Many of us who enjoy eHarmonyBlog are familiar with the great work of E. Foley, who has written articles about eHarmony in the past. I enjoy her writing style very much, because she sticks to the facts. So, when I saw her recent article about a matchmaking site I had never heard of before, it really caught my attention. The site is called RewardingLove.com and I was very impressed with what I learned about it in the article. So, naturally, I wanted to check it out to see how it might compare to our favorite site, eHarmony. Since we’re all rather familiar with the eHarmony process, here is some of what I’ve learned about RewardingLove.
The Science
It seems the science behind the site’s matching system is based on the work of psychologist/psychoanalyst/author Dr. Robert M. Gordon. I did a little investigating of Dr. Robert M. Gordon’s credentials, and found that he has over 35 years of expertise and is clearly a leading authority on the science of love relationships. You can read about his credentials on the site. The site states that he and his wife, Dr. Alla Gordon, interact with members beyond the matching phase by answering member-submitted questions each month.
Continue Reading »
Have an opinion? Post a comment
The class action lawsuit initiated last April by Californians Lynda Kelly and Miranda Soegi alleging eHarmony’s lack of a “scientifically proven system” for matching its members could ironically be spun in a positive light of goodwill if eHarmony’s management takes this opportunity to legitimize its system once and for all. Technically speaking, a process being “scientifically proven” merely requires a consistent percentage of accuracy and validity throughout a significant amount of relevant data. This data is obviously available to eHarmony in abundance, and has been for many years. A qualified, reputable and objective third party should be retained for the purpose of verifying sufficient data in order to establish the actual scientific validity of eHarmony’s matching system in the light of day. Whether eHarmony’s matching system results in a consistent percentage of validity which is very low or very high is irrelevant to it being scientifically proven. The results should be published in a reputable journal of psychology, thus being confidently opened to withstanding the scrutiny of critics, skeptics, and the public at large with what will be much appreciated transparency.
Further procrastination on eHarmony’s part to do so may well make things far worse than they need to be. It is important to note a subtle clue regarding eHarmony’s view of its own process, specifically regarding its information-gathering questionnaire. It is in the simple nomenclature which speaks volumes regarding eHarmony’s process not yet being scientifically proven. The clue is that eHarmony continues to refer to its online questioning process as a ‘questionnaire’ and not as a ‘test’ or an ‘assessment.’ Only after a percentage of scientific validity is established can a ‘questionnaire’ be called a ‘test’ or an ‘assessment.’ This nomenclature may be the strongest self-admitted evidence against the scientific legitimacy of eHarmony’s system. If the plaintiffs or Lange & Koncius LLP, their counsel, are aware of this, it can certainly strengthen the bite of the lawsuit.
So what does the final verdict regarding the scientific validity or non-validity of eHarmony’s matching system really mean to its members? Does it matter? Should it matter? Aren’t we all denied information of all sorts in our daily lives, whether it’s regarding a dating site, a food product, an insurance policy or anything else? Don’t we all fall for cleverly created marketing campaigns of all sorts on a daily basis? Obviously, we all do. Ultimately, it’s up to the individual to decide if eHarmony’s system being scientifically valid or not is important to their decision to utilize the service. Consider the following fact: Algorithms such as those which power eHarmony’s matching system merely offer statistical guesses which tend to have some validity in large groups, but lack the precision required for successful matching of individuals in small numbers. Mutual filtering has proven to be superior to algorithms when used to assess a complex set of feelings and reactions we call romantic love. In this individual’s humble opinion, the scientific validity or non validity of eHarmony’s matching system means nothing because there’s no proof that the assumptions utilized will or will not benefit me as an individual looking for love. Furthermore, one of eHarmony’s questionable business practices makes all of this a moot point. More on this in a bit.
Continue Reading »
Have an opinion? Post a comment
Wow. Interesting reading. It just seemed like it had such great potential. If they could get some venture capital and place some ads, they could easily topple eHarmony and Match, if for no other reason than for the fact that they go by the match and not by the month. …
Respond to SingleGuyInNC »