘accuracy’ or precision in matching algorithms as Fernando suggested. The primary issue is what relationship variables those algorithms are using in the first place — and most models focus too heavily on similarity in ‘personality’, which is an approach that experts know is misguided.”
High precision in matching algorithms is precisely the key to open the door and leave the infancy of compatibility testing.
As you know many actual online dating sites (eHarmony, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, PlentyOfFish, OkCupid, Yahoo!Personals, etc) offering compatibility matching methods could reach “as low as” 3 / 4 persons high compatible per 1,000 persons, so in a 10,000,000 persons database, there are as many as 30,000 / 40,000 persons to contact/date, that means a whole precision less than anyone could achieve by searching on one’s own!!!! (30,000 persons is the population of an average small city!!!)
It is all about high precision.
It is all about jet engines to break sound barrier.
It is all about the eighth decimal!
With 8 decimals, you have more precision than any person could achieve by searching on one’s own, you break sound barrier with a jet engine.
—————
LIFEPROJECT METHOD: High precision matching algorithm: high precision quantitative method to assess similarity between quantized patterns.
“compatibility”, “similarity” and “personality” are words that have different meanings for different persons.
For LIFEPROJECT METHOD:
compatibility is a high percentage of similarity between personality quantized patterns.
personality is measured with normative 16PF5 test or equivalent.
similarity: with quantized pattern comparison (a part of pattern recognition by correlation)
TWO STEPS:
STEP ONE: personality measurement. (more than once)
#1 measurement compared to #2 measurement should be similar in more than 97.00000000 +/- 0.00000001%
STEP TWO: calculation with a proprietary quantized pattern comparison
eg:
Person #X: 16PF5 Profile: A:6.B:7.C:6.E:8.F:9.G:6.H:7.I:7.L:8.M:7.N:2.O:5.Q1:8.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4
as if it were 16 distinguishable particles in a one_dimensional box of length L and infinite outside the box with 10 quantized levels of energy (named box X)
distinguishable particle (A) Warmth at level “6”
distinguishable particle (B) Reasoning at level “7”
distinguishable particle (C) Emotional Stability at level “6”
distinguishable particle (E) Dominance at level “8”
distinguishable particle (F) Liveliness at level “9”
distinguishable particle (G) RuleConsciousness at level “6”
distinguishable particle (H) Social Boldness at level “7”
distinguishable particle (I) Sensitivity at level “7”
distinguishable particle (L) Vigilance at level “8”
distinguishable particle (M) Abstractedness at level “7”
distinguishable particle (N) Privateness at level “2”
distinguishable particle (O) Apprehension to Change at level “5”
distinguishable particle (Q1) Openness at level “8”
distinguishable particle (Q2) SelfReliance at level “7”
distinguishable particle (Q3) Perfectionism at level “3”
distinguishable particle (Q4) Tension at level “4”
And
Person #Y: 16PF5 Profile: A:5.B:7.C:4.E:8.F:7.G:4.H:5.I:6.L:4.M:6.N:8.O:9.Q1:6.Q2:8.Q3:4.Q4:4
as if it were 16 distinguishable particles in other one_dimensional box of length L and infinite outside the box with 10 quantized levels of energy (named box Y)
distinguishable particle (A) Warmth at level “5”
distinguishable particle (B) Reasoning at level “7”
distinguishable particle (C) Emotional Stability at level “4”
distinguishable particle (E) Dominance at level “8”
distinguishable particle (F) Liveliness at level “7”
distinguishable particle (G) RuleConsciousness at level “4”
distinguishable particle (H) Social Boldness at level “5”
distinguishable particle (I) Sensitivity at level “6”
distinguishable particle (L) Vigilance at level “4”
distinguishable particle (M) Abstractedness at level “6”
distinguishable particle (N) Privateness at level “8”
distinguishable particle (O) Apprehension to Change at level “9”
distinguishable particle (Q1) Openness at level “6”
distinguishable particle (Q2) SelfReliance at level “8”
distinguishable particle (Q3) Perfectionism at level “4”
distinguishable particle (Q4) Tension at level “4”
Each quantized level is associated with a probability density function.
(#X|CQ|#Y) is the sum of the comparisons between different states, the sum of partial probabilities.
(#X|CQ|#Y) == 74.79865772%
Read as
the pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 74.79865772% similar to
the pattern 5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com