Dr. James Houran has accepted Dr. Joel Block’s challenge. With several caveats.
Update: Dr. Block responds to Dr. Houran in the comments for Personality Testing Smackdown. Wow, just go read it and come back.
Dr. Houran says:
…my team is confident we can build an original customized application that’s shorter and more entertaining test than your questionnaire.
However, we don’t work for free. The estimated cost to combine all of the features described above in a new application, to meet APA testing standards, and being ready within approximately six months will cost approximately USD $350,000.00…. We will require full payment before the project will begin. We can also accept a wire transfer.
I’m sorry, did I miss something? Dr. Houran is taking the shootout and trying to turn a profit. He’s completely ignoring the original shootout idea- put your best test up against each other and see which one is more effective (among other factors.)
Nobody said anything about the length and amusement factor of tests. We’re talking about finding out which matching system is most effective.
It gets better. Dr. Houran is on a role here:
Your dismissive, cavalier attitude about science is neither consistent with the messaging you have on your site nor with your clinical education and credentials. As an academic, I find it appalling and bordering on unethical. I’m even tempted to contact all professional organization to which you belong and notify them of the situation.
So Dr. Houran wants to charge a competitor $350,000 for a personality test and also report him to the authorities? Now I’m really lost. Someone wrote me
Dr. Houran says that his team has developed several proprietary matching systems on some of the biggest dating sites. I wish he would talk about this more. What sites? Why not share the results from these sites? Why not use an existing site for the shootout?
There really is no need for things to get this complicated. That’s what happens when ego’s and professional reputations are at stake. All the academic-speak, personal attacks and self-important banter is tiring. Dr. Houran has effectively ended the conversation on his own terms.
That’s too bad, because Lynne Sandler has a fantastic idea:
Here is my off-the-cuff idea for a “real-life†challenge: Get a sample size of singles. Each single takes all of our personality tests and receives lists of ranked matches from each of us. Put them in a room for a huge speed-dating-like event. Have them meet and rank their dates on score cards. Let them tell us which system introduced them to people they liked and want to see again. We can have periodic follow-up interviews to measure success.
Brilliant. This is much more doable. Easy to set up, inexpensive and will provide some real-world results. I met Lynn over the summer and we had a great talk. I really like her and her perspective on matching people. I like her even more after hearing her idea for a challenge.
As a last resort, I can always get some volunteers to sign up for dating sites and follow a protocol and report results.
It’s too bad consumers don’t care about matching systems, if they did they would vote with their mouse and their wallet and this conversation would be completely different. Dating sites would be touting their efficiency levels in their marketing campaigns, just like drug companies, and constantly evolving their algorithms to adapt to what they learn along the way. AFAIK eHarmony is the only company that actively tweaks their system.
Turns out the dating industry is just as messy and organic and chaotic as dating itself.
