If the computer (or high_speed server arrangement) calculates the value of relationship_satisfaction_between_prospective_mates as fast as 10,000,000 per second.
It will require 12,000,000 of seconds, nearly 139 days!!!

I had read/studied the paper “From the Work One Knows the Worker: A Systematic Review of the Challenges, Solutions, and Steps to Creating Synthetic Validity”

In other words:

1- FOR JOBS
The validity of a job selection procedure may be established with respect to different domains (components) of work, then ‘synthesized’ (combined) for use based on the domains (or components) of work relevant for a given job or job family.

Suppose: There are B available jobs / open positions
There are A applicants / persons applying to those B jobs
Number of Comparisons == A * B

E.G.: 10 available jobs / open positions,
8,000 applicants / persons applying to all those 10 jobs
Number of Comparisons == 8,000 * 10 == 80,000
Each comparison calculated to predict job performance of (applicant k) with (job l), k integer from 1 to A; l integer from 1 to B.

Job Performance of applicant predicted by a combination of ability&aptitudes from a battery of cognitive tests, physical/psychomotor/perceptual_abilities from a collection of attributes relevant to the physical requirements of a job, personality, summarized by the Big Five model and biodata: facts regarding life history in a multiple regression equation.

For personality traits, Big-5/Big-7 can be used.
- With 10 degrees per independent variable at the results of the test (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10):
If only 5 variables are used, like a 5 Traits Inventory, Big-5 dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10 == 1 E5 == 100,000 different personality types.
If only 7 variables are used, Big-7 dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Self-Esteem and Self-Doubt; the Ensemble is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 E7 == 10,000,000 different possibilities.

An example of Job Performance Prediction can be seen at this link (uses only 12 personality items and probably was calculated with a multiple regression equation):
http://www.computerpsychologist.com/tcp2000/careersampr.htm

Also, what is surprising to most people is that psychological testing is a better predictor of job performance than any other single measure.
http://www.computerpsychologist.com/tcp2000/news2.htm
From: Hunter, J.E., and Hunter, R. F. 1984. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98. also cited at your paper.

You had previously said:
“Synthetic Validity, while being touted as the next big thing in Human Resources, may also be a good fit for the online dating industry.
……………………………………………………………………….
By changing the metric from job performance to relationship satisfaction, you can use it to select romantic partners as well”

I do not think so!
2- FOR DATING: The main challenge.

An Online Dating Site’s Database contains B profiles (persons) with M men and W women (suppose all straight men and women)
B == M + W (number of profiles)
Number of Comparisons needed to assign Compatibility between prospective mates == M * W
E.G.: Suppose an Online Dating Site’s Database that contains 10,000,000 men and 12,000,000 women
B == 10,000,000 + 12,000,000 == 22,000,000 (number of profiles)
Number of Comparisons == 10,000,000 * 12,000,000 == (1.0 E7) x (1.2 E7) == (1.2 E14) == 120,000,000,000,000
Each comparison to predict relationship satisfaction of (man k) with (woman l), k integer from 1 to M; l integer from 1 to W.

Suppose relationship satisfaction between prospective mates (dyadic) predicted by a combination of personality traits, physical appearance (race, hair, eyes, BodyMassIndex, etc) and like&dislikes (food, smoking, drinking, etc)

Big-5/Big-7 as a main core of compatibility matching is not enough for online dating, because Dating Sites have very big databases (like 20,000,000 of different profiles!!!) and if Big-5/Big-7 is used, the whole precision is less than you could achieve searching by your own!!!
“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” source IPAT’s 16PF5 Test Results Manual.

Using the complete 16 Personality Factors model, 16PF 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. This is only the whole set of different personality possibilities, the way to compare one to others is a another matter.

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!!!

Although personality traits: NEO, 16FP5 can be measured with high precision (and for mature persons are quite stable), physical appearance and like&dislikes CAN NOT be measured with high precision unless you meet_in_person each person (many persons trend to overestimate/overvalue their physical appearance and unfortunately these values could change along the years. A woman with brown eyes who uses blue_contact_lenses will say: “I’ve got blue eyes”).

As far as I could analyze, the paper “From the Work One Knows the Worker: A Systematic Review of the Challenges, Solutions, and Steps to Creating Synthetic Validity” DOES NOT EXACTLY SPECIFIES THE EQUATIONS NEEDED to calculate/predict relationship satisfaction between prospective mates.

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 achieve searching by your own!!!. This lack_of_precision / lack_of_reliability problem is being suffered by actual “Compatibility Matching” dating sites.

But if only 16PF 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!!!!!

If you conclude that more precise&powerful equations than simple/multiple linear regression analysis will be needed, then it is LPM (LifeprojectMethod), the online dating method I had invented and I am trying to launch!

Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

LifeprojectMethod: More precise&powerful equations than the ones suggested at
– “DIFFERENCE SCORE CORRELATIONS IN RELATIONSHIP RESEARCH: A CONCEPTUAL PRIMER.” Griffin, Murray, and Gonzalez.
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/personalrelationships/contentsofissues/pdf_articles/Volume%206,%20Issue%204/Griffin.pdf

– “THE CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS OF DYAD_LEVEL DATA IN THE DISTINGUISHABLE CASE.” Gonzalez and Griffin.
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/personalrelationships/contentsofissues/pdf_articles/Volume%206,%20Issue%204/Gonzalez.pdf

– “PARTNER EFFECTS IN RELATIONSHIP RESEARCH: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES, ANALYTIC DIFFICULTIES, AND ILLUSTRATIONS.” Kenny and Cook .
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/personalrelationships/contentsofissues/pdf_articles/Volume%206,%20Issue%204/Kenny.pdf

I have been in the selection business, though not on the dating side, for a quite a while now and have seen pretty much every aspect. It is a common problem that the key decision-makers very rarely have the technical knowledge to differentiate between good and bad systems. For some it must be very frustrating, but most don’t admit that they really don’t know.

It is looking like the easiest thing is probably for us to build it for business first, get the capital from that, and then expand into dating. We were hoping to speed things along by licensing it for dating, sign an exclusivity agreement, and then use that money for the start-up, but it looks like it won’t be as expensive to build as we thought. It would be interesting to see if simply first-mover advantage can long withstand competiting with simply a much, much better product.

Very pleased to contact you once again.

Have you got a DEMO about “synthetic validity applied to online dating” as a quantitative method used to evaluate attributes and to compare between persons?

I will respectfully recommend to post how exactly the method you invented works (without divulging proprietary information) in order to analyze if there are advantages over other methods.

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

TERRIBLE WEAK POINT (FOR ON LINE DATING): In other words, they will use weighted least squares (WLS) multiple regression method (meta_analytic).

Also the Meta Analytic Programs (Meta-Analysis Mark X and Meta-Analytic Coding Software in Microsoft Excel files) can be seen at http://www.ucalgary.ca/~steel/procrastinus/meta/meta.html

If you think his opinion should be valued, check out his link. If you still think he should be listened to, well good luck with your life.

Ever since I became active in the space, I must confess, I have been much more interested in developing the *medium*, rather than in making tools. It seems to me that developing the medium for human interaction, and pursuing new forms of gratification for basic human needs, is evolutionary. Whereas tool making, I would say, tends to re-inforce the fear that keeps most of us lonely, by creating new dependencies on new technologies.

I am far more in favor of evolving *us* for online use.

I recently wrote an article very close to these questions: The Power of Virtual Personae

Regards, and thanks for keeping up the vigil!

Jack Mardack

profitlabinc.com

Because I had read the paper: “From the Work One Knows the Worker: A Systematic Review of the Challenges, Solutions, and Steps to Creating Synthetic Validity”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 14 NUMBER 1 MARCH 2006

Abstract:
Synthetic validity has been promised as the future for selection, providing an inexpensive, fast, high_quality, legally defensible, and easily administered process. Despite 50 years of development, this promise has yet to be realized. However, recent advances in areas such as validity generalization indicate that synthetic validity is technically feasible and practically achievable. Consolidating new and previous work carried out on two synthetic validity strategies, the job_requirement matrix and job component validity, we review the methodological steps required to build them and provide working examples. Although the resources required for full realization of synthetic validity are large, similar, although larger, projects have been undertaken in the past and in the present, and there is increasing infrastructure to facilitate them in the future.

At page 17: “Challenges of Building Synthetic Validity
Given the many advantages of synthetic validity, it has been championed consistently and strongly. Dunnette (1976) called for the linking of the two worlds of human behavioral taxonomies (p. 477), namely the domain of job behavior constructs e.g., delegation, attention to detail, oral communication) with the domain of individual differences constructs (e.g., mental capability, personality characteristics). Harvey (1991), in his opening abstract, stated that linking these two domains is one of the great tasks that must be undertaken in job analysis. Schmitt and Robertson (1990) noted that the sentiment of linking these domains has been emphasized in virtually every selection review.”

At page 18 “There are two primary methods for achieving synthetic validity, both of which rely on decomposing jobs into a standard set of job elements or characteristics. The first, the job_requirement matrix (JRM) (Peterson & Bownas, 1982), establishes the relationship between job elements and overall performance as well as selection predictors. If all the relationships are stable and if overall performance can be consistently predicted by the job elements, then we can derive the appropriate validity coefficients. The second, job component validity (JCV), uses these job elements to predict validity coefficient values.”

Perhaps Synthetic validity will perform very well for JOB SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT but not for Online Dating.
TERRIBLE WEAK POINT (FOR ON LINE DATING): In other words, they will use weighted least squares (WLS) multiple regression method (meta_analytic).

Also the Meta Analytic Programs (Meta-Analysis Mark X and Meta-Analytic Coding Software in Microsoft Excel files) can be seen at http://www.ucalgary.ca/~steel/procrastinus/meta/meta.html

The Online Dating Industry urgently needs more power calculation and more precise/reliable matching techniques, like “here you have a list of 48 persons most compatible in a 10 million database’s prospects”.

Here is the link where I post comments about Scientific Papers regarding
THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOPMENT
and
METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS == QUANTITATIVE METHODS USED TO EVALUATE ATTRIBUTES AND HOW TO COMPARE THEM BETWEEN PERSONS.

http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=395

Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com