Chemistry
Great
Atlantic Monthly article about the science of attraction, at least as applied by custom-matching online dating sites (
eHarmony,
Chemistry.com, and
PerfectMatch). The sites all employ research scientists seeking to empirically test models of long- and short-term attraction.
Instead of finding soul mates by "checking off boxes in columns of desired traits, like an a la carte Chinese take-out menu," these sites employ surveys that map to Myers-Briggs-esque personality types, or even hormone levels. (For example, people with greater relative seratonin levels tend to be calm and popular, and are good matches for people with greater dopamine levels, who tend to be optimistic and motivated.) The chemical correlations are particularly interesting, in that they reveal ways in which complementariness is more important than similarity. Plus, Chemistry.com's using post-date surveys to improve their algorithms and structure interventions (e.g. telling Jack, who describes himself as "well dressed" but whose dates complain of his cut-offs, to wear trousers next time).
The article concludes with a comparison to traditional matchmaking services, which apparently cost $8-10,000. Somehow, I think such a self-selecting group (those that can afford and think it's worth it) is bound to have highly similar people already. Best of luck to them.
Gottlieb, Lori. "
How do I love thee? A growing number of Internet dating sites are relying on academic researchers to develop a new science of attraction." The Atlantic Monthly 297.2 (March 2006): 58(10). (Non-CMUers, let me know if you can't find it.)
Comments
On the upside, my organic chem prof would be proud that I was able to draw 1-MCP correctly on the first try.
the part of the article I like most was the chemist dismissing any health effects entirely. this when cyclic hydrocarbons often have unforseen biological reactions.
but my whole question is why? it's not like apple longevity is a current problem -- they're already capable of making it six months in the right conditions. And the other ethylene ripening fruits don't respond favorably.
It seems like another attempt by chemical manufactures to get into agbusiness by introducing an implied "must have" chemical for nominal per unit cost that just coincidentally degrades the food supplies. not bitter, nor angry.
Safe? Hmmmmm.
So was Thalidimide!
Long term effects of chemically altering food will only be known after a long term.
Dad