comprehensive relationship modeling

General automotive discussion. If you can read and write... this is the place.

Moderators: charlie, darkducati, andysapp, CodyW

Post Reply
User avatar
kOOpA
Rock Smoke
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:47 am

comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by kOOpA »

i saw this right before taking a shower, so i had some time to really think this shit over and come to my own conclusion (typed it out below the image).

Image

this is a perfect start for initial compatibility, or whether you'd have sex with someone on a whim. with a couple adjustments, though, it would make a comprehensive long-term compatibility model.

you can just start with this chart each time, and include two more factors that can either raise or lower the score by let's say 2, those being personality and financial impact.

i think we already naturally adhere to this model, so a lot of the scenarios will just make sense as you read them.

personality is pretty self-explanatory in how it would affect ratings. as far as financial impact goes, someone with no job is an even 0 when affecting overall rating, not negative. there are at least 2 levels of financial impact that are more expensive (and therein emotionally taxing) than someone who doesn't have a job yet doesn't require much money to support.

10 is "all you can reasonably ask for". say a chick is a perfect 10 and has a great career, she's already a 12, she can be a bitch and honestly she's already "all you can ask for". your ass can be replaced at any moment, unless of course you're also above 10.

anyone being over 10 is just volatile unless they had some sort of amazing upbringing and are somehow not a fucking psychopath, easier said than done while being "above perfect". for example with tons mega-hot celebrities dating each other you're talking about two 10+ people trying to stick together, it's just a fucking time-bomb.

a few examples:
8 looks + 2 for great personality + 0 no job = 10
6 looks + 2 for great personality + 2 great career = 10
10 looks - 2 shit personality - 2 unreasonably expensive = 6

the second example actually explains a lot of relationships where you see dudes punching below their weight, physically, for women who are fun to be around and make good money. and the third example shows that even a 10 in the looks department could very well leave you unhappy overall.

finally, in extreme cases, financial impact completely makes or breaks someone's rating. if you're a fucking fat slob, but have seemingly limitless disposable income, you're a fucking 10 regardless of anything else, you will always be able to land 10s, at least on initial impact (read: fucking). if this income can be reasonably expected for the foreseeable future, then you're a sustained 10, and "worthy" of actually locking down a fellow 10. people lucky enough to ride these sort of coattails cannot reasonably make demands for their partner have a better personality, as they are woefully replaceable at any time. that said, this sort of gravy train is not for everybody, you'll probably need exterior emotional support to be truly happy. doesn't sound very nice, but honestly this is how shit works.
Last edited by kOOpA on Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
P.Haire
Trunk Junk
Posts: 14396
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:13 pm
Location: ZOO
Contact:

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by P.Haire »

Hi josh
Image
please believe
User avatar
shawn shawn
Hollasaurus Rex
Posts: 6963
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:14 am
Location: Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by shawn shawn »

Gotta love a 6.
ImageImage

_team rowdy_
User avatar
kOOpA
Rock Smoke
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:47 am

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by kOOpA »

shawn shawn wrote:Gotta love a 6.
yeah i think a 6 or 7 with overall positive personality and financial impact is pretty much the way to go. 6 +2 personality +1 finance or 7 +2 personality +0 finance both seem good and still don't require you to strive to be a 10 to be a fair deal XD
Image
domi
Fresh Meat
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:21 pm
Location: STL

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by domi »

User avatar
kOOpA
Rock Smoke
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:47 am

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by kOOpA »

i like that guy's ideas but he lacks the financial impact factor, plus he's basically saying you need to land a 10. i don't think you need to land a 10, i think you need to land someone equal or else on some mental level one of you knows that they could have (and/or should have) done better.

his model makes sense in a world where marriages actually last, so by "catching" a 10, you actually get to keep it. ah, the good ol' days.
Image
DJones
Not Really Past the Hazing
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:13 am
Location: Lawrenceville, GA

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by DJones »

I feel like i'm a solid 5.

Below is the breakdown:

Looks= 7 (unless it's in pictures, then it's a 4)
Finances= -2 I do spend too much money
Personality= -2 I can be a dick sometimes
Usefulness= +4 I'm handy around the house
Wang = -2 (negative 1 point for each inch that you are deficient)
User avatar
P.Haire
Trunk Junk
Posts: 14396
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:13 pm
Location: ZOO
Contact:

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by P.Haire »

you're too hard on yourself man.
Image
please believe
DJones
Not Really Past the Hazing
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:13 am
Location: Lawrenceville, GA

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by DJones »

P.Haire wrote:you're too hard on yourself man.
Nah, I was just playing. All 10's here man :rotate:
User avatar
kalifornia087
Rock Smoke
Posts: 3593
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:23 pm
Location: Hurdling through time & space

Re: comprehensive relationship modeling

Post by kalifornia087 »

This chart is relevant to tinder interests
Image
go fast or die
Post Reply