THINQon : Matching Love via DNA

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

Robert Percy, Tired but waking up more everyday

Matching Love via DNA

Latest Post: March 30, 2011 at 2:42 AM

2 followers

There's a new addition to the slew of dating websites. There's almost every other kind of specific demographic dating sites, why shouldn't there be one that matches according to DNA? I guess I'm not terribly surprised that such a niche in the dating website market exists. Still though, in my mind it creates a troubling image of a dystopic future.

On one of the actually many sites that uses DNA matching, the creators list 6 reasons why their methods are optimal:

Chances are increased that you’ll love the natural body fragrance of your matches.
You have a greater chance of a more satisfying sex life.
Women tend to enjoy a higher rate of orgasms with their partners.

Women have a much lower chance of cheating in their exclusive relationships.
Couples tend to have higher rates of fertility.
All other things being equal, couples have a greater chance of having healthier children with more robust immune systems.

Love biologically. Should we be worried?

I'm not completely sold on the effectiveness of this methodology but that it exists at all raises some interesting questions.

Is love something that can be reduced to biology?

Should couples pair off based on producing the genetically optimal children?

Hypothetically: Let's say when you turn 18 you are entered into a large database of DNA with everyone else in the world. If you could be put in contact with your biological soulmate, would you want to be?

Is there something more to love than what you can find in a long sequence of nucleotides? If you could skip past the finding love part, would you?

For me there is something off-putting about assurance.

Reply to:

Martin Howells, Trained in pure mathematics, physics,...

January 31, 2010 at 3:23 PM

13 followers

This raises two questions immediately. Does the biology or DNA profile determine behaviour? It doesn't and environment is very important as well. Second how do we know what the correct criteria for selection are? I think it's an interesting idea that may have specific applications such as produce certain characteristics or avoid particular diseases being propagated but not much better than seemingly random selection, which humans are bad at judging by the current divorce rate.

Reply to: or

Connor Kitts

March 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

1 follower

It is my understanding that we are far, far away from any clear correlation between genetics and behavior. There have been a handful of genes that are loosely correlated with certain behaviors, but the correlation only occurs after specific environmental triggers. There is a violence gene apparently, but having it won't make you violent. It is only after certain environmental triggers does one perhaps become more violent than an individual without the gene.

The idea that we have such an understanding of genetics as to match up people by their pheromones is laughably wrong. There is a tremendous disconnect between where the science of genetics is and where the general public may think it is. Obviously this gap between the two populations creates great opportunities for snake oil salesmen like these genetic dating websites.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, sexual partners are motivated to find partners that are genetically DIFFERENT that themselves. This is high school genetics. You are at a disadvantage inbreeding. Success, or "fitness", is obtained by mixing genes and stumbling upon something that works well. Furthermore, inbreeding exaggerates the many negatives in your genetic code. Think about pure bred dogs. They live shorter lives than their mut peers. Why do you think calling someone "inbred" is such a burn...

Reply to: or

Emma Brock

In response to Connor Kitts

March 29, 2011 at 10:36 PM

58 followers

To quote H. L. Mencken, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people".

Mind you, I can see how this makes sense from a business perspective. When you're entering an already crowded market you need a gimmick that is going to set you apart from the competition, and selling pseudoscience to the scientifically illiterate is one of the tried and true marketing strategies of our age. All many people know about DNA is that the supersleuths on CSI use it to solve crimes because it's great for identifying people. Why wouldn't you use it to identify a mate? It's all very scientific, and as CSI teaches us every week, science always gets the right person!

Scientifically, it's nonsense. For starters there is the fact that human behavior is determined by both genetic and environmental factors, but our understanding of how the two interact is still very rudimentary. Then too there is the problem that in general there is no simple one to one correlation between genes and expressed traits (i.e. you can't tell, just by looking at someone's DNA whether they're going to left or right handed, let alone whether they're going to be a great violinist or have an IQ of 140). The function of large sections of the human genome is unknown, and our understanding of the regulatory sequences that determine gene expression still sketchy. In short, you can tell remarkably little about somebody simply from examining their DNA.

So what is comparing two peoples' DNA going to tell you? Well let's put it this way: loosely speaking, humans share about 96% of our genome with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. If that sounds like a match made in heaven to you then DNA dating services are definitely the way go! :)