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."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='ent,science';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; Deciphering the Brain's Love Map Log in/Create an Account | Top | 102 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 102 comments 0: 102 comments 1: 84 comments 2: 58 comments 3: 17 comments 4: 6 comments 5: 3 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. not sure one CAN predict by formula (Score:3, Interesting) by yagu (721525) * <yayagu@gmail.com> on Thursday October 13, @10:45PM (#13787648) (Last Journal: Sunday October 09, @10:33PM) From the slashdot article: Most people fall in lovebecause they have shared values, but they stay in love because theirpersonalities meshI remember, but can't cite, an article or study that pretty much shows the oddsof people staying together are pretty much the same in marriages where couplesfall 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 asyoung as 12 or 13), and even in arranged marriages with large age disparities.First, does anyone else remember any similar studies? I've found "stayingtogether" seems to have much to do with chemistry, and little observablesimilarities and tastes correlate. Just curious. What are others' observations? [ Reply to ThisRe: not sure one CAN predict by formula by Kohath (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @10:52PMRe: not sure one CAN predict by formula by TykeClone (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @10:56PMI'll do you one better by James_Aguilar (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @11:01PMRespect. by SuperBanana (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:13PM yes but (Score:4, Insightful) by 3l1za (770108) on Thursday October 13, @11:15PM (#13787805) I remember, but can't cite, an article or study that pretty much shows the odds of people staying togetherYou'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. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:not sure one CAN predict by formula by billcopc (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:55PM How the hell (Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13, @10:48PM (#13787664) did a nerd domain name like "chemistry.com" got registered first by a dating service company? [ Reply to ThisRe:How the hell by AngstAndGuitar (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:01PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. programatic (Score:5, Interesting) by AngstAndGuitar (732149) on Thursday October 13, @10:48PM (#13787666) (Last Journal: Friday December 12, @01:21PM) 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 claimto 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. [ Reply to ThisRe:programatic by xenocide2 (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @10:51PMRe:programatic by the morgawr (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:54PMRe:programatic by dorkygeek (Score:1) Friday October 14, @12:20AMAnti-Technology? Poppycock! by AngstAndGuitar (Score:1) Friday October 14, @12:31AMRe:programatic by rolfwind (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:34AMscience by gfody (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:43AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Advertisement? (Score:3, Insightful) by imunfair (877689) on Thursday October 13, @10:50PM (#13787672) (http://www.tsourceweb.com/) I don't know, it sounds more like an advertisement for Chemistry.com and less like anything scientific to me. [ Reply to ThisRe:Advertisement? by 6ame633k (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:23PMHow about this? by khasim (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:01AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Dumb. (Score:2, Insightful) by Seumas (6865) on Thursday October 13, @10:51PM (#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. [ Reply to ThisRe:Dumb. by AutopsyReport (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:19PMRe:Dumb. by AutopsyReport (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:08AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Dumb. by Phil Urich (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:54PMRe:Dumb. by Asphixiat (Score:1) Friday October 14, @12:42AMRe:Dumb. by Hannah E. Davis (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:16AM Hollywood (Score:2, Insightful) by CorporalKlinger (871715) on Thursday October 13, @10:52PM (#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. [ Reply to ThisRe:Hollywood by AutopsyReport (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:11PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Trimethylxanthine (Score:4, Funny) by buckhead_buddy (186384) on Thursday October 13, @10:53PM (#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. [ Reply to This Shouldn't we just (Score:2, Informative) by rock217 (802738) <(slashdot) (at) (rockshouse.com)> on Thursday October 13, @10:53PM (#13787689) (http://www.rockshouse.com/) Scrap the whole "article" thing and just make this an ad for the online dating service market called Chemistry.com? [ Reply to ThisRe:Shouldn't we just by Rob the Bold (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:37PMRe:Shouldn't we just by WhiplashII (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:14AM Computer called me gay (Score:5, Funny) by Hao Wu (652581) on Thursday October 13, @10:53PM (#13787692) (http://www.slashdot.org/) 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! [ Reply to This stinks (Score:2, Insightful) by caffeinemessiah (918089) on Thursday October 13, @10:54PM (#13787693) Who can't smell marketing a mile away?Slashdot is really sinking...!Anyone else feel this way? [ Reply to This Hunka hunka burnin' love (Score:2) by StringBlade (557322) on Thursday October 13, @10:54PM (#13787694) (Last Journal: Thursday July 17, @04:19PM) 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... [ Reply to This "trying to increase the changes of finding that" (Score:1) by AngelofDeath-02 (550129) on Thursday October 13, @10:56PM (#13787703) This is the first time I've ever posted for an editorial related reason, but when I read this, it just stood out ... [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Love is bullshit (Score:2, Interesting) by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday October 13, @10:57PM (#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. [ Reply to ThisRe:Love is bullshit by HermanAB (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:03PMBuy a dog . . . by Rob the Bold (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:10PMRe:Buy a dog . . . by Quiet_Desperation (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:32PMRe:Buy a dog . . . by brian0918 (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:44PMFeeling bitter, are we? by achurch (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:32PMRe:Love is bullshit by Hillman (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:42PMRe:Love is bullshit by GrungyLotG (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:45PMRe:Love is bullshit by FLEB (Score:1) Friday October 14, @12:27AMRe:Love is bullshit by sunwolf (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:53PMRe:Love is bullshit by DigitalHammer (Score:1) Friday October 14, @12:34AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Mutual Respect (Score:3, Interesting) by G4from128k (686170) on Thursday October 13, @10:58PM (#13787714) I would argue that mutual respect one key to a long-term relationship and that tests like this could help determinewhat qualities a person has that are respectablewhat 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. [ Reply to This Coming up... (Score:3, Funny) by StringBlade (557322) on Thursday October 13, @10:59PM (#13787716) (Last Journal: Thursday July 17, @04:19PM) 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. [ Reply to ThisRe:Coming up... by crimson30 (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:41AM My thoughts on internet dating (Score:1) by ScottSCY (798415) on Thursday October 13, @11:00PM (#13787727) My thoughts can be summed up here: http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1396 [somethingawful.com]. Seriously, I've never heard of anyone who dated someone they met online and had it end up well. [ Reply to ThisI'm happy. by ancientt (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:26PM chemistry? (Score:4, Insightful) by hobo sapiens (893427) on Thursday October 13, @11:05PM (#13787749) "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. [ Reply to ThisRe:chemistry? by Your Pal Dave (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:15PM programmatically love me (Score:1) by bigmauler (905356) on Thursday October 13, @11:06PM (#13787756) Why oh why does this not surprise me. That " programmatically decipher the subscriber's brain's 'love map'" is on slashdot. I think the reason nerds sometimes find love hard to get is because we are going about it wrong. "Hey baby, your love map is compatible with mine, lets compile." Maybe I just think its a tad strange..but we can hope right? :)(insert comment about modding my post down in hopes it will simply be modded up) [ Reply to This Leaps of Faith (Score:2, Funny) by lookn4Change (818760) on Thursday October 13, @11:10PM (#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! [ Reply to ThisRe:Leaps of Faith by FLEB (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:30AM But... (Score:2, Funny) by psychgeek (838231) on Thursday October 13, @11:10PM (#13787773) Dating?!? ...I'm a Slashdot reader, you insensitive clod! [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Chemistry is a physical thing. (Score:2) by 3l1za (770108) on Thursday October 13, @11:11PM (#13787781) 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 questionnaire can capture all of what goes on in that nanosecond when we see a member of hte opposite sex and go, hmmm. Especially given what she cites re: internet dating and which probably more of us than would like can substantiate from personal experience: you can be very familiar with a person's personality via the written word (e.g. hours kept, sense of humor, energy level, aggressiveness, character even ...) and then meet them in person and be revolted or at least unmitigatedly disappointed. A strict questionnaire is a bullshit game; they should have at least had folks choose musical snippets they preferred, pictures they preferred -- make it somewhat not all 2-dimensional ASCII text. [ Reply to This You are getting sleepy.... (Score:2) by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Thursday October 13, @11:14PM (#13787799) 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... [ Reply to This They don't measure any brain chemistry (Score:2) by venicebeach (702856) on Thursday October 13, @11:14PM (#13787800) (http://www.jonaskaplan.com/ | Last Journal: Friday April 09, @04:10AM) 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? [ Reply to ThisRe:They don't measure any brain chemistry by Harmonious Botch (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:33PMRe:They don't measure any brain chemistry by venicebeach (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:38PM This is way too simplistic (Score:1) by calvin1981 (922478) on Thursday October 13, @11:15PM (#13787809) Ultimately, we are a bunch of interconnected neurons, which implies that there should be some algorithm that predicts how we will react to, say, a member of the opposite sex with certain well-defined characteristics - smell, color, size of boobs, social status, whatever else you can think of. But, I doubt if something as simplistic as this could even be a close approximation. Also, this article looks like cheap propaganda - stinks ! [ Reply to This sigh (Score:1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13, @11:16PM (#13787812) I was bored, so I took the "test". It is rubbish, similar to anything you might find anywhere else. It is mostly long strings of inane questions like "I am spontaneous" (A) a little (B) somewhat (C) quite a bit (D) very much, or "I enjoy attending musical or sports events." I guess they couldn't get the rights to use the Meyers-Briggs. Yes, there are one or two (actually three) weird flash games that use optical illusions ("line up these two sticks so they have the same length!") and they really do ask you to look at your fingers. No idea if any of that actually gets fed into the algorithm -- I imagine it's most likely just tossed in the rubbish and used to get stories posted on slashdot and BusinessWeek. Anyway, I filled out the survey as honestly as possible (given the circumstances); I had to lie and say I live in Denver. The first "match" that came up was a rather unattractive 30 year old who described herself in her profile "headline" as a "Strong Christian" and was generally someone this 20 something grad student would not even class as datable.So: mostly rubbish, IMO. [ Reply to This In Soviet Russia... (Score:2) by Bob Cat - NYMPHS (313647) on Thursday October 13, @11:17PM (#13787816) (http://nymphs.org/) ...geeks refuse to sleep with hot girls!Sorry, it's the only response I could think of for such an idiotic story. [ Reply to This love formula (Score:3, Funny) by ErichTheWebGuy (745925) on Thursday October 13, @11:18PM (#13787823) (http://www.erichv.com/) I think it looks something like this:( o )( o )*ducks* [ Reply to ThisOfftopic, but... by Straker Skunk (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:48PMRe:love formula by Shoggoth of Maul (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:51PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Find me some supermodels ! (Score:2) by zymano (581466) on Thursday October 13, @11:23PM (#13787837) (Last Journal: Saturday June 18, @01:27PM) I don't need a lovemap. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Brain Chemistry (Score:3, Insightful) by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday October 13, @11:34PM (#13787897) (http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @02:48PM) 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. [ Reply to This myers-briggs is nothing new (Score:1)