Blinded By Science In The Online Dating Game

NY TIMES -- July 17 -- Professor Helen Fisher, of Chemistry.com, studied the neural chemistry of people in love. She zeroes in on six specific chemicals, which are linked to certain traits. Those with a preponderance of dopamine and norepinephrine she named “explorers,” those with serotonin are “builders,” those with testosterone are “directors” and those with estrogen and oxytocin are “negotiators.” The 56-question test that Fisher has developed for Chemistry.com helps identify who is a builder, an explorer and so on. She has also studied 28,000 people and found that those who are explorers tend to pick explorers, builders tend to choose builders, while directors and negotiators often select each other. James Houran, a relationship psychologist who has developed “compatibility matching tools” for Plentyoffish.com, a free dating site, said his work indicated that people who met someone through the site were more satisfied in their relationships than those who met in other ways. GenePartner scientists developed a formula that successfully determined genetic compatibility. After receiving the DNA results users can hunt for their genetic soul mate on Genepartner.com. FULL ARTICLE @ NY TIMES

See all posts on Chemistry.com
See all posts on Plentyoffish
See all posts on Genepartner

Comments

[Fernando Ardenghi]

"Blinded By Science In The Online Dating Game "?

Blinded by big marketing budgets!
Blinded by cannons shooting flowers!

No actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods can prove its matching algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one's own, or other technique as the control group in a peer_reviewed Scientific Paper.

To my best knowledge, Chemistry (USA site) has a low successful "1.2.3 MEET in person step-by-step process", low successful first meeting rate for its members
and
its matching method only reported early stage attraction between prospective mates and after the first meeting; in some persons attraction reduces its level OR worse even, morphs/metamorphoses to rejection i.e. it is working only for short_term_mating!!!
The persons who use the Chemistry site, meet in person, and after that want to continue dating, is only a very small percentage of them.
Less than 6% reach the first meeting in person stage.
Of that 6% who reach the first meeting in person stage, not known exactly the percentage of persons who want to continue dating, but I suspect it is very very very low.
Chemistry (and worldwide rebranded names) is only fueled by a big marketing budget (over USD 100 million per year).

PlentyOfFish tried to be a 'free eHarmony' but made 3 mistakes.
1) PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor based on a "46-item relationship test that assesses individuals' standing on five broad dimensions of personality."
The brains behind that test should had assessed the 16 personality factors as established by Dr. Raymond Cattell in 1949.

2) failed on how to validate the test. "Validation of the POFCP was done using a national sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics as members of the PlentyofFish community" /// "the only tool of its kind to match you to people worldwide"
The brains behind that test should had constructed and validated a different test for different languages and countries.

3) failed on how to calculate similarity between prospectives mates. The PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor is in the range of 3 or 4 persons highly compatible per 1,000 persons screened, the same as mutual filtering method or searching by your own.

GenePartner

"The GenePartner project was inspired by a famous study performed by Prof. Dr. Wedekind at the University of Bern in Switzerland. In this study, Prof. Dr. Wedekind recruited female volunteers to smell T_shirts worn by men for three consecutive days and rate them for attractiveness. He then analyzed the particular part of DNA that codes for HLA (human leukocyte antigen) molecules and found that women preferred T_shirts from men whose HLA molecules were most different from their own. Sensing and classifying the HLA genes is something our bodies do automatically and subconsciously."

"Sensing and classifying the HLA genes is something our bodies do automatically and subconsciously"; Yes and divorce rates are too high.

DNA matching methods, based on the T_shirt Experiment could be good only for short term mating (initial attraction, infatuation, fantasy) and not for a serious long term relationship with commitment.

Regards,

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

[James Houran, Ph.D.]

Hi all,

I wanted to clarify that academia started to take dating sites to task a LONG time ago. In fact, my team was the first to publish a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject. The recent review by Dr. Lohr drew heavily from that article, but his was published in a popular magazine (not peer reviewed) called “Skeptic.”

In any event, interested readers are referred to the following article to see the early work on this topic:

Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a publicized ‘predictive model of marital success.’ North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 507-526.

Furthermore, researchers have long been criticizing unsubstantiated compatibility assessments in academic forums. To my knowledge, only the compatibility testing work of Glenn Wilson, Helen Fisher and my own team has been published in peer-reviewed forums or journals.

Also, the POF approach uses excellent and highly accurate matching, as well as bias testing to ensure proper measurement across cultural differences. To my knowledge, no other approach does this. Further, the POF tool is not based on personality. In fact, reviews show that similarity on personality variables is not crucial for relationship success, so measuring more personality variables is not the way forward in my view.

The field is not for a loss of theories on matching, but rather proper measurement and mathematical approaches.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com

[wow gold]

This seems to be an interesting research. I wonder if online gamers like for those who play Warcraft releases such chemicals too?

[Dan Levito]

The question about DNA matching that bothers me most is what happens my genetically identity at the end of the day - especially when we are talking about such a dubious company like Genepartner.

There are a few things fishy about Genepartner:
- The so called “Swiss Institute for Behavioural Genetics” (www.sibeg.org) – where Genepartner’s research studies are supposed to be done – belongs to the former Marketing Manager of Genepartner Michael von Arx (e.g. check www.sibeg.org at http://whois.domaintools.com)? However, if you google the institute it hardly doesn’t exist besides Geneparnter related sites. Moreover, Websheep (www.websheep.com), the company that programmed Genepartner’s website also programmed sibeg.org.

- Another thing that makes me suspicious: Nobody ever saw any data of Genepartner’s amazing research studies (Check TimesOnline article: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article6320458.ece?print=yes&randnum=1243339272285)

So, why should I give my own genetically identity to such a dubious company?!

Best, Dan

[Dan Levito]

The question about DNA matching that bothers me most is what happens my genetically identity at the end of the day - especially when we are talking about such a dubious company like Genepartner.

There are a few things fishy about Genepartner:
- The so called “Swiss Institute for Behavioural Genetics” (sibeg) – where Genepartner’s research studies are supposed to be done – belongs to the former Marketing Manager of Genepartner Michael von Arx (e.g. check sibeg at whois.domaintools)? However, if you google the institute it hardly doesn’t exist besides Geneparnter related sites. Moreover, Websheep, the company that programmed Genepartner’s website also programmed sibeg.

- Another thing that makes me suspicious: Nobody ever saw any data of Genepartner’s so called research studies (Check TimesOnline article from May 24, 2009).

So, why should I give my own genetically identity to such a dubious company?!

Best, Dan

[Jeff W]

James Houran? Is this the same Phd who was formally slumming at True.com? (isn't the PhD in Ghostbusting (really, ghostbusting)

[James Houran, Ph.D.]

Hi Jeff,

I just wanted to clear up some errors you just wrote. First, my Ph.D. is in Psychology with specialities in abnormal psychology, clinical psychology and tests and measurements.

Second, I understand that the elllo.org website has content related to ghosts, but I should point out that there's no such thing as a "Ph.D. in ghostbusting" or the like.

Finally, I've worked for several dating sites, but my work responsibilities never included "slumming." You might also check your understanding of what "slumming" actually means. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slumming.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com

[Helen Fisher]

Fernando Ardenghi doesn¹t work with Chemistry.com; he has no idea of their success rate. Nor does he know any of the other facts he cites. So to clear the air here: Chemistry.com measures its success in two ways.

Foremost, when members leave the site, the company asks them why they left. A significant number reply that they left because they found a partner. However, to examine this myself, I did a different study of their success rate in 2007. Chemistry.com asks members to return to the site after a first date and answer four questions. Among them: ³Would you go out with this person a second time?² In my study of 5,000 respondents to this question, 81% replied that they would go out a second time with someone they just met. Ardenghi also points out that my matching method only measures first attractions. This is true. But he has failed to acknowledge the sound academic data: first impressions regularly set the trajectory of the entire relationship.

The human brain collects a great deal of information about a potential partner in less than three minutes of meeting them, including much about this individual¹s shape, size, age, background, level of education, degree of intelligence, habits, often even some of their values and dominant traits of personality. In short, the first meeting is a crucial point in long term mate choice. Moreover, I recently did a study of 500 couples married an average of 16 years, through Oprah Magazine, and found that the patterns of initial attraction that I found among 28,000 men and women on Chemistry.com do indeed lead to long term happy marriages.

But to address a larger issue. Ardenghi says that no online dating site can match partners with any more success than "chance." He, and many others, suffer, I think, from a misunderstanding what internet dating sites actually do. In my view, they are simply the newest way to do the same old thing: find love.

Online dating sites have emerged in our contemporary world for vital reasons. We no longer marry the man or woman we met in high school or college, even those we met in our early twenties. Many marry later; many remarry in middle age. And as they age, their likelihood of meeting the right person by chance is, I suspect, vastly reduced.

Internet dating services can offer them an avenue to meet people that is cheap, safe, and convenient. Moreover, the more I and others can uncover nature¹s natural patterns of attraction and attachment, the more we can offer members potential partners who fit within their concept of an ideal partner. I believe these sites offer opportunities to find "the one" that are vastly better than chance.