Slashdot Mirror
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."
From the slashdot article:
I remember, but can't cite, an article or study that pretty much shows the odds of people staying together are pretty much the same in marriages where couples fall in love (e.g., in the United States), or in arranged marriages (many cultures), even in arranged marriages where the betrothed are extremely young (sometimes as young as 12 or 13), and even in arranged marriages with large age disparities.
First, does anyone else remember any similar studies? I've found "staying together" seems to have much to do with chemistry, and little observable similarities and tastes correlate. Just curious. What are others' observations?
did a nerd domain name like "chemistry.com" got registered first by a dating service company?
Programaticaly created/discovered love is meaningless. We need to dispel the mistique of computers and tech, or they become a new religion. People seeking a website where they would have previously seen a sothsayer. I feel it would be dehumanizing for a program to narrow down potential selections, especialy for it to claim to do so based on a programatic psychological analisys. Many of my best friends are people who's "chemistry" I'm sure I would never match to.
Less look fast, more go fast.
I don't know, it sounds more like an advertisement for Chemistry.com and less like anything scientific to me.
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.
"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.
I agree. I've measured a correspondence in my own interests with peaks of C8H10N4O2, but sometimes this chemical is overwhelming and I have to order decaf.
Scrap the whole "article" thing and just make this an ad for the online dating service market called Chemistry.com?
Wah Sig!
Stupid algorithm is full of BS. Says I should be dating men.
I hate you, incompetent Harvard science faculty. M.I.T. is forever!
I suggest you read Slashdot
Who can't smell marketing a mile away? Slashdot is really sinking...! Anyone else feel this way?
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
It's not exactly like I'm going to light a fire between the two of you.
That is, of course, your profiles show that you're both pyromaniacs with uncontrollable lust at the sight of an open flame. In that case, we may be able to arrange something...
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Yeah, yeah... flamebait. You mod me down because you know I speak the hard truth.
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I thought that the odds were much BETTER for staying together in the arranged marriage couples. However, the source of this cohesion is disputed: some say that it is because of societal pressures on couples that would otherwise get divorce, others say that it's because the couple understands that what makes a good marriage is not the initial attraction but the actions and kindness that sustain everyday life.
"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.
blah blah blah
Have we not learned from our ventures in weather forecasting, that complex systems, love and relationships, in this case, cannot be predicted through the force of equations.
I prefer more traditional methods, the tea leaves say that I will have a good day tomorrow!
Dating?!? ...I'm a Slashdot reader, you insensitive clod!
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.
...geeks refuse to sleep with hot girls!
Sorry, it's the only response I could think of for such an idiotic story.
The latest Slashdot meme.
I think it looks something like this:
( o )( o )
*ducks*
bash: rtfm: command not found
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.
--
make install -not war
...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.
She's an anthropologist who implies that she can tell if you have high levels of serotonin just by asking you 100 questions about your past relationships and such.
From TFA:
Now
It also found the reverse: those male academics with longer ring fingers than index fingers - the usual male pattern - tended not to be in science but in social science subjects such as psychology and education.
The study also found that these hormonal levels may make male scientists less likely to have children.
That's some damn good science stuff!
But (that's a joke, son!) there may be more to the reasoning why male scientists don't have children.....
Finger length is linked to sexual orientation! http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/f
Great. This seems to be the more of the crap "science" so popular today. Just because two characteristics appear in one group does NOT mean that there is any correlation between those characteristics.
But all kidding aside, it's really scary to consider that a majority of the population could, statistically, be below average intelligence, with a minority of extremely smart people holding up the line on the opposite side.
I'm just happy I can forlumate words correctly.
Hi,
I like walks in the park, cooking and sitting in front of a roaring fireplace with a nice glass of port.
Oh, and I am also seeking a like minded individual that thought the article was stupid - I mean, come on, BusinessWeek talking about the science of Love. Sheesh.
W9x:Thanks for the make-work project Bill.
You should take a look at OKCupid.com if the idea intrigues you. They've got a set of eerily accurate personality tests, and some interesting math behind them. It's all free, run for fun by the same people who brought us TheSpark and SparkMatch, if you remember those.
This isn't really new. Internet dating sites have had personality tests backed by actual psychological research for a long time. Instead of referring to the results in terms of personality traits like extroversion and conscientiousness, though, chemistry.com uses serotonin level, testosterone, etc. It's more gimmick than anything. For example, high levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin are theorized to be inversely associated with neuroticism (the personality trait of being prone to anxiety, fearful reactions, and emotional instability). Dominance/aggressiveness/competitiveness is as easily answered with a personality survey as with a measurement of a person's fingers. Actually, aggressive tendencies can be sublimated in a positively: working hard to support a cause one believes in, playing sports, etc. If a physical trait is used, it may offer an inaccurate picture of how that trait is expressed.
I really don't see what sets chemistry.com apart besides the angle they're taking. Personality is personality no matter what words you use to describe (serotonin and testosterone or contentment and social dominance).
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
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.
I recall seeing an interesting BBC documentary called Human Instinct by Professor Robert Winston that explored the science behind attraction. There were heaps of interesting things they uncovered in the research studies he reported on.
They used morphing to create faces and had people rate the attractiveness of these faces. One experiment used faces that were morphed from female faces to male faces. They found that women tended to be more attracted to male faces that exhibited less masculine features generally. But ovulating women found male faces with more masculine features attractive. They also found that people tended to be more attracted to faces that have some similarities to their own. They did this by morphing a little bit of a test subject's face into some of the samples.
Another interesting test had to do with immune systems and scents. In their studies, they found that people with more different immune systems were more attracted to each other. In the example for the documentary, they tested five (or six- I forget) female subjects for certain immune system markers. They rated them from those that had markers more closely resembling Prof. Winston's own immune system to those that were more different. They then had these women sleep in shirts (over a span of nights, I think) so the shirts would smell. These shirts were placed in sealed jars. In the demonstration, Prof. Winston had to smell each jar and rate them from best to worst. Sure enough, the pattern in which he arranged them exactly matched the pattern of how his immune system compared to that of the shirt's owner.
Waiter!? There's an advertisement in my slashdot!
Being in a relationship is like a hobby. Some people enjoy doing it, others not so much. What we call love for another person is really just love for the activities involved in maintaining a relationship with that person.
If you don't enjoy all that stuff, then by all means find something else to do with your spare time. Each to his own.