LIFEPROJECT METHOD

THE PROBLEM Since the beginning of 2003, I had been testing online dating sites who offer a compatibility matching method to their daters by creating dummy Male/Female profiles and using them as test points for reverse engineering purposes. All the algorithms used by eHarmony/eDarling, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, MeeticAffinity, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, Parship, MyType, etc. are like placebo, because they will show, to any member, 3 or 4 persons as highly compatible per 1,000 persons screened, so in a 10,000,000 persons database, any member will see 30,000 to 40,000 members as highly compatible; 30,000 persons is the population of an average small city. Any person can achieve 3 or 4 persons as highly compatible per 1,000 persons screened, searching by his/her own or by mutual filtering methods. Success Rates of those sites are less than 10%. The majority of their members are not going to achieve a long term relationship with commitment (or marriage). The entire Online Dating Industry for serious daters in 1st World Countries, is a big hoax. I had discovered "the online dating sound barrier". Breaking "the online dating sound barrier" is to achieve far better precision than searching on one's own or mutual filtering. Matching based on Self-Reported Data / Bidirectional Recommendation Engines (Collaborative Filtering) will always be in the range of 3 or 4 persons "recommended" per 1,000 persons screened, in exactly the same range of searching on one's own. and Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites (with Big-5 Model or a proprietary model like the ones used by Perfectmatch or Chemistry), are in the range of 3 or 4 persons "highly compatible" per 1,000 persons screened, in exactly the same range of searching on one's own. They are using simplified versions of personality traits, instead of the 16PF5 or similar with the complete inventory (16 variables) and inadequate quantitative methods to calculate compatibility between prospective mates, like eHarmony which uses Dyadic Adjustment Scale or other sites which use multivariate linear / logistic regression equations o other powerless equations. Breaking "the online dating sound barrier" is to achieve at least: 3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database. 12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database. 48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database. 100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites! ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com THE SOLUTION LIFEPROJECT method innovative on line dating / social networking method. Personality matching method with personality tests like 16PF5 and high precision advanced math equations. This 16PF5 test is not in use by any competitor. International proposal, could be launched in 5 or more countries at the same time. More at http://vator.tv/c/13a5 - Ensemble (whole set of different valid possibilities): 1 * E16 with 16PF5 - Precision: better than 0.00000001% with Self-Adjustment 3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database, 12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database, 48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database, - Results are displayed with 2 integers + 8 decimals, like 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% Also social networking by STRICT personality similarity! ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com I am trying to launch an innovative and high precision quantitative method to assess similarity between personality quantized patterns and apply it to revolutionize the Online Dating and social Nerworking Industry. Failed to launch several times since 2001 1

No actual site is using the normative (available in different languages) 16PF5 test as main personality test : licensing fee is USD100K - USD150K per year with unlimited use. I think lot of persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons sharing nearly the same personality because they will be predictable for them. The word "compatibility" has many meanings for online dating sites, academics, researchers, and psychologists. Since 2003, I've been testing online dating sites who claim scientific matching by creating dummy M/F profiles and using them as test points for reverse engineering purposes. I discovered that proprietary tests or models used by those sites could have great precision in measuring different psychological variables, but the matching algorithm (they apply) has low precision when comparing one profile to others. The whole precision (measurement_of_variables + pattern_calculation) is less than anyone could achieve by searching on one’s own! I solved that problem and contacted many researchers/academics and online dating sites, with no success until now. LIFEPROJECT method: compatibility between prospective mates is a high percentage of "similarity*" between personality* patterns. *personality: measured with the 16PF5 normative test in different languages (no other actual online dating site is using it!). *similarity: calculated using quantum math equations with the quantitative method I had invented, named LIFEPROJECT METHOD, a method for quantized pattern comparison (part of pattern recognition by correlation) LIFEPROJECT method algorithm calculates "similarity" between personality patterns using the following adapted quantum mechanics math equation. BRA <#X| means person #X's 16PF5 Report KET |#Y> means person #Y's 16PF5 Report |CQ| means Comparison Operator ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com <#X|CQ|#Y> means the Comparison between client #X and client #Y <#X|CQ|#Y> == K01<AX|CQ|AY> + K02<BX|CQ|BY> + K03<CX|CQ|CY> + K04<EX|CQ|EY> + K05<FX|CQ|FY> + K06<GX|CQ|GY> + K07<HX|CQ|HY> + K08<IX|CQ|IY> + K09<LX|CQ|LY> + K10<MX|CQ|MY> + K11<NX|CQ|NY> + K12<OX|CQ|OY> + K13<Q1X|CQ|Q1Y> + K14<Q2X| CQ|Q2Y> + K15<Q3X|CQ|Q3Y> + K16<Q4X|CQ|Q4Y> A: Warmth; B: Reasoning; C: Emotional_Stability; E: Dominance; F: Liveliness; G: Rule_Consciousness; H: Social_Boldness; I: Sensitivity; L: Vigilance; M: Abstractedness; N: Privateness; O: Apprehension; Q1: Openness_to_Change; Q2: Self_Reliance; Q3: Perfectionism; Q4: Tension. 16 variables taking integer values from 1 to 10 PERSONALITY PATTERN Client #01 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:6.B:7.C:6.E:8.F:9.G:6.H:7.I:7.L:8.M:7.N:2.O:5.Q1:8.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4 Client #02 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:5.B:7.C:4.E:8.F:7.G:4.H:5.I:6.L:4.M:6.N:8.O:9.Q1:6.Q2:8.Q3:4.Q4:4 Client #03 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:2.B:5.C:4.E:6.F:3.G:8.H:7.I:6.L:3.M:9.N:9.O:8.Q1:2.Q2:5.Q3:5.Q4:6 Client #04 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:7.B:7.C:6.E:8.F:8.G:7.H:6.I:5.L:8.M:7.N:4.O:5.Q1:7.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4 Client #05 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:4.B:9.C:5.E:4.F:1.G:3.H:4.I:9.L:7.M:8.N:7.O:5.Q1:6.Q2:7.Q3:9.Q4:10 Client #06 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:8.B:6.C:3.E:5.F:2.G:9.H:6.I:9.L:3.M:6.N:7.O:5.Q1:5.Q2:7.Q3:7.Q4:4 Client #07 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:5.B:7.C:6.E:4.F:6.G:7.H:3.I:5.L:8.M:5.N:4.O:6.Q1:7.Q2:1.Q3:6.Q4:6 Client #08 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:9.B:8.C:5.E:7.F:5.G:6.H:8.I:2.L:6.M:4.N:8.O:7.Q1:6.Q2:5.Q3:5.Q4:9 ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com Comparison data base for 8 clients, needs [8 * (8-1)] / 2 = 28 comparisons <#01|CQ|#02> == K01 <6|CQ|5> + K02 <7|CQ|7> + K03 <6|CQ|4> + K04 <8|CQ|8> + K05 <9| CQ|7> + K06 <6|CQ|4> + K07 <7|CQ|5> + K08 <7|CQ|6> + K09 <8|CQ|4> + K10 <7|CQ|6> + K11 <2|CQ|8> + K12 <5|CQ|9> + K13 <8|CQ|6> + K14 <7|CQ|8> + K15 <3|CQ|4> + K16 <4|CQ| 4> == 74.79865772% PROBABILITY OF BEING COMPATIBLE <#02|CQ|#01> == <#01|CQ|#02> == 74.79865772% and so on for the rest (27 comparisons) <#01|CQ|#02> == #01 to #02 == 74.79865772% // #02 to #01 == 74.79865772% 2

#01 to #03 == 54.09395973% // #02 to #03 == 63.59060403% #01 to #04 == 92.55033557% // #02 to #04 == 75.26845638% #01 to #05 == 57.71812081% // #02 to #05 == 61.00671141% #01 to #06 == 59.73154362% // #02 to #06 == 65.90604027% #01 to #07 == 68.99328859% // #02 to #07 == 64.49664430% #01 to #08 == 62.75167785% // #02 to #08 == 66.34228188% #03 to #01 == 54.09395973% // #04 to #01 == 92.55033557% #03 to #02 == 63.59060403% // #04 to #02 == 75.26845638% #03 to #04 == 54.89932886% // #04 to #03 == 54.89932886% #03 to #05 == 49.49664430% // #04 to #05 == 56.54362416% #03 to #06 == 67.34899329% // #04 to #06 == 64.42953020% #03 to #07 == 53.99328859% // #04 to #07 == 73.32214765% #03 to #08 == 61.20805369% // #04 to #08 == 66.54362416% ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com #05 to #01 == 57.71812081% // #06 to #01 == 59.73154362% #05 to #02 == 61.00671141% // #06 to #02 == 65.90604027% #05 to #03 == 49.49664430% // #06 to #03 == 67.34899329% #05 to #04 == 56.54362416% // #06 to #04 == 64.42953020% #05 to #06 == 62.18120805% // #06 to #05 == 62.18120805% #05 to #07 == 62.98657718% // #06 to #07 == 57.85234899% #05 to #08 == 59.02684564% // #06 to #08 == 60.43624161% #07 to #01 == 68.99328859% // #08 to #01 == 62.75167785% #07 to #02 == 64.49664430% // #08 to #02 == 66.34228188% #07 to #03 == 53.99328859% // #08 to #03 == 61.20805369% #07 to #04 == 73.32214765% // #08 to #04 == 66.54362416% #07 to #05 == 62.98657718% // #08 to #05 == 59.02684564% #07 to #06 == 57.85234899% // #08 to #06 == 60.43624161% #07 to #08 == 61.87919463% // #08 to #07 == 61.87919463% "what is new, different or better in this approach than what's already available?" - LIFEPROJECT method is an innovative and high precision quantitative method to assess similarity between quantized patterns. To my best knowledge, I haven't seen any other quantitative method with higher precision than the one I had invented. High precision means similarity between quantized patterns expressed as a number with 8 decimals, like 92.55033557% - No actual online dating site is using the normative (available in different languages) 16PF5 test as main personality test. A prospective male customer will receive an email like this (sample but calculated with real values) "Over 1,000,000 million women database, here is the list of the 12 more compatible with you. Notice that woman#1 is the most compatible but she could be more compatible with other men right now. woman#01 is 95.58476277% compatible woman#02 is 95.56224356% compatible woman#03 is 95.52998273% compatible woman#04 is 94.18354278% compatible woman#05 is 93.00453871% compatible woman#06 is 93.00007524% compatible woman#07 is 92.99738452% compatible woman#08 is 92.37945551% compatible woman#09 is 92.29779173% compatible woman#10 is 92.27114287% compatible woman#11 is 92.19515551% compatible woman#12 is 92.12249558% compatible" ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com http://onlinedatingsoundbarrier.blogspot.com/2011/05/top-papers-for-online-datingindustry.html

3

LIFEPROJECT METHOD FAQs --- Business Description what is new, different or better in this approach than what's already available? innovative on line dating / social networking method by personality. Personality matching method with 16PF5 test available in different languages. This 16PF5 test is not in use by any competitor. International proposal, could be launched in 5 or more countries at the same time. It is a personality profiling online dating / social networking site. A post crisis profitable dotcom company. I had failed several times to launch it since 2001. My effort is directed to prove that temporal patterns of relationship variables may indeed play a significant role between prospective mates with last stage: only high level on personality* similarity* between mates. More at http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2008/07/lifeproject-met.html --- Value Proposition LIFEPROJECT is like 4 pieces puzzle. 1 is the psycho tests (Multi-language normative tests). 2 is a high speed computer or high speed server arrangement. To hire usage time. 3 is the algorithm I have invented (uses QUANTUM MECHANICS MATH and STATISTICAL EQUATIONS). 4 is the marketing scheme. ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com --- Key Market Information (Definition / Segmentation / Size) US Market > USD900Million. US singles > 92Million. Europe: USD600Million. Next years trends: Legislation, Code of Ethics and Quality Norms. Leader Match.com with revenue over USD370Million but only 1.8Million regularly pay the fee. --- Barriers to Entry: low / weak legislation --- What are most pressing needs (Business Model, Marketing, Financing) - Explain 1.Investors. 2.Partners who could involve and manage the company. I do not need to be the CEO 3.To buy the 16PF5 normative test license USD20 per test taker, available in different languages 4.Soft Development USD100,000 5.Marketing USD1,000,000 To steal dissatisfied clients from eHarmony, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, PlentyOfFish, OkCupid, etc. Other possibility: to reconvert an existing online dating site like Match, Chemistry, or other like them. --- Customer Information (Demographics / Needs / Motivations) Persons that have been hurt in their feelings by other persons in many actual on line dating sites (like eHarmony, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, PlentyOfFish, OkCupid, etc) older than 26 years old (personality consolidated). --- Exit Strategy * IPO * Sell to IAC (Match)

--- Management Team: Experience / Past Successes Fernando Ardenghi (41, electronic engineer) started his career studying and working at Instituto Balseiro and Centro Atómico Bariloche, Argentina (1996-1997). Afterwards, he worked at a textile factory during 1997, an electromechanical factory (Siemens partner 1998-1999), Central Nuclear Atucha 1 (Siemens Nuclear Power Plant 1999-2001) and Centro Atómico Ezeiza; and other different Argentinean factories. Fernando has over 15 years experience in Information Technology. As he worked in different jobs in few years, he gained valuable experience in psychological topics like methodology and tests that are applied to evaluate candidates for a job. This knowledge, and the one he acquired at Instituto Balseiro, allowed him to develop an innovative method for Online Dating / Social Networking and Business Intelligence. Fernando has also entrepreneurial studies at Universidad de San Andrés, Universidad de Buenos Aires and Universidad del CEMA. ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com --- Management Team: Equity Structure & Capital Contributed Fernando Ardenghi (inventor) searching for partners/alliances

4

--- At what price expected to sell? Competitor's price? The annual fee for end users is expected to cost USD300 for the first year, with a yearly resubscription of USD30. Fortunately the US, Canadian, European and Latin American markets remain enormous. The "unexploited" Latin American market is now over USD100 million. The price is the average of competitors, but price is not related to costs, because daters need a price which will work as a barrier to avoid others play with their feelings. The normative 16PF5 test is not being use by any dating site yet. --- cost and expected margin Direct cost is USD 22, selling cost is USD 62, salaries are USD 31, expected margin is USD 185 (160%) because this market is like selling coke, icecreams and pop corns in cinemas, cost are not related to selling price. Selling price should be a barrier to avoid non desirable persons. ( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com --- List of Competitors Actual Online Dating Sites (eHarmony/eDarling, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, PlentyOfFish, OkCupid, etc) : lack of precision / low precision / low successful matching rates --- Links to press releases and published papers. http://vator.tv/c/13a5

5

EXAMPLE OF COMPARISON

SAME COUNTRY

EUROPEAN ETHNICITY

From 16PF5 Report provided by …….. Name: Carol Doe, U.S. Citizen / sex: Female / age: 32 / test date: 25 October 2011 ID: client #58,373 // Carol.Doe32@somewhere.com Norm: English US Combined 16PF Profile Sten Factor (A) Warmth More Emotionally 6 Attentive and Warm Distant from People to Others (B) Reasoning Fewer Reasoning Items 7 More Reasoning Correct Items Correct (C) Emotional Stability Reactive 6 Emotionally Stable (E) Dominance Deferential 8 Dominant (F) Liveliness Serious 9 Lively (G) Rule−Consciousness Expedient 6 Rule−Conscious (H) Social Boldness Shy 7 Socially Bold (I) Sensitivity Objective 7 Subjective (L) Vigilance Trusting 8 Vigilant (M) Abstractedness Grounded 7 Abstracted (N) Privateness Forthright 2 Private (O) Apprehension Self−Assured 5 Apprehensive (Q1) Openness to Change Traditional 8 Open to Change (Q2) Self−Reliance Group−Oriented 7 Self−Reliant (Q3) Perfectionism Tolerates Disorder 3 Perfectionist (Q4) Tension Relaxed 4 Tense -------------------------------------------From 16PF5 Report provided by …….. Name: John Bull, U.S. Citizen / sex: Male / age: 39 / test date: 29 December 2011 ID: client #98,527 // John.Bull _Florida@somewhere.com Norm: English US Combined 16PF Profile Sten Factor (A) Warmth More Emotionally 5 Attentive and Warm Distant from People to Others (B) Reasoning Fewer Reasoning Items 7 More Reasoning Correct Items Correct (C) Emotional Stability Reactive 4 Emotionally Stable (E) Dominance Deferential 8 Dominant (F) Liveliness Serious 7 Lively (G) Rule−Consciousness Expedient 4 Rule−Conscious (H) Social Boldness Shy 5 Socially Bold (I) Sensitivity Objective 6 Subjective (L) Vigilance Trusting 4 Vigilant (M) Abstractedness Grounded 6 Abstracted (N) Privateness Forthright 8 Private (O) Apprehension Self−Assured 9 Apprehensive (Q1) Openness to Change Traditional 6 Open to Change (Q2) Self−Reliance Group−Oriented 8 Self−Reliant (Q3) Perfectionism Tolerates Disorder 4 Perfectionist (Q4) Tension Relaxed 4 Tense -------------------------------------------From 16PF5 Report provided by …….. Name: George Grass, U.S. Citizen / sex: Male / age: 42 / test date: 07 January 2011 ID: client #120,453 // George_Grass@somewhere.com Norm: English US Combined 16PF Profile Sten Factor (A) Warmth More Emotionally 2 Attentive and Warm Distant from People to Others (B) Reasoning Fewer Reasoning Items 5 More Reasoning Correct Items Correct (C) Emotional Stability Reactive 4 Emotionally Stable (E) Dominance Deferential 6 Dominant (F) Liveliness Serious 3 Lively (G) Rule−Consciousness Expedient 8 Rule−Conscious (H) Social Boldness Shy 7 Socially Bold (I) Sensitivity Objective 6 Subjective (L) Vigilance Trusting 3 Vigilant (M) Abstractedness Grounded 9 Abstracted (N) Privateness Forthright 9 Private (O) Apprehension Self−Assured 8 Apprehensive (Q1) Openness to Change Traditional 2 Open to Change (Q2) Self−Reliance Group−Oriented 5 Self−Reliant (Q3) Perfectionism Tolerates Disorder 5 Perfectionist (Q4) Tension Relaxed 6 Tense --------------------------------------------

6

From 16PF5 Report provided by …….. Name: David OHara, U.S. Citizen / sex: Male / age: 35 / test date: 09 January 2011 ID: client #133,871 // OHaraDavid@somewhere.com Norm: English US Combined 16PF Profile Sten Factor (A) Warmth More Emotionally 7 Attentive and Warm Distant from People to Others (B) Reasoning Fewer Reasoning Items 7 More Reasoning Correct Items Correct (C) Emotional Stability Reactive 6 Emotionally Stable (E) Dominance Deferential 8 Dominant (F) Liveliness Serious 8 Lively (G) Rule−Consciousness Expedient 7 Rule−Conscious (H) Social Boldness Shy 6 Socially Bold (I) Sensitivity Objective 5 Subjective (L) Vigilance Trusting 8 Vigilant (M) Abstractedness Grounded 7 Abstracted (N) Privateness Forthright 4 Private (O) Apprehension Self−Assured 5 Apprehensive (Q1) Openness to Change Traditional 7 Open to Change (Q2) Self−Reliance Group−Oriented 7 Self−Reliant (Q3) Perfectionism Tolerates Disorder 3 Perfectionist (Q4) Tension Relaxed 4 Tense -------------------------------------------From 16PF5 Report provided by …….. Name: Marc McArthur, U.S. Citizen / sex: Male / age: 47 / test date: 15 January 2011 ID: client #159,047 // Marc-McArthur somewhere.com Norm: English US Combined 16PF Profile Sten Factor (A) Warmth More Emotionally 4 Attentive and Warm Distant from People to Others (B) Reasoning Fewer Reasoning Items 9 More Reasoning Correct Items Correct (C) Emotional Stability Reactive 5 Emotionally Stable (E) Dominance Deferential 4 Dominant (F) Liveliness Serious 1 Lively (G) Rule−Consciousness Expedient 3 Rule−Conscious (H) Social Boldness Shy 4 Socially Bold (I) Sensitivity Objective 9 Subjective (L) Vigilance Trusting 7 Vigilant (M) Abstractedness Grounded 8 Abstracted (N) Privateness Forthright 7 Private (O) Apprehension Self−Assured 5 Apprehensive (Q1) Openness to Change Traditional 6 Open to Change (Q2) Self−Reliance Group−Oriented 7 Self−Reliant (Q3) Perfectionism Tolerates Disorder 9 Perfectionist (Q4) Tension Relaxed 10 Tense

COMPARISON BETWEEN Carol Doe, U.S. Citizen (New York) AND John Bull, U.S. Citizen (Florida) (#58,373, #98,527) comparison

<M58,373|CQ|M98,527> == 74.79865772%
( c ) Fernando Ardenghi 1999 - 2011 ardenghifer@gmail.com BETWEEN Carol Doe, U.S. Citizen (New York) AND George Grass, U.S. Citizen (Boston) (#58,373, #120,453) comparison

<M58,373|CQ|M120,453> == 54.09395973%
BETWEEN Carol Doe, U.S. Citizen (New York) AND David OHara, U.S. Citizen (Chicago) (#58,373, #133,871) comparison

<M58,373|CQ|M133,871> == 92.55033557%
BETWEEN Carol Doe, U.S. Citizen (New York) AND Marc McArthur, U.S. Citizen (Los Angeles) (#58,373, #159,047) comparison

<M58,373|CQ|M159,047> == 57.71812081%
7

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful