Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Entertainment Science

Deciphering the Brain's Love Map 255

Posted by Zonk
from the x-marks-the-hookup dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Deciphering the Brain's Love Map

Comments Filter:
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu@@@gmail...com> on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:45PM (#13787648) Journal

    From the slashdot article:

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

    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?

    • by Kohath (38547) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:52PM (#13787684)
      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.

      If they want something else more, then they may eventually choose that thing over staying together. And they'll split up.

      I think I cracked the code on relationship longevity. Anyone want to buy my book? It'll say basically the same thing, but it'll be 200 pages and it'll cost you $15.
    • by James_Aguilar (890772) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .semaj.raliuga.> on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:01PM (#13787729) Journal
      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.
    • 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.

      I'd suspect that it has to do with people recognizing the inherent good and worth (no, not financially) in

    • yes but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 3l1za (770108) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:15PM (#13787805)
      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.
      • Yeah, and then there's this other issue of a marriage in India being not just between two people, but also two families; the success of your marriage is as dependent on how the two respective families mesh together, as it is on love between the two conjugal partners.

        That said, I'll reserve judgement eitherways until I read the actual article the GP was talking about.

      • Re:yes but (Score:2, Interesting)

        As I understand in India there is or at least has historically been a very strong taboo on divorce.

        No offence meant, but divorce has been taboo in most other civilisations too (including western ones). The difference is, in western civ, until a couple of hundred years back, the groom could divorce the bride and not feel any consequences. The bride's life was pretty much ruined.

        At least the taboos in India weren't gender biased.

        A 13-year old betrothed to a 60-year old cannot actually be thought to hav
  • How the hell (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:48PM (#13787664)
    did a nerd domain name like "chemistry.com" got registered first by a dating service company?
  • programatic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AngstAndGuitar (732149) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:48PM (#13787666)
    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.
    • by xenocide2 (231786) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:51PM (#13787679) Homepage
      "Many of my best friends are people who's "chemistry" I'm sure I would never match to."

      Which is precicely why you're just friends. =)
    • In olden times, professional matchmaking was a skilled trade. The matchmaker was supposed to find your someone compatable who you could build a family with. I've seen some studies that showed that people matched by matchmakers tended to have happier marriages.

      It seems that there is SOMETHING there. I think if a person can learn to "match" people with greater then average success, we ought to be able to program a computer to do the same. The real trick is explicitly figuring out what the matchmaker doesn't

    • I agree. Answering questions only provides so much information and also assumes the answers are honest and not limiting (like multiple choice).

      I have to wonder, barring major secret advances in psychology, what chemistry.com knows that others in psychology don't know about love. Eharmony (sp?) also purports to test "31 dimensions of love for greater compatibility" or some such. I mean, really, "dimensions?" Talk about a buzzword, why not just say criteria?

      I think the most significant application pyschol
    • by gfody (514448)
      Have you ever taken an MBTI test?

      I think chemistry.com could be wildly successful just by matching people with their MBTI supplimentals.
      • Re:science (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dwonis (52652) *
        I've actually taken the *same* Myers-Briggs test [humanmetrics.com] 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

    • I was hired by someone once to try and develop, train, and release a neural network based upon input from the dating service they ran. He had no luck finding patterns in the information, and so he tried offloading that onto an artificial brain. Unfortunately he also wanted to feed it astrological information, horoscopes, etc. Any information he could find.

      He also didn't really want to pay me, and kept being creepy about it.

      Point is, people have been doing this for years, in various forms. With little su

    • Programaticaly created/discovered love is meaningless.

      Spoken like a true romantic. I do have to wonder though why is "programatically created/discovered" love is any less meaningfull than say finding someone at a bar? You sound like you've bought into the whole hollywood garbage, and I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with the idea of finding out why people are attracted to one another and exploiting that. If you could really take some kind of test measuring brain chemicals, etc and increase your cha
    • Then again, success or failure of a marriage is more or less a science [washingtonpost.com] now. :-)
    • Re:programatic (Score:3, Interesting)

      by UserGoogol (623581)
      Not really. Human relationships react in such-and-such a way. This can be analyzed by the scientific method and we can then use this information to see how we should date. Of course, it might possible that the answer is "No, it's totally random, it's a crapshoot," but even in that situation, statistics has something to teach us. Break relationships into different catagories and see which relationships are more successful. But yes, there's always going to be some element of randomness in the system, because
    • Re:programatic (Score:3, Informative)

      by utexaspunk (527541)
      Check out OKCupid.com [okcupid.com]. They have a phenomenal statistical matching algorithm. It's not going to tell you if there's physical attraction, or if there's romantic chemistry, but the people I've met on there that it said would be good matches for me really WERE my type, and not just on the basic stuff most dating websites consider (i.e., body type, religious preferences, etc). Their system collects so MUCH information -questions submitted by users that go far beyond the basics- and it weighs all of it properly-
  • Advertisement? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by imunfair (877689) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:50PM (#13787672) Homepage
    I don't know, it sounds more like an advertisement for Chemistry.com and less like anything scientific to me.
  • Dumb. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Seumas (6865) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:51PM (#13787677)
    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.
    • 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.

      Why didn't you include yourself in that statement? Seriously, judging by the content of your post you have absolutely no idea of what men and women want. I've been with the same woman for six years now and I'll be damned if good-looks kept us alive. And neither of us have money -- we work together for that.

      When you have forg

    • guys deep down don't want the smart witty girl - unless she also happens to be totally hot.


      Well, maybe that's true. But that doesn't make everything else bullshit; there are a lot of girls that could be considered "hot"; the subset that is equally outstandingly smart and witty is much smaller. Actually, I've personally found that the two categories do seem to often coincide (as in, the smartest and wittiest ones are also the most attractive), and I think it's the non-physical factors casting an extra f
    • Some of us find sensitive feminine guys hot.

      Guys who are "hot" in the generic mainstream way that you are probably referring to are pretty boring as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm a closeted bisexual or something, but I definitely DO like (and have dated) guys whose femininity and masculinity are relatively balanced.

      Then again, this may just be because I'm a geek. I like to stick to my own kind -- ie. nonthreatening intelligent tall skinny geek guys. Dating a "hot guy with money or power and chari
      • Maybe I'm a closeted bisexual or something... Then again, this may just be because I'm a geek.
        Surely, you make your choices because of your unique self, and not because you belong to a certain sub-culture?

        While I appreciate what you're saying, I nevertheless think you'd have made a much better point had you not chosen to explain yourself through labels. :-)

        • *shrug* I know I'm not unique. Well, I don't consciously try to be like other people, but I know that I -am- like people in certain subcultures (eg. /. geeks), so I see no reason why I shouldn't label myself as that kind of person. Labels just make it easier for me to find other people who share my interests and, to some extent, personality... and, by extension, said labels also help me find suitable boyfriends.

          Besides, nobody would ever read my postings if I repeatedly described myself as "A somewhat
      • On a purely visual level symetry seems to have a high corelation, there are others as well, such as larger (but not grotesqe!) eyes.
            There was a book a while back (I think /. had a mention of it) called (IIRC) "The Mathematics of Sex" that delved into this a bit. The lady who wrote the book happens to be rather atractive herself and has a 4yr degree in mathematics.
            I've found body language to be fairly significant in my experience.

        Mycroft
      • Re:Dumb. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by modecx (130548)
        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? Pr
    • Beauty, charisma, money and power might help create an initial attraction or interest (I say might - and there are other things that do as well) but they sure as hell don't keep people together.

      People grow old, get wrinkly, saggy and less attractive. However, it seems old couples don't divorce each other as soon as they start spotting grey hair in their spouse. There are couples (and families) who have persevered through poverty, and most people don't have any real personal power to speak of.

      Whatever fi
  • Hollywood (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CorporalKlinger (871715) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:52PM (#13787686)
    "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.
    • They said "personalities mesh" not "personalities are the same". You'd expect meshing personalities to complement each other, not be identical. A "meshing" personality for a person with "general arrogance and a belief of personal entitlement" is probably going to be a humble person who gives freely.
    • Hollywood actors/actresses do not have shared values, but shared anti-values: a love of money and fame is not a value, but an anti-value. Relationships break because they are not based on values; they are rather 'commercial' deals that have short-term benefits.

      I wonder how much of corruption and dehumanization the constant bombardement of our youth with the Hollywood lifestyle brings onto the table of everyday relationships.
  • by buckhead_buddy (186384) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:53PM (#13787688)
    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.
  • Shouldn't we just (Score:2, Informative)

    by rock217 (802738)
    Scrap the whole "article" thing and just make this an ad for the online dating service market called Chemistry.com?
    • It's not a very successful advertisement -- you usually target your ads towards your potential customers. Now Slashdot readership is overwhelmingly (but not totally) male, right? I have never heard a guy use the term "chemistry" to describe whatever it is a girl means when she says "chemistry". Actually, the only time I have ever heard a girl use the term "chemistry" is when she says something to the effect of "The chemistry just isn't there". So, as a guy, I don't really have a positive association wit
      • Right, because whe a guy says something to the effect of "The chemistry just isn't there", it means that he had an accident with a pair of scissors and cutting pants while wearing them...
  • by Hao Wu (652581) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:53PM (#13787692) Homepage
    I signed up for a similar study at Harvard.

    Stupid algorithm is full of BS. Says I should be dating men.

    I hate you, incompetent Harvard science faculty. M.I.T. is forever!

  • stinks (Score:2, Insightful)

    Who can't smell marketing a mile away? Slashdot is really sinking...! Anyone else feel this way?
  • by StringBlade (557322) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:54PM (#13787694) Journal
    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...
  • Love is bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:57PM (#13787710)
    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.

    • Feeling better now?
    • . . . and that might help

    • Give it a few years, you'll get over it.
    • by GrungyLotG (890944) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:45PM (#13787953)

      Am I the only person that sees the irony of this based upon his username?

    • It's ok, there's a whole ocean full of fish out there ;)
    • I have to agree to an extent. I don't believe "Love," as it's peddled to us by the mass media companies, actually exists. Neither does "Happily ever after," and quite frankly they've unfairly set the expectations of generations. I suspect this is why so many people are in crappy relationships or in no relationships at all -- if you would believe hollywood you can just bump into someone and instantly be "in love." You're encouraged to rush thoughtlessly into it or to sit around waiting to bump into that spec
    • by hobbit (5915)
      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 emo
    • Agreed, but 99% of people are too much of a hypocrite to actually admit that. In fact, humanity works by way of deception: 99% of people proceed in their daily lifes by deception, i.e. by masquerading their needs as something greater.

      I was watching a Star Trek episode yesterday where Wesley Crusher said to people of another planet: "Starfleet people do not lie". The whole Star Trek franchise is based on humans having evolved passed the point of basing their everyday life on deception, something that other r
    • Love as a Hobby (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Nurgled (63197) on Friday October 14, 2005 @06:22AM (#13789286)

      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.

    • by TheSpoom (715771) *
      OK.

      Sure, if you want to view it that way. My relationship with my girlfriend keeps me from being lonely, and sure, I might be a bit obsessed with her.

      But I do know that we can go ages without getting things like cards and flowers and diamonds for each other and still be fine. We aren't staying together just so that we can "feel better than others" either, it's so we feel better about ourselves and our own lives because we make each other's life better just by being there.

      About a year ago, I was a very dar
  • Mutual Respect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k (686170) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:58PM (#13787714)
    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.

  • by StringBlade (557322) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:59PM (#13787716) Journal
    Next week we have an article on a phrenological study of love and the shape of your head...

    ..er, the size of your lumps

    ...hmmm maybe not.

  • chemistry? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hobo sapiens (893427) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:05PM (#13787749) Journal
    "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 [marsvenus.com] 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.
    • 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...


      No, no, no!

      Women are from Venus.

      Farts are from Uranus.

      Jeez...
    • People do change after all.

      BE QUIet for Pete's sake!

      There are people here with girlfriends and/or wives, including me. It took me ten years of my life to get my girlfriend to the point thinking it's hopeless to change me. Now you come pounding in and ruin it for everyone.

  • Leaps of Faith (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lookn4Change (818760) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:10PM (#13787770)

    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!

  • But... (Score:2, Funny)

    by psychgeek (838231)
    Dating?!? ...I'm a Slashdot reader, you insensitive clod!
  • Isn't it the case that most people you've had physical chemistry with: it was an instantaneous, physical thing? Or at least started with some initial attraction? That's certainly been the case for me.

    But don't confuse: it's not purely looks-based. I've been attracted to ("had chemistry with") plenty of not-Brad-Pitt-looking (who I think is very pre-packaged looking anyway) guys. I personally can't explain what its source is. Instinct? Intuition? Pheromones? But I likewise have difficulty believing that a
  • As you read my post,... haven't you begun to notice that with every word, ... every character you read... that you begin to really begin to breathe heavy, and as your heart beats faster, and you feel yourself falling a little sleepy... and as you find yourself doing these things, you remember a time, ... a time long ago when you met a special person you remember fondly...and fell in love.... NOW, with me... in my experience... you want to give me positive mod points. Your karma will thank you, oh yes...
  • What seems silly about this to me is that if you want to get into the actual science of attraction, and use physiological measures to find suitable partners, that might be interesting. However, despite the name "chemistry.com" it seems according to TFA that they do not actually measure any chemistry in their clients. They ask you a series of questions, each one supposedly telling about your "brain chemistry". Why not just take a blood sample and measure a few things?

  • by Bob Cat - NYMPHS (313647) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:17PM (#13787816) Homepage
    ...geeks refuse to sleep with hot girls!

    Sorry, it's the only response I could think of for such an idiotic story.
  • by ErichTheWebGuy (745925) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:18PM (#13787823) Homepage
    I think it looks something like this:

    ( o )( o )

    *ducks*
  • I don't need a lovemap.
  • Brain Chemistry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:34PM (#13787897) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Living in a metropolitan core pays dividends. Not far from my place there's a few square blocks lined with many beautiful women who can tell how much they will love you just by the amount of money you have in your pocket. It's just a matter of adding up the numbers and denominations and figuring how long and how badly you want to be loved. Weird science but guys drive by in droves wanting that loving.
  • by 3l1za (770108) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:37PM (#13787916)
    ...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.
    • Don't something like 80% of people think they are of above average intelligence?
      Did you know that 50% of the population is below average?

      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.
  • Please enter your hobbies: [ blahblahblah, slashdot, blahblah ]

    Finding your appropriate girlfriend - *BEEP* Error... error... processor overload... *BOOM*
  • by ferreth (182847) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @11:12PM (#13788071) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Haven't scientists done this study like 18 times already? I think its becoming painfully obvious that scientists are just looking for more excuses to watch porn inside the MRI machine.
  • by Myself (57572) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @11:51PM (#13788223) Journal
    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.
  • How love works to men is how cars work to women.
    Most women don't worry about how a car turns gas into a trip to the mall.
    It's been my experience that men shouldn't concern themselves with rules or observed phenomena when it comes to love.
    Every time I've tried to pick it apart, I can't seem to get the pieces back together to make it work again.
    I'm taking my own advice and not addressing the issue.
  • Not Really New (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Cruxus (657818)

    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 rea

  • by Anonymous Writer (746272) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:36AM (#13788983)

    I recall seeing an interesting BBC documentary called Human Instinct [bbc.co.uk] by Professor Robert Winston [amazon.co.uk] 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.

  • by KeiKusanagi (921511) on Friday October 14, 2005 @06:17AM (#13789266)
    Waiter!? There's an advertisement in my slashdot!

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...