Thoughtful by design
Psychology, with perspective.
A useful starting point for meeting someone. No soulmate score, no diagnosis, no promise of chemistry.
What the 36 questions do
Eight relationship questions describe your wishes and partner preferences. Twenty items use the public-domain Mini-IPIP personality measure. Eight original questions invite private reflection on capacity and communication. Your profile basics and location are separate.
The Mini-IPIP is a brief Big Five measure, with four items per trait. We preserve its item wording and reverse-scoring key. We show raw averages on a 1–5 scale; incomplete traits are not scored. Our adapted instructions and this dating context have not been independently validated. Official items and scoring · Public-domain permission.
How introductions work
- Both people must be adults, verified, active and have approved completed profiles.
- Both people’s age, gender, parenthood, essential relationship preferences and distance choices must allow the introduction.
- Within that pool, shared stated answers help order profiles. Daily tie-breaking varies the order. We show common ground and differences worth discussing.
- Both people express interest before a conversation opens. Approved photos become visible at that point.
Your personality trait levels and private reflections do not rank your desirability or exclude a partner. Similar scores are not evidence that a relationship will work. Choosing “essential” on a preference is your decision, not a psychological diagnosis.
What the research supports
Brief personality questionnaires can measure broad tendencies. That does not establish a formula for romantic compatibility. A large couples study found that personality similarity added little explanatory value beyond each partner’s traits. Dyrenforth et al., 2010.
A machine-learning study of speed dating could predict some general tendencies to desire and be desired, but not the distinctive attraction between two particular people. Joel et al., 2017.
Across 43 longitudinal couples datasets, relationship-specific perceptions were strong predictors of current relationship quality; changes over time remained difficult to predict. These findings concern existing relationships, not a validated stranger-matching algorithm. Joel et al., 2020.
Readiness to commit is a studied construct, but our four capacity questions are original reflection prompts. We do not assign a clinical threshold or “ready/not ready” verdict. Hadden et al., 2018.
Why no attachment type?
Attachment can be understood through continuous dimensions and varies by relationship and context. The instrument author notes that there is no natural categorical cutoff, and commercial use of the cited measures requires permission. We have not included a licensed attachment scale or invented a substitute diagnosis. Fraley’s measurement guidance.
Help us learn, if you choose
Optional feedback after a conversation can reveal confusing questions and practical issues. Two friends testing the app is a usability pilot, not evidence of reliability or predictive validity. Establishing those requires a planned, consented study with appropriate sampling, measurement analysis and outcomes from both partners.
Explore the questionnaire