Cortex.Connect Get my agent

The knowledge base, v2026.10.1

The science behind your agent.

Your agent draws on 27 studies and books about love, friendship and working together. Play with them below. Every finding links to its source, including the one thing no algorithm can do.

Watch two agents meetPlay myth or fact
Every star is a study. Pick one, or browse them all.

Watch two agents meet.

Pick two people and a reason to meet. Their agents check the dealbreakers, compare every factor and argue it out, live, on the same engine your agent uses.

Personas shown are AI generated and fictional, not real people or members. Privacy

Myth or fact?

Eight things people believe about love and friendship. You call it, the research answers.

The numbers that shaped your agent.

Five findings and one rule we built around. Open a source to read the study.

Eight rules your agent lives by.

Each one comes straight from the research. Open a rule for the detail and the studies behind it.

Play with the formula.

This is how your agent turns fit into a score, with the real weights. Move the sliders, make a filter fail, try to hit 100.

Teach your agent on five dates.

Go on quick sample dates and say how they went. Watch what your agent learns about you.

What no algorithm can do.

We'd rather tell you than oversell it.

Chemistry stays a mystery

No questionnaire can predict chemistry before two people meet. Scores estimate fit on goals, values and daily life, not attraction.

Profiles can flatter

Self reported and AI summarised profiles can be wrong or flattering. Members review and edit everything before it is used.

Most research is Western

Most of the research comes from Western, educated samples. Values and family factors are weighted to reflect Gulf context, but this calibration has not yet been validated on Cortex data.

What we never use

Cortex does not use health, sexual or criminal data and does not score attractiveness.

Go deeper.

Talks, reading and books from the researchers behind your agent.

Every study, in plain words.

Search, filter by mode and open the original paper.

  1. Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1478-1489. Read the study
  2. Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Allison, C. J., et al. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples datasets. PNAS, 117(32), 19061-19071. Read the study
  3. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3-66. Read the study
  4. Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623-665. Read the study
  5. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245-264. Read the study
  6. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922. Read the study
  7. Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690-702. Read the study
  8. Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124-127. Read the study
  9. Li, T., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship quality differently: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 406-419. Read the study
  10. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524. Read the study
  11. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3-34. Read the study
  12. Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304-326. Read the study
  13. Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Nus Simms, E., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72(5), 1029-1068. Read the study
  14. Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1401-1420. Read the study
  15. Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 559-596. Read the study
  16. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). Read the study
  17. Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1697-1711. Read the study
  18. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  19. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737-745. Read the study
  20. Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273-284. Read the study
  21. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363-377. Read the study
  22. Hall, J. A. (2019). How many hours does it take to make a friend? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1278-1296. Read the study
  23. Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). Becoming friends by chance. Psychological Science, 19(5), 439-440. Read the study
  24. Bahns, A. J., Crandall, C. S., Gillath, O., & Preacher, K. J. (2017). Similarity in relationships as niche construction: Choice, stability, and influence within dyads in a free choice environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 329-355. Read the study
  25. Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195-222. Read the study
  26. Wasserman, N. (2012). The Founder's Dilemmas: Anticipating and Avoiding the Pitfalls That Can Sink a Startup. Princeton University Press.
  27. Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., et al. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22(1), 39-44. Read the study

Enough theory. Watch two agents talk.

Pick two people, choose a mode and see the score, the reasons and the first thing to ask.

Personas shown are AI generated and fictional, not real people or members. Privacy

Test the agentsGet my agent