Your UX of love is different and it’s all your brain’s fault

What if I told you a simple online test that could match you with your ideal partner? You’d probably ignore me. So I’m not telling you it. Biological anthropologist Helen Fisher is. And she has a Ted Talk on the subject, and Match.com is funding her work. So there’s a decent chance she knows what she’s talking about. 

Her research has led her to hypothesise that – while all of our brains use a range of neurotransmitters to send messages between brain regions – our individual brains are dominated by the effects of one system or another. Fisher thinks that this might account for why some people get on like a house on fire. While others are like oil and water. 

Fisher’s four main personality categories are below:

• Explorer: those who primarily express the traits linked with the dopamine system.
• Builder: those who primarily express the traits linked with the serotonin system.
• Director: those who primarily express the traits linked with the testosterone system.
• Negotiator: those who primarily express the traits linked with the estrogen system.

There’s more detail about what they all mean here. 14 million people worldwide have taken the test. Fisher also sees application in ensuring a diverse workplace. After all, one of the most important benefits of a diverse office is different thinking styles.

There’s something else. So far, much of the optimisation of websites and apps has focused on the dopamine system. A key reason for this is because much of the research big tech has used to get us excited about online products is based on casino research. Casinos have been around a long time, and the best practices are well-established. But they focus on the dopamine system. After all, casinos appeal to people who like excitement. As a result, super-popular apps like Instagram and Facebook do too.

What about those of us who’s brains are not dominated by the dopamine system? Are online products catering to us sufficiently? Could Fisher’s research lead to a time when we’re able to design user experience to reflect the demographics we expect to interest? For example, the standard ‘scroll and notification’ landscape might not be optimal for a meditation app.  

If our UX of love differs to the extent that we can predict the people we’re likely to fall in love with (as Fisher claims), isn’t it equally likely that we should be able to predict the kind of online products they will like too? Then maybe we can make sure designers with compatible personalities are designing for them. 

You can discover your Fisher personality type here. Happy Valentine’s Day and a big X for U.