LifeProject, Fernando - OPW Interview - Online Personals Watch: News on the Online Dating Industry and Business

« Meetic Plunges To Record | Main | Single: A Documentary Film »

Comments

James Houran

Hi Mark,

It's good to see an interview regarding testing applications. After all, testing for online dating sites isn't really declining from what I've seen.

That said, I found the explanations in this interview incomplete. I'm pretty educated and definitely in tune with compatibility literature and equations, yet I couldn't follow Fernando's train of thought on his quantitiative explanations. And if I'm lost, I can imagine virtually all of your readers are too.

The best way to assess Fernando's proposed system is for him to provide a detailed example using say three variables (keep it simple!). This example should show EACH AND EVERY STEP in what Fernando is doing to make his calculations. Without that, I don't think anyone can understand what is new, different or better in his approach than what's already available.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine

Ryan

The issue here is that people don't date each other on similar personalities. According to Dr Babe Livewilder at jivelo.com , there are much deeper issues at work when a person is attracted to another person. The obvious ones are physical, income and don't forget the 6 second subconscious filter. It takes a few seconds for a person to make a first impression so no matter how accurate a method is in matching people online, if there is no initial chemistry, it's a no starter.

Fernando Ardenghi

Hi all:

At the interview, there was a typo mistake in the equation!
it is

(#X|CQ|#Y) == K01(AX|CQ|AY) + K02(BX|CQ|BY) + K03(CX|CQ|CY) + K04(EX|CQ|EY) + K05(FX|CQ|FY) + K06(GX|CQ|GY) + K07(HX|CQ|HY) + K08(IX|CQ|IY) + K09(LX|CQ|LY) + K10(MX|CQ|MY) + K11(NX|CQ|NY) + K12(OX|CQ|OY) + K13(Q1X|CQ|Q1Y) + K14(Q2X|CQ|Q2Y) + K15(Q3X|CQ|Q3Y) + K16(Q4X|CQ|Q4Y)


(A) Warmth; (B) Reasoning; (C) Emotional Stability; (E) Dominance, (F) Liveliness; (G) RuleConsciousness; (H) Social Boldness; (I) Sensitivity; (L) Vigilance; (M) Abstractedness; (N) Privateness (O) Apprehension; (Q1) Openness to Change; (Q2) SelfReliance; (Q3) Perfectionism; (Q4) Tension. 16 independent variables that take integer values from 1 to 10

and

not
(#X|CQ|#Y) == K01 + K02 + K03 + K04 + K05 + K06 + K07 + K08 + K09 + K10 + K11 + K12 + K13 + K14 + K15 + K16
as (wrongly) published.

Also at the interview
74,79865772% and 74.79865772% means the same.

Real examples at
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/scientific-papers-t395.html


"what is new, different or better in his approach than what's already available."
- LifeProject Method is an innovative and high precision quantitative method to assess similarity between quantized patterns.
To my best knowledge, I haven’t seen any other quantitative method with higher precision than the one I had invented.
- No actual online dating site is using the normative (available in different languages) 16PF5 test as main personality test.


Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

James Houran

Hi Fernando and List,

Thanks for the additional information and corrections, but it doesn't clarify anything really. The method I see here is simply adding up scores -- the actual LPM seems to be a black box and therefore I can't assess it.

That said, I do disagree with some of the additional comments from Fernando:

1. "The LPM has high precision:" I appreciate Fernando's quantitative approach, but I'm extremely skeptical of the claim that it has high precision. The measurement error alone in the 16PF5 test would preclude its precision being greater than other questionnaire methods.

2. "No other site is using the normative 16PF5 test." Elements of the "traits" in the 16PF can be seen in many other personality matching tests. However, the 16PF5 is a proprietary test, so any service using it will be paying large licensing fees. Perhaps more to the point, assessing similarity in personality is not critical. Literature reviews show that couples have little to no similarity with respect to personality. Thus, any matching method based solely or mainly on personality traits seems a bit misguided prima facie.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com

Fernando Ardenghi

Hi again Dr. Houran!!!


The 16PF5 licensing fee is USD100K - USD150K per year with unlimited use.
It is not quite expensive for a big online dating site.

You had wrote "The method I see here is simply adding up scores"
That is wrong!
It is adding up partial probabilities, because the output of the 16PF5 test resembles a set of 16 distinguishable particles in a one_dimensional box.

Eg:
For person #X:: 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
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

For person #Y:: 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
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
More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box


ABOUT PRECISION

High precision means similarity between quantized patterns expressed as a number with 8 decimals, like 92.55033557%

Other sites use a number like 110 (Cybersuitors), 96% (PlentyofFish Chemistry Predictor), 65 (Parship), etc.
and others use only a graphic system, like a set of up to five empty/half_full/full hearts icon; a set of up to ten empty/half_full/full squares, a set of semaphores, etc.
to indicate the degree of "compatibility"


ABOUT SIMILARITY

Last February 2005, using a couple-centered approach, Drs. Klohnen and Luo wrote in a paper "People may be attracted to those who have similar attitudes, values, and beliefs and even marry them (at least in part) on the basis of this similarity. However, once individuals are in a committed relationship, it may be primarily personality similarity that influences marital happiness. This suggests that attitude and value similarity may play a different role in relationship development than personality similarity does. For example, whereas similarity in attitudes and values appears to be important early on in the relationship and may play an important role in relationship progression, personality similarity becomes more important as the relationship reaches greater commitment.
...........
future research designed to better understand these underlying processes is needed."

In August 2005, Dr. John A. Johnson told me, "There are probably undiscovered factors beyond similarity of any type that determine relationship quality."


The paper "METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE"

At page 413 says: ".... 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."

That is because I had invented a new method to assess similarity.

I think you are definitely the Researcher the Online Dating Industry needs, because there is no other Psychologist with your knowledge and experience.
You had an opportunity when you were one of the brains behind the True Compatibility Test and I suspect you also were one of the brains behind the PlentyofFish Chemistry Predictor.


I hope I can successfully launch LPM (partnering with a major online dating site or by my own) and hire your services in order to check if LPM matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance or other typical type of compatibility test (like the Wilson Relationship Compatibility Indicator WRCI test).

If not, anyway, I think lot of persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons sharing nearly the same personality because they will be *predictable* for them.

Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Research

  • Dig Deeper - Research Categories

We're Social

  • Facebook  X   Youtube Linkedin