Deciphering the Brain's Love Map

victor7 writes "Business Week Online is running a story about a new entrant into the online dating service market called Chemistry.com which has a unique approach to trying to match up subscribers. The goal is to try to programmatically decipher the subscriber's brain's 'love map' which they believe represents that chemistry that people have with each other." From the article: "There are other personality types as well that are based on chemistry. There are questions that tell us if you are good at abstract thinking, or quick to make decisions and act on them. It's not exactly like I'm going to light a fire between the two of you. It just raises the chances. Most people fall in love because they have shared values, but they stay in love because their personalities mesh. We're trying to increase the changes of finding that spark and joy and excitement you feel when personalities mesh."

Comments

How the hell

[Anonymous Coward]

did a nerd domain name like "chemistry.com" got registered first by a dating service company?

Advertisement?

[imunfair]

I don't know, it sounds more like an advertisement for Chemistry.com and less like anything scientific to me.

Dumb.

[Seumas]

So, this advertisement in Business Week gets mentioned on Slashdot for more advertsing, huh? Business Week - the heralded scientific publication that it is. *yawn*

The concept of "love mapping" is just dumb. I'll tell you what is required - a good looking chick and a good looking guy - preferably with money, power or fame - all three in best of circumstances.

All the other bullshit is just that - bullshit. People can justify their attractions or what they desire in someone all they want, but guys deep down don't want the smart witty girl - unless she also happens to be totally hot. The girl doesn't want the sensitive feminine guy - she wants the hot guy with money or power and charisma.

It's really not that hard to figure out. I guess if you're ugly and have no money, power or charisma, then you try to hope there is some other random element involved, but you know deep down that you're kidding yourselves.

Re:Dumb.

[Asphixiat]

two words: lowered expectations

Re:Dumb.

[modecx]

I definitely DO like (and have dated) guys whose femininity and masculinity are relatively balanced.

And that's the thing, after all. So many people had it together so many thousands of years ago... Socrates, the Buddhists, and others. Moderation, balance, Yin/Yang, and all of that. Just like in other matters, this philosophy applies equally well to love and relationships, though it seems so few people see it today. As for attraction, without the primal, genetic chemistry stuff going on, can it last? Probably not.

This is just my observation of my own sex, extremely 'macho' guys, and deep down inside, are the most insecure of our species. Seriously. I think their egos to be so incredibly fragile, they have to dominate, possess and exude hostility through their personalities to make up for it. Everything is a fight. Women, deep down, want a real man, I think, and strength (of spirit) is part of that, and that's what some women come to falsely see in Mr. Macho. The women who don't fall for it realize what a chump such a guy is, right from the start. Mr. Macho may have muscles, and play the part sometimes, but I don't think he's a man--he's a child. Temperance and self-respect are more to being a man than how many muscles one has, how many road rage incidents in the last week he's been part of, or how he dominates his woman (though muscles aren't at all necessary for one to be macho)
The trouble with rich men, powerful men is, yeah, they're mostly egocentric stuck-up pricks, and the gold diggers are the only women that will have 'em. Look at Donald Trump! In other words, they're macho; they just have metric assloads of money to back it up. It's the same personality deficit, I think. Real down to earth, wealthy Men still have personalities, charisma, charm and all that other good stuff... But they won't make it clear just how vast their fortune is until the time is right. That's called class, nothing wrong with that, and it's a social filter for them, too. I know how it goes. A humble guy with it goin' on can't afford to let a gold digger through.

You're not looking for a shopping partner-with benefits, are you? No, you've got friends for that. I have a very hard time believing that someone would honestly want to be in a long term relationship with someone who was so utterly whipped and predictable that you know by the 4th date he exfoliates every night at 10, loves Breakfast at Tiffany's, shaves his legs for reasons not related to a sport, and has made it clear that he takes longer to get prepped to go out than you do... Ick. But that's what many women let on that they want from men today. Being in touch with one's feminine side is a healthy thing for a man, and so is exfoliating, but darnit, one step at a time, please. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but is it wrong to expect a man to still have a backbone, be at least a bit chivalrous, and to not be beaten into a blithering, politically correct submissive by day time television, at least between facials?

The unique thing about geeks, I think, is that they are genuinely interested in all sorts of stuff, and want to learn how it all works, love being no different, should they be awakened to it. For that reason, I think geeks have the potential to become the best of mates, maybe you know this by intuition, besides being a geek yourself. Given enough time and motivation, even the densest nerd should be able to figure out what the female wants, and maybe with the right training... Well, who knows!

Hollywood

[CorporalKlinger]

"Most people fall in love because they have shared values, but they stay in love because their personalities mesh"

That's strange... Hollywood actors / actresses seem to have both shared values (a love of money / entertainment) and shared personalities (general arrogance and a belief of personal entitlement). It makes me wonder why it seems like none of their relationships last longer than the milk in my refrigerator.

stinks

[caffeinemessiah]

Who can't smell marketing a mile away? Slashdot is really sinking...! Anyone else feel this way?

Re: not sure one CAN predict by formula

[TykeClone]

I'm not speaking from experience, but it seems to me that 2 people will stay together if they want to stay together more than they want anything else.

Or they each feel that it's too much work to go out and start over in a relationship.

Love is bullshit

[Quiet_Desperation]

It's something we make up to excuse our lust, or as a reason to hang around with someone rather than be lonely. It's infatuation masquerading as something greater. It's obsession pretending to be something beautiful. It's so companies can peddle cards and flowers and diamonds and whatnot. It's so people can sit around and feel better than others. It's a weapon of mass destruction, and used every day to try and make those immune to it's fetid embrace feel like shit. It's a thin layer of brittle spackle of the gaping voids in all your lives.

Yeah, yeah... flamebait. You mod me down because you know I speak the hard truth.

Re:Love is bullshit

[trurl7]

I am not sure I completely agree with your conclusions. Is it that you genuinely *don't* want anyone else in your life, or is it that you do, but can't make that step? If it's the latter case (as I suspect, based on "...otherwise the perfect person for me..."), then you will either die very disappointed, or (as seems a bit more likely), some assertive girl who likes you will squint at you mischievously, waggle her finger, and that'll be the end of your single days. (Besides, I can't really believe you've never been in a situation where a girl has given you a 'Come hither' look. If you're shy, you'd run away from that. Short answer: don't run away.)

The first time is a total rush. Enjoy it when it happens. Just don't let it FUBAR your life. That can happen the first time you realize another person wants you close.

(Disclaimer: I am 25, had a girlfriend about 3 years ago, single since. I understand the AC's attitude, but only after you've experienced the whole SO thing at least once.)

Re:Love is bullshit

[hobbit]

Flamebait? No, just overrated. But "misguided" doesn't deserve a -1; it deserves a reply.

Think of what you might describe as "noble" love -- trying to do the right thing by your fellow man because the world would be a better place if you did.

Now approach all of your interactions women the same way. Don't worry about losing the ones who would rather have you "treat them mean", those relationships fail sooner or later anyway.

You don't sound like the sort of person who will be confused by lust, or Hallmark emotions, so you have an advantage when it comes to keeping on the straight and narrow. Just remember not to play the game, and sooner or later you'll find someone who isn't a player.

Good luck.

Mutual Respect

[G4from128k]

I would argue that mutual respect one key to a long-term relationship and that tests like this could help determine

1. what qualities a person has that are respectable

2. what qualities a person considers in bestowing respect.

It could be intelligence, knowledge on any of a number of dimensions, social grace, physical strength, affection, aggressiveness, niceness, humor, ambition, earning-power, etc.

Disclaimer: I've been married nearly 22 years so that means I either know what I'm talking about or have an insufficient sample size to comment on this.

chemistry?

[hobo sapiens]

"Most people fall in love because they have shared values, but they stay in love because their personalities mesh"

Hmm. Sounds like a weenie in marketing came up with that. Wonder how long it is until he gets his own daytime TV show, or a website like that wiener with his Men are from Mercury and Women are from Uranus or whatever...

Someone once wisely said that compatibility is really about adaptability. People go into relationships expecting "compatibility". What people really need to do is learn how to adapt to other's personalities. Even if you have met someone with whom you are compatible you will have to constantly adjust your personality so that you can stay in tune with this person. People do change after all.

Also, if people do not have a sense of commitment things will fall apart once times get tough. Our society in general looks down on commitment as being old fashioned. Maybe that's why our divorce rate is 50%. Chemistry.com won't change that and I have to suspect will go the way of webvan.com.

yes but

[3l1za]

I remember, but can't cite, an article or study that pretty much shows the odds of people staying together

You're disregarding obvious cultural differences between residents of the US and residents of a small town in India.

As I understand in India there is or at least has historically been a very strong taboo on divorce. This might account for why as many of these folks stay together as those conjoined by "love marriages." But anyway I think the numbers for arranged marriages staying together are much, much higher due to the near impossibility of obtaining a divorce.

A 13-year old betrothed to a 60-year old cannot actually be thought to have the same opportunity for divorce as a rich Manhattan female attorney.

Brain Chemistry

[Doc Ruby]

Falling in love is often a result of C2H5OOH overdose or starvation. Staying in love is often a result of getting just the right amount of C2H5OOH.

The REAL problem with all of these approaches...

[3l1za]

...besides the fact that they are woefully 2-dimensional despite what is--by all accounts--a very multi-dimensional experience, falling in love, IS that they ask individuals to evaluate themselves: a losing proposition from the get-go.

Haven't we already established that people are terrible judges of themselves? Don't something like 80% of people think they are of above average intelligence? looks? etc?

I tire quickly of these questionnaires for another reason too: they are, to my mind, somewhat mood- or life-stage-dependent. I often have a hard time answering the questions because BOTH answers could be true (or all, for the range queries) at any given time. I suspect I'm not alone in this.

Re:science

[Dwonis]

I've actually taken the *same* Myers-Briggs test probably about a dozen times over the last couple of years. The funny thing is that it's actually given me several vastly *different* results (I'm both strongly introverted and strongly extraverted, apparently).

I think it's mainly due to vague or loaded questions like, "do you feel involved when watching TV soaps?". A person could answer "no", because they don't watch TV soaps but that might falsely suggest a lack of empathy.

Another example is, "do you feel more comfortable sticking to conventional ways?". If I'm deciding what cryptographic algorithms to use, my answer is "hell yes!" However, for other things, it really depends on how much time I have, how interested I am in whatever is being done, what the risks of failure are, etc. In fast, I find that my answer to most of the questions is "it depends on the circumstances", but since that's not an option, my answers vary depending on what happens to come to mind at the time.

So anyway, I don't think it's really wise to put too much faith in online personality tests. YMMV.