Attraction formula - BS?

[Kid_Charlemange]

I thought I'd posted this elsewhere, but can't find it... blame the bourbon. Just as well, as it probably deserves its own thread.

 

I came across this formula for male attractivness months ago.

 

A=1L + +3FP + 3R + 3S

 

A=Attraction

L=Looks

FP=Future Potential

R=Resources

S=Stability

 

Which means Brad Pitt gets a perfect score of 100:

-He's good looking (or so I'm told)

-His future potential looks pretty good, since he's always got a new film coming out

-His resources are, I'd say, pretty good. Checking account balance is about $10M

-He's pretty stable. Been with Angelina for some time, is by all accounts a good dad, yadda yadda

 

I sort of like this formula, because it can also explain ugly-as-hell rock stars or thuggish pro athletes, even boxers. On the flip side, it can explain the attractiveness of, say, a Bill Gates, who isn't much to look at but winds up a 90.

 

What I don't like is that it leaves out things that should be important, like charm, humor, intelligence, etc. It's pretty clinical. Sterile, even.

 

And of course it's a gross generalization. Not everyone feels the same way, and as we've discussed ad infinitum, that "stability" category is actually a turn off for some women: Bad Boy syndrome.

 

I also don't like it because my score is 31 :/

 

Ladies: Is this bunk, or is there something to it? How would you tweak the formula?

[Kid_Charlemange]

Addendum:

 

I guess if I were to try my own formula for women, it would be something like this:

 

A=2L + 3B + 2S + 3P

 

L=looks

B=Baggage/drama

S=Stability

P=Personality, to include humor, culture and intellectual curiosity

 

Which is probably why I find funny, smart women like Tina Fey irresistible.

[TheyCallMeOx]

Human attraction is more complicated than a simple math formula. There's some truth to it, but the only truth it exposes is, or should be, common sense. I'm not going to even bother trying to use the formula on myself because I know I'd probably land pretty low, which would seem depressing, but I know that I'm more than just some kind of number. If we all go around using formulas to explain the obvious, then we're all just going to become walking advertisements. There are some things we can't really change about ourselves, there are some things we can't change instantly, but it's no different than poker; it's not about the cards you've been dealt, but it's how you play them. Why try to summarize what can't be summarized into a formula?

[Mysterio]

My take is that when you meet a love prospects look at you that way or they don't. Its so spontaneous. Does not matter if the person is heavy set or skinny.

 

Just based on my experience. I think that most women are attractive. Its just that men have to weed through the baggage part of it more than the looks.

 

More later.

[OwMyEyeball]

This reminds me of a story a friend once told me of a colleague she worked with. His field of specialty was self-esteem. He was a big expert on it.

 

And he had terrible self-esteem.

 

The more guys try to figure it out instead of just live it, the worse off they're going to be.

[TouchedByViolet]

I disagree with your formula. In westernized countries most women create their own security and resources. They don't need a man to provide for them and it doesn't factor much into a relationship. I think women generally care about 3 areas. The significance varies based on the lady....

 

1- Looks

2- Personality/compatibility

3- Social skills/status/power

[salparadise]

I disagree with your formula. In westernized countries most women create their own security and resources. They don't need a man to provide for them and it doesn't factor much into a relationship. I think women generally care about 3 areas. The significance varies based on the lady....

 

1- Looks

2- Personality/compatibility

3- Social skills/status/power

 

I disagree. I have dated women ranging in economic circumstances from dire straights to a million+ annual income. And had meet & greets with many more. They all judge men on the basis of wealth/income. They can't help it; it's in their DNA. I try not to hold it against them but as time goes on I become more and more annoyed by it.

 

Item #3 on your list includes wealth/income/lifestyle. It's never far from the surface. Some will say so explicitly, some try to act like it doesn't matter. I will acknowledge exceptions, but they are rare.

[BluEyeL]

I think each person has their own formula. I decided to look for just three deal breaker traits. Stability (emotional, financial), low conflict personality (agreeableness), low novelty seeking personality. Anything else is a plus.

[serial muse]

I thought I'd posted this elsewhere, but can't find it... blame the bourbon. Just as well, as it probably deserves its own thread.

 

I came across this formula for male attractivness months ago.

 

A=1L + +3FP + 3R + 3S

 

A=Attraction

L=Looks

FP=Future Potential

R=Resources

S=Stability

 

Which means Brad Pitt gets a perfect score of 100:

-He's good looking (or so I'm told)

-His future potential looks pretty good, since he's always got a new film coming out

-His resources are, I'd say, pretty good. Checking account balance is about $10M

-He's pretty stable. Been with Angelina for some time, is by all accounts a good dad, yadda yadda

 

I sort of like this formula, because it can also explain ugly-as-hell rock stars or thuggish pro athletes, even boxers. On the flip side, it can explain the attractiveness of, say, a Bill Gates, who isn't much to look at but winds up a 90.

 

What I don't like is that it leaves out things that should be important, like charm, humor, intelligence, etc. It's pretty clinical. Sterile, even.

 

And of course it's a gross generalization. Not everyone feels the same way, and as we've discussed ad infinitum, that "stability" category is actually a turn off for some women: Bad Boy syndrome.

 

I also don't like it because my score is 31 :/

 

Ladies: Is this bunk, or is there something to it? How would you tweak the formula?

 

I've never heard of this formula, but it only makes sense in percentages, not absolute scores. That formula appears to describe the relative importance of those traits (takehome: looks are a lot less important according to this formula). Unless there's info I'm missing. Like there's an arbitrary 10-point scale for each?

 

Those scores you came up with don't make any sense. Brad Pitt is not a 100 and you're not a 31. How would you even come up with 31? On a 10-point scale that's 3(4 and 3 and 3) and 1? or something? what?

 

tl;dr: bunk.

Edited September 10, 2014 by serial muse

[Kid_Charlemange]

I've never heard of this formula, but it only makes sense in percentages, not absolute scores. That formula appears to describe the relative importance of those traits (takehome: looks are a lot less important according to this formula).

 

Yeah, that's the net net. I'm no math whiz, but I think it can work as percentages or absolutes.

 

Unless there's info I'm missing. Like there's an arbitrary 10-point scale for each?

 

I honestly can't remember if the publisher used a 10 point scale or if that's my interpretation. Since "she's a 10" is such a common scale, I might have used that.

Those scores you came up with don't make any sense. Brad Pitt is not a 100 and you're not a 31.

 

Brad Pitt: He's a 10 in looks. In the other areas, well we are comparing him against all other men, right? So he's 99th percentile in terms of stability, future potential (yes, a small number of men might have more film contracts. Like 5. But out of four billion men, Mr. Pitt is pretty far up there) and status (again, there are more famous people, but not many). Resources, well sure, Warren Buffet has more money, but again, he's 99th percentile, yes? I happen to think he's weird looking, but that's a rare opinion

 

How would you even come up with 31? On a 10-point scale that's 3(4 and 3 and 3) and 1? or something? what?

 

Well... My net worth is negative, so I get a one on resources.

 

I gave myself a 5 on status (I'm a published author, have worked in the film biz so I have a lot of screen credits, and have a cool job that is interesting to talk about),

 

A 3 on future potential (my cool job doesn't pay much and I've had no luck finding a better one for three years; at my age [51], if you haven't made it to the top you're not going to)

 

And I generously gave myself a 4 on looks (I rate 1.6 stars on OKCupid, which translates to 3.2 on a scale of 10. I gave myself an extra point. So 1x4 + 3x3 + 3x1 + 5x3 = 31. I think.

 

But that's one of the flaws in this formula. Unless we factor in things like intelligence, grace, humor, etc in "future potential or perhaps "status," they get left out and they are important traits in a mate -- at least, I would hope so!

Edited September 10, 2014 by Kid_Charlemange

[Mysterio]

I think too much TV and Media has warped our sense of entitlement. Who ever you want to be with is going to be a challenge. Look at our friends/family/co-workers. Could you imagine if you could only have one friend for example. Who would you pick.

 

Sometimes I think we self sabotage ourselves into creating this vision of the ideal SOther to meet our needs.

 

If I think back to all the women I have been with. My 1990 GF TK was the only one I felt I clicked with. No one else comes close. For me personally not so much looks wise. All I want is a woman that looks and desires me in a romantic way. We are both childless and single. We have Interesting conversations and laughs 90 % of the time with physical affection.

 

Thats basically it. At age 43. I feel at least 10 yrs younger. I also thought it would get easier. I really think that our love problems would be better if we just let the universe unfold in our lives. We are taught to go out and get things and we have to manifest the variables in our lives. When I look at my life. Most of the times things go my way when I don't try to force it.

 

For me its better to let Flow in my life than force things to happen. Thats why I don't try to force my friends into every outing I have. For the past 2 yrs or so. I actually have been going to a lot of music venues by myself. Its better than dragging someone along.

 

My thing for being in a relationship for me is not really about loneliness. Its not like when I go out. I wish I had a buddy or Love interest by my side. Its that I have a desire to give and receive love. Like having a pet to certain extents. I love my cat and I feel he is the best thing to happen to me. I have become way more giving and loving as a person. I just want that human experience. I had it in the past. I will have it again. Its just that I don't want to force things to happen. As when I do. The results are mixed at best.