LA WEEKLY – Apr 17 – "If you're gonna make scientific claims, act like a scientist. Or don't make scientific claims," UCLA social psychology professor Benjamin Karney says. On Feb. 17, Karney and 4 co-authors published "Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science," a study that looks at established relationship science to critique dating sites that claim to have a scientific basis for matching singles, including eHarmony, Chemistry, PerfectMatch and GenePartner. eHarmony claims its methods are "scientifically proven to predict happier, healthier long-term relationships." Proven, Karney wonders, by whom? Though he received a Ph.D. in psychology from University of Chicago in 1967, eHarmony founder Neil Clark Warren admitted in a 2006 article in the Atlantic, "I hated doing research." The biggest problem with Warren's algorithm is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from already married couples: He says that similar people are more likely to form happy, long-term relationships. But Karney points out that successful couples tend to perceive themselves as similar, regardless of whether they would have done so as unacquainted strangers. "If I like you, I'll find a way to be similar," he says. So perceived similarities are a consequence, not a cause, of strong relationships. For eHarmony, affiliation with Gonzaga and Bradbury appears to be PR gold that creates the impression that the site's matching methods are based on hard science. The question remains whether the legitimate research Gonzaga has been churning out will be used for anything more than publicity.
by Amanda Lewis
See full article at LA Weekly
Fernando. Where are you?
Fernando. Where are you?
The idea behind being ‘scientific’ is that you open up your science to cross-examination, peer review. eHarmony is keeping their cards closer to their chest than the scientific community would like, apparently. But then, if they did open up then their methodologies would get drawn into more cross fire and conjecture. So they’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t, and have opted for keeping their science more to themselves.
The idea behind being ‘scientific’ is that you open up your science to cross-examination, peer review. eHarmony is keeping their cards closer to their chest than the scientific community would like, apparently. But then, if they did open up then their methodologies would get drawn into more cross fire and conjecture. So they’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t, and have opted for keeping their science more to themselves.
eHarmony’s Team should be in jail for fraud.
Recently they made a mistake and revealed eHarmony’s secret sauce. (the effectiveness/efficiency of the matching algorithm.)
“99.7% of eHarmony’s members will not be introduced to you (translated from the Japanese site)”, i.e. only 0.3% of members will be shown as a compatible partner for you; that is the power of eHarmony’s matching algorithm (the effectiveness/efficiency of the matching algorithm.)
0.3% means: 3 persons per 1,000 persons screened in the same range as searching by your own! eHarmony’s matching algorithm performs really as placebo.
eHarmony is a 12+ years old & obsolete site, in decadence since years.
Verba, the CEO, never talked to the press in 8+ months of his tenure. He tried to sell eHarmony’s Inc. to the IAC (Match and others for USD1B)
In these past 8 months, instead of innovating, eHarmony’s Team had been adding more bells and whistles to a 12+ years old obsolete site.
Moreover eHarmony Inc. is under fraud investigation by several Consumers’ Associations worldwide!
Hope they can die soon and leave room for new opportunities. The same for Chemistry, PerfectMatch, True, Parship, eDarling; MeeticAffinity and all rubbish like them.
eHarmony’s Team should be in jail for fraud.
Recently they made a mistake and revealed eHarmony’s secret sauce. (the effectiveness/efficiency of the matching algorithm.)
“99.7% of eHarmony’s members will not be introduced to you (translated from the Japanese site)”, i.e. only 0.3% of members will be shown as a compatible partner for you; that is the power of eHarmony’s matching algorithm (the effectiveness/efficiency of the matching algorithm.)
0.3% means: 3 persons per 1,000 persons screened in the same range as searching by your own! eHarmony’s matching algorithm performs really as placebo.
eHarmony is a 12+ years old & obsolete site, in decadence since years.
Verba, the CEO, never talked to the press in 8+ months of his tenure. He tried to sell eHarmony’s Inc. to the IAC (Match and others for USD1B)
In these past 8 months, instead of innovating, eHarmony’s Team had been adding more bells and whistles to a 12+ years old obsolete site.
Moreover eHarmony Inc. is under fraud investigation by several Consumers’ Associations worldwide!
Hope they can die soon and leave room for new opportunities. The same for Chemistry, PerfectMatch, True, Parship, eDarling; MeeticAffinity and all rubbish like them.