I had the particular displeasure of reading this article recently: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/01/amy_webb_s_data_a_love_story_using_algorithms_and_charts_to_game_online.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... nline.html</a> The writer is a wretch of a human being who doesn't deserve the page-views. The long and short of the article is that she writes a very long and detailed list containing all the qualities she needs in a mate. It features such highlights as: 10. Must not smoke. Must insist that I don’t smoke either. I need to stop my several-cigarettes-a-day habit, and that’s only going to happen if he is an ardent nonsmoker. 19. Likes the outdoors. But only enough for a picnic or grilling in the backyard. Doesn’t want to spend the day golfing or reading on the beach. Isn’t compelled to do overnights at rustic campsites. Driving a car up and down a mountain range should count for “hiking.” 22. Appreciates my quirks and neuroses. Should be both impressed and entertained that I took a color-coded binder full of spreadsheets to an introductory therapist session. 39. Mac person preferred over PC person. It goes on to total 72 items. But it got me thinking. I have a rather self-deprecating scale in my head on how attracted I am to women (more useful as a retrospective tool, not something I actually use to size up women I meet). It's very simple. Step 1: Rate her ass from one to five. Step 2: Count how many languages she knows besides her mother tongue Step 3: Add the two together. Someone who rates 5-6 is pretty interesting. By 7, I'm enamoured, and although the scale theoretically could go higher, anyone who rates that high has probably rendered me unable to count. Focus: Your formulae, serious or not, for how attractive you find people. Alt-focus: Stories of making detailed lists about the theoretical perfect partner and the associated fall-out.