Several times I had written about words
Compatibility
Personality
Similarity
See how eHarmony, a 13 years old site, explains compatibility for its prospective customers
Up to 4 SEP 2013
Australian version:
------------------------------------
Please read also
An exercise of similarity.
How LIFEPROJECT METHOD calculates similarity.
STRICT PERSONALITY SIMILARITY by LIFEPROJECT METHOD.
Personality Distribution Curves using the NORMATIVE 16PF5.
ALGORITHMS & POWER CALCULATION.
Innovations: to take the 16PF5 test 3 times.
Why your brain distorts!
* 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.
To solve that problem I propose:
1) 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 or similar test.
2) a new quantitative method to calculate compatibility between prospective mates, based on quantized pattern comparison (part of pattern recognition by correlation)
The value of my algorithm is to achieve far more precision than searching on one's own [in the range of 3 persons compatible per 100,000 persons screened, 100 times better than actual competitors]
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites
but no one is using the 16PF5 (or similar) 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment