Thursday, March 25, 2010

Obsolescence of Dating Sites offering Compatibility Matching Methods

eHarmony founded: year 2000
The brains behind Eharmony are Dr. Neil Clark Warren, Dr. Galen Buckwalter and Dr. Steven Carter (Psychologists)

Cybersuitors / Matchology founded:2000
The brains behind Cybersuitors / Matchology are Dr. Glenn D. Wilson and Dr. Jon Cousins (Psychologists)

Parship founded:2001
The brain behind Parship is Dr. Hugo Schmale (Psychologist)

MatchWise founded:2003
The brain behind MatchWise is Dr. Kevin Leman (Psychologist)

True founded: 2003
The brains behind True were Dr. James Houran and Dr. Ilona Jerabek (Psychologists).

PerfectMatch founded: 2003
The brain behind Perfectmatch is Dr. Pepper Schwartz (Sociologist)

Be2 founded: 2004
The brain behind Be2 is Dr. Robert Wuttke (Sociologist)

Chemistry founded: 2005
The brain behind Chemistry is Dr. Helen Fisher (Anthropologist)

Meetic Affinity founded: 2005
The brain behind Ulteem (Meetic Affinity) is Dr. David Bernard (Psychologist)

PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor live since May 15 2007
The brains behind PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor are Dr. James Houran (Psychologist) and his team.

MyType founded: 2009
The brain behind MyType is Dr. Monica Whitty (Psychologist)

No one of them 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.

All of them have a low effectiveness/efficiency level of their matching algorithms (less than 10%). The majority, over 90% of its members are not going to achieve a long term relationship with commitment (or marriage)

All of them are like placebo, because
* Actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods, when calculating compatibility between prospective mates, have less or at least the same precision as searching on one's own. [in the range of 3 or 4 persons compatible per 1,000 persons screened]
* That is because they use:
a) simplified versions of personality traits, instead of the 16PF5 or similar with the complete inventory (16 variables)
b) inadequate quantitative methods to calculate compatibility between prospective mates

No comments:

Post a Comment