Set theory as summed up by the typical eHarmony user experience.
Got it? Class dismissed…
-
(Photo credit) -
« Home
-
Categories
eHarmony Blog.com
Unofficial, comprehensive and commercial-free guide to eHarmony with news, opinion, discussions and advice
Basic Mathematics of eHarmony
More on eHarmony Blog
- The “Basic” tab of the Total Connect screen is broken
- View our latest entries
What others are reading right now
Answering “What are you most passionate about?”, by Kate 8 seconds ago
About eHarmony Blog 25 seconds ago
EHB, on your side — October 2010 issue 36 seconds ago
Q&A: Where can I find a good father for my baby? 38 seconds ago
Singlehood sucks, but sure ain’t half as depressing as this pic: 56 seconds ago
Comments 14
-
Hmmm… I guess all those happy couples just right of your post are fakes.
So, it is funny, but your hypothesis fails to reach the level of a theory. And, that is a gratuitous promotion from really being a conjecture.
It lacks a body of knowledge supported by confirming experimentation and observation.
-
Those happy couples are such a small percentage of the total number of users/subscribers of the service, though. Are they really a statistically significant number such that eHarmony can be considered a “success”? I wonder how their stats would stack up against those of a drug or medical procedure trials to be approved for use?
I think that there have been several posts on here showing calculations and my recollection is that the numbers are rather poor, yet us poor schmucks (myself included) continue to subscribe when the odds are against us…
Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting reflection and way to describe/illustrate my experience for the past 3.5 years. I think it is a reasonable description of the average user’s experience from what we’ve seen posted on this blog. How many posts are there on here of folks saying that they have found a partner/spouse versus those complaining about the service in one form or another?
So, contribute to the “experiment”. Has your experience been different and how long have you been a user/subscriber?
-
Your “experience for the past 3.5 years” as an eHarmony’s client is nothing new.
eHarmony is a 10 years old obsolete site.
Its matching algorithm is partially described in 2 invention patents:
Patent No. US 6,735,568 B1 and Patent No. US 7,454,357 B2: Method and System for Identifying People Who are Likely to Have a Successful Relationship.In compatibility matching methods there are 2 steps:
1) to objectively measure personality traits or other human variables.
2) to calculate compatibility between prospective mates.eHarmony has been always the same:
1) Big5 to assess personality (The Big 5 is good for orientative purposes but not good enough for predictive purposes)
2) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (invented in 1976) to calculate compatibility (similarity) between prospective mates.
3) Guided Communication Process as an appendix of its main matching algorithm. The Guided Communication Process is a mutual filtering step.eHarmony is only supported by a big marketing budget and not by serious scientific evidence.
Moreover all major paid Online Dating sites like eHarmony, PerfectMatch, True, Be2, Parship, Meetic, Chemistry are old, obsolete and in decadence losing traffic since January 2009.
The entire Online Dating Industry for serious daters in 1st World Countries is a HOAX, performing as a Big Online Casino, with a low effectiveness/efficiency level of their matching algorithms (less than 10%),There is a range convergence phenomenon between the 3 mains tools online dating sites offer now: Searching by your own, Recommendation Engines and Compatibility Matching Methods based on proprietary models or the Big5. Any member receives on average 3 to 4 prospective mates as selected / recommended / compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 members screened in the database.
They all 3 are performing the same for serious daters, with a high percentage of false positives, like gun machines firing flowers.The Online Dating Industry does not need improvement.
That is adding more bells and whistles to a Piper Seminole flying at 350km/hour.The Online Dating Industry needs innovations, but
the innovations the Online Dating Industry needs will come from only one source: the latest discoveries in theories of romantic relationships development with commitment.Innovation is a Spaceship flying at 35.000 km/hour, 100 times faster.
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 online dating sites
but no one is using the 16PF5 (or similar test) to assess personality of its members.
Without offering the 16PF5 (or similar test measuring exactly the 16 personality factors) for serious dating, it will be impossible to innovate and revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com -
@SingleGuyInNC,
My X married off of eH under 1 year.@Fernando your point is made. Now what can users do to better the Big5 results? (most of us do not have the $ to finance your business plans
)By the way, I think besides the Big5, they also use neural networks – take a look at the staff and some of their research direction.
-
” what can users do to better the Big5 results? ”
Nothing.“By the way, I think besides the Big5, they also use neural networks – take a look at the staff and some of their research direction.”
research direction ?
They had only made one improvement, to show % of compatibility with other persons in eDarling.
eDarling (eHarmony owns 30%) is eHarmony rebranded and improved for some European countries like Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland.Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com -
research direction – as in review the staffs background, specifically their PhD research, publications etc. Many of them specialize(d) in neural networks prior to working at eH.
-
I wonder if, perhaps, this venn diagram describes the author’s dating life in general. And not just on eHarmony.
Just a thought. Interpret as you like.
-
“Set theory as summed up by the typical eHarmony user experience.”
I agree Scott, but the author extrapolates his/her findings to “typical eHarmony user experience”.
I also grasp, that it is exaggerated, self mocking humor.
-
In a previous post, this blog had featured the problem described in this post
“Zack Hill’s mom joins eHarmony (comic)”
http://eharmony-blog.com/1810“Lois: Are you telling me that out of all these guys, you didn’t like one?
Jan: I did not.
Lois: This is like the phone directory for a small town!
Jan: The town of LoserVille.”But that lack of precision, low effectiveness/efficiency level of matching algorithms based on the Big5 or propietary models is common to actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods, like eHarmony/eDarling, True, PerfectMatch, Chemistry, Be2, Parship, MeeticAffinity, 12like, LittleHint, MyType, and others.
-
But @Fernando, isn’t your solution also a proprietary algorithm?
I would also venture to say that I prefer this mediocre algorithm to no algorithm.
‘Self directed matching’ sites, like match.com et al, are almost entirely based on physical aspects.
At least on eH, the non-physical aspects are taken into consideration, however mediocre it is.
eH primary selling point is the ‘forced introduction’. I believe it removes a large amount of fear and trepidation for both genders.
This is not so, for the ‘self directed matching’ sites.
-
“But @Fernando, isn’t your solution also a proprietary algorithm?”
Yes, my solution is also a proprietary algorithm BUT using the 16PF5 test, not an oversimplification as the Big5 (eHarmony/eDarling, True, Parship, Be2, MeeticAffinity) or other proprietary personality models as PerfectMatch or Chemistry.
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 – five thousand – online dating sites
but no one
is using the 16PF5 to assess personality of its members!
but no one
calculates similarity with a quantized pattern comparison method!
but no one
can show Compatibility Distribution Curves to each and every of its members!
but no one
is scientifically proven!—————————
* 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, like eHarmony which uses Dyadic Adjustment Scale or other sites which use multivariate linear / logistic regression equations o other equations.To solve that problem I propose:
*) the 16PF5 or similar normative personality test to measure personality of normal persons over 26 years old interested in serious dating.
No actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods uses the 16PF5 normative test available in different languages.
*) a new quantitative method to calculate compatibility between prospective mates, based on quantized pattern comparison (part of pattern recognition by correlation) named LIFEPROJECT method. -
actually you propose to test them 3 times – and get the final result that way, right? Yes, I do my research, despite being annoying. . . . If eH is as good as the average(or slightly less) results for an average search, then it is better to use eH for at least 49.9% of the people!
You just endorsed eH Fernando! . . . All that said, I would love to see a longitudinal study both of eH ‘happy couples’. They should, as it would allow them to fine tune their techomagic. -
“If eH is as good as the average(or slightly less) results for an average search, then it is better to use eH for at least 49.9% of the people”
???
I had NEVER said/written that.
I had said/written that actual compatibility matching methods (mainly using the Big5) are delivering ON AVERAGE 3 to 4 prospective mates as highly compatible persons per 1,000 persons screened, in exactly the same range as searching on one’s own.Please read “Introduction” in my blog:
“There is a range convergence phenomenon between the 3 mains tools online dating sites can offer: searching by your own, Bidirectional Recommendation Engines and Compatibility Matching Methods. Any member receives on average 3 to 4 prospective mates as selected / recommended / compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 (one thousand) members screened in the database.They all 3 are performing the same for serious daters, with a high percentage of false positives, like gun machines shooting flowers.
That range convergence phenomenon is what I had called “the online dating sound barrier”, in 2003, when I had discovered than problem, 7 long years ago. ”
——————
“actually you propose to test them 3 times – and get the final result that way, right? ”
Please read this post:“I think women will love a rational explanation of why they need to take the test 3 times, with these 2 fresh papers
1) “Human oestrus” Gangestad & Thornhill (2008)
explains that “Only short-term but not long-term partner preferences tend to vary with the menstrual cycle”2) “Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans?” Alvergne & Lummaa (2009)
If you carefully read that milestone paper you will discover that although men do not take contraceptive pills, they detect women who do not take and women who take those pills or other hormonal contraceptive methods.A Marketing campaign should be incisive in this new discovery:
contraceptive hormonal methods alter mate choice in humans (they are beneficial) because only short-term but not long-term partner preferences tend to vary with the menstrual cycle.” -
Your Venn diagram strokes the ego, doesn’t it? Your potential dates are exactly those who like you more than you like them. Does this mean they’ll pay for the dinners?
Do you like this article? Post a comment on Facebook