The Algorithm

In order to solidify one's place in nerd history, one has to make a few things part of his/her everyday life. One of these is to try to quantify just about anything, regardless of how effectively it can truly be quantified. Another of these is to have a dysfunctional dating life such that one would be just as inclined to stay at home on Saturday nights and play MMORPGs than socialize with the opposite sex.

So naturally, last Saturday night I was sitting around in my Animal House pajamas when I got a brilliant idea. I would make an algorithm to quantify what sort of women I'm attracted to. Could this actually be useful? Perhaps. While I was at BYU, I often ended up not going on dates because of the paradox of choice, among ...many... other things. The algorithm could give a hierarchy to queue, such that I might know who I should take out. I don't claim that it will actually work out that way, but at least it's a nice thought.

So, here it is:

R = 0 For S > B

where

and

A = Attractiveness

P = Subjective Physical Attractiveness on a 1-10 scale
IQ = Intelligence Quotient
σE = Deviation of Eccentricities
σEM = My Deviation of Eccentricities
T = Testimony Factor, 1-10 scale
C = Charity Factor, 1-10 scale
R = Responsibility Factor, 1-10 scale
B = Perception of Time Spent in Constructive Activity (B stands for 'Books'), Percent
Tw = Perception of Time Spent in Things that Look like Constructive Activity but Aren't (Tw stands for 'Twilight'), Percent
S = Perception of Time Spent in non-Constructive Activity (S stands for 'Shopping'), Percent
H = Humor Factor, 1-10 scale
FG = Pro 2nd Amendment, 1-10 scale
AR = Reciprocal Attraction, 1-10 scale

There are six separate pieces to this equation that all deserve to be looked at in more detail.

Emotional Stability, ES

The two sigma (σ) terms in the equation represent the number of standard deviations away from average the mental and emotional eccentricities of me and a prospective partner would be. In practice, this serves as the personality term of the equation. If I think that I and a prospective partner is way different from me, I could make the difference in sigma terms as high as 6, lowering the overall attractiveness. If I think that someone is similar to me in a way that would be conducive to a relationship, I could make the difference in sigmas zero, so that the 'Big 3' term wouldn't be divided up at all.

The Big 3 Parameter, 2P(IQ-70)/ES

The 'Big 3' represents the three points of most emphasis when looking for a date: looks, brains, and personality. This parameter can vary anywhere from 0 to 1200, making it approximately 46% of the equation.

The Spirituality Parameter, 8T*C

This parameter is a simple product of my perceptions of testimony and charity. I've expressed my desire to end up with a woman who has a testimony and who lives according to that testimony in the past. Any woman who's a member of the church will probably end up with at least 7s in both testimony and charity unless I know she's involved in sketchy activity. Variance of 0 to 800, 31% of the total.

The (Anal) Retentiveness Parameter, R(B-T-S)*H/25

Basically, I want a woman who's responsible, but knows how to laugh at things when they're funny. Through much of my life, I've noticed that there are often women who read and women who go shopping. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with shopping, I'm just making an analogy to priorities between something I find constructive, like reading and something I find mostly non-constructive, like shopping. In the world of books, there's also crap that looks good, but really isn't at its core, like Twilight. The same applies to life. As a side note, everyone needs to have non-constructive activity once in a while in order to remain sane. This isn't reflected in the equation and is one of its weaknesses. In order to keep the term from going negative (and thus punishing for humor) R is taken to zero when S exceeds B. I should also mention that this factor tends to not favor younger women, who don't look as responsible as their older counterparts, even though they could have been just as responsible at the same age. I considered using an age correction factor, but decided against it. Variance of 0-400, 15% of the total.

The Gun Factor, FG

I like firearms, and I wish everyone else did too. Especially for women in this day and age, knowledge of how to use a gun is a valuable tool that could save one's life. I have to bump down women who don't feel this way a notch, especially when their reasoning is something naïve like "Guns kill people." Variance of 0 to 100, 4% of the total.

Reciprocal Attraction, AR

People are generally more fond of people who like them. I'm not sure this needs any more explanation than that. Variance of 0 to 100, 4% of the total.

The theoretical total of this equation comes out to 2600 points, though that would be ridiculous, just like scoring a 0 would be ridiculous. Most women will probably come out to somewhere between 850 and 1750, though I don't know for sure because I haven't really tried it out much yet. However, I have tried it out, so here are some case studies.

Case Studies

The first evaluation is a woman (yes, she is real... as far as I know) who I find very attractive physically, mentally, and emotionally. This woman manages to remind me of my good qualities without really showing my bad ones. In short, she's a gem. We'll call this woman 'Exhibit B' for anonymity's sake.

Exhibit B

The next is of a woman who exemplifies the Everclean song, "Sweet Spirit" with tragic precision. She's a great person, but I could literally find nothing, from head to toe, that I found physically attractive about her, and trust me, I tried.

Sweet Spirit

This next one is a younger woman I met my senior year at BYU. She's weird, but in a similar way to me. She had great priorities and a sneaky sense of humor, though she ignored me about half the time, so I'm not sure how that would have worked out. We'll call her 'Princess Zelda.'

Princess Zelda

Now, I'm sure you'd love to know how fiancées 1 and 2 stack up. So here you go.

Fiancée #1 (Clearly thinking with the wrong head)

Fiancée #2 (Might have killed me in my sleep if we got married)

So that's how it works. As a footnote to this blag post, I'd like to mention that I developed this algorithm primarily with the goal of picking out dates and bringing order to the queue rather than picking a spouse. Personally, there's one big thing that's missing from this methodology that would be key to picking a spouse and that's sanity. The ES factor helps quantify it, but if fiancée #2 was to be truly rated on sanity, she's go from 1429 to -138 instantaneously. I like quantifying things, but I think picking the one should be a separate deal.

So here's to me (maybe) having a semi-functional relationship with women. Cheers!