Fact 1: According to Dr. David Olson who has gathered empirical data on millions of couples (statistically, a fairly solid sample size), only 9% of married couples are “energized” which translated means “happy” in their relationships. What this means is that 91% are either “not energized” or get divorced.

Fact 2: Over the last 25 years, Analytical Psychologists have finally caught up with Darwin and by working with anthropologists and neuro-geneticists have determined that personalities are very much hard wired. And although studies show that environment still has a 30% contribution to personality (see identical twins separated at birth studies), the latest research in neurogenetics indicate that even there, there are genetic triggers that are not activated unless certain favorable environmental conditions are met. Hence, even that 30% environmental contribution has genetic underpinnings.

Fact 3: We have been using scientific matching for probably as long as Homo sapiens have had well developed frontal lobes. Anthropologists have well documented evidence that proves that mate selection is much different if you are a male or female. For tens of thousands of years, females have been using the scientific method to select mates by asking questions like: 1) Will he take good care of me and 2) Will he take care of my children 3) Is he big enough and smart enough to defend me and provide for me economically. Since this decision making was based on gathering evidence from family members who told their daughters what happened to single mothers without male providers, we can conclude that women have been using the scientific method to select mates for quite some time whereas men, who in these commentaries seem to disfavor the scientific method, believe that a pretty smile and a twinkle in the eye is all you need to create a good match.

Fact 4: Over the last 25 years, psychological studies using empirical science have concluded that there is a relationship between the way we think and the way we act. They have also developed some constructs such as the Big Five (thank you drs. Goldberg, De Raad, Costa, Hofstee, Widiger and many others) that are able to connect the way we think (the way our brain is hard wired) and the way we are likely to react to environmental stimuli such as OTHER PEOPLE.

These studies have shown for example that people whose result on the Big Five are E+A- are domineering and forceful whereas if they score E-A+ they are timid and submissive. Or, if they score N+A- they tend to be demanding, selfish, and ill tempered. Need I go on? Here’s my favorite score: E+A-C-N+O- translated in our scientific matching algorithm: domineering, selfish, ill-tempered, ruthless, coarse, reckless, devil-may-care, unreliable, undependable, unstable, forgetful, illogical, immature, temperamental, defensive, and did I say “jealous and possessive?� Ladies, is there anyone out there who wants to be matched with this personality? Well, on sites that believe scientific matching is useless, you might meet him. Or, you might meet this guy: N2+N3-N4+N6-+E3+E6-+ O1+ A3-A5-A6- C1+C3+ That was probably Ted Bundy who definitely had a narcissistic personality disorder. But he was a smart, good looking guy who knew how to pick up women so I’m sure that he would have preferred a site where a pretty picture and a few lies are all you need to meet someone. On Mary.com, approximately 3% of the people who sign up have a personality disorder and you’ll be happy to know that we don’t match them! And for you who do not believe in scientific matching, watch out! If they can’t hook up here, where are they going?

In conclusion, the goal of scientific matching is not founded on stepping up to the plate and hitting a home run every time. We would be very happy to have a .400 batting average. If you go back to Dr. Olson’s study, society’s batting average using the scientific method developed by women over the last 50,000 years is .09. We believe that we can beat that easily. But, in a country where 76% of the people still believe in some sort of creationism, we expect to encounter a few critics.

While I think personality testing is an important component of online dating, the problem is that we’re in the ice-age of scientific matching and using it as a primary marketing vehicle is troublesome when the science ain’t all its cracked up to be.

I wold like to hear what Dr. Houran has to say about scientific matching. Going on tv and ranting is one thing, evaluation of scientific evidence is another. So, let’s see the evidence.

“Hundreds of questions, $10 enhanced personality test and what felt like a dozen emails and I’m finally in the system. Problem is, the system thinks I want to meet 43 year-old women under 5′3″. Maybe they could spend some of that revenue on better matching. ”

I respectfully disagree with the following comment that you made in your post:

“Going on ABC and doing Time magazine interviews is more self-serving than coming up with a real solution to help singles focus on realistic expectations.”

The reason Dr. Jim gets these interviews is because of his work in helping singles focus on realistic expectations. If you regularly read “Office Hours with Dr. Jim” or his other articles, you’ll see that helping singles focus on realistic expectations is the central focus of many of his writings.

Keep up the great work with your blog and thank you for this opportunity to respond. Cheers, Dave!

Joe Tracy, Publisher
Online Dating Magazine
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com

I would be careful not to confuse matching with personality profiling. Not exactly an ironic situation.

You “think” he is right? What do you base that on? I’m getting at the fact that until there is a side-by-side comparison of personality tests, nobody really knows which one is the most effective.

Would you choose a dating site based on the personality test or the people on the site?

Dave Evans seems to miss the point completely. Doing interviews and presenting candid information is part of the solution to the problem. Realistic expectations start with consumer education. Plus, it sounds like Jim conducts compatibility research and publishes the results, so he also has a hand in the academic community.

The really ironic thing is that Dave Evans implicitly agrees with Jim’s basic position in his newest post about his experience signing up with eHarmony over the weekend:

“Hundreds of questions, $10 enhanced personality test and what felt like a dozen emails and I’m finally in the system. Problem is, the system thinks I want to meet 43 year-old women under 5′3″. MAYBE THEY COULD SPEND SOME OF THAT REVENUE ON BETTER MATCHING…” (emphasis added).

Spanish version
http://www.ulteem.es/
I took the Ulteem 98 questions Spanish version compatibility test.
Quite long and very complete written report: values, vision and personality!!! but the compatibility/affinity between prospective mates is only a 2 integer figure like 75%.
(My matchlist: 56 women with affinity the highest=77% the lowest=65%, no one seemed to be really as compatible as a paying member will require, what I mean: I could easily reach that list of “prospective compatible women” searching by my own, using Match.com free!!!)
WEAK POINT: Ulteem uses the Big Five!!!

99,00 Euros per 3 months
149,00 Euros per 6 months

From http://www.ulteem.fr/misc/interview_g.php could be read (in French, I translated the most interesting parts, the better I could)

“….The test combines the elements of basic values that constitute our internal compass: there always is a strong coherence between these values and the important decisions that one takes in life. The method is the one proposed by Schwartz: on thousands of persons studied in different countries there always is ten basic values that constitute the individual, ten universal elements. Thus, one knows today that the individuals, whatever their country, have a system of organized values around these 10 basic pillars.
……..
Concerning the personality, we adopted the method Big Five, the most often employed by the psychologists to summarize a personality.
……….
After defining the 71 adjustment criteria in love, we elaborated the test, then we put it to the test reality. The test has in fact to be stable in the time and substantiate a durable portrait of the person. To avoid all later adjustment, it has us therefore been necessary to test in big number with living couples together since at least a year.
………
We tried to reflect the person in all his complexity and to avoid the trap reducer of that resembles itself assembles itself. Our method takes therefore some counts the similarities and the possible complementarities between two individuals. …… We also were careful not to emit judgements.”

They claim the tests meet the standards of analysis defined by the American Psychological Association and the Educational Testing Service.

papers??? evidence???

The complete Personality Report cost 59 Euros (nearly 80 pages!!!)

The compatibility/affinity between prospective mates is only a 2 integer figure like: 65PC(Compatibility Points).
(My matchlist: 8 women with affinity the highest=65PC the lowest=41PC, no one seemed to be really as compatible as a paying member will require, what I mean: I could easily reach that list of “prospective compatible women” searching by my own using Match.com free!!!)

What most caught my attention:
You can tune/synthesize/improve your compatibility/affinity with other members changing your search criteria, so the matching algorithm is not fully independent from searching!!!
E.G. Suppose you set “I am searching non-smoker only Spanish women from 30 to 40″ and then you decide to change to “I am searching women from 25 to 60″ your compatibility/affinity with other members changes!!!!

Membership costs (Spain)
120,00 Euros per 3 months
200,00 Euros per 6 months
228,00 Euros per year

- Parship
- Ulteem
- YahooPersonals (WeAttract)
- Chemistry
- PerfectMatch
- eHarmony
- Mary
- True
- MatchWise
- PlentyOfFish (compatibility predictor)
- other online dating sites
SHOULD publish serious scientific evidence (papers) proving that their matching methods work.

Thomas Enraght-Moony had said “There are over 92 million single people in the US and about 3 million or fewer are paying for some kind of online dating service.”

That is: “The Online Dating Industry needs to break its own sound_barrier”

Regards,

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