Dating Classification Matrix – Part Three

Yes, after realizing the popularity of the DCM, I decided to do some further polishing of the spreadsheet.

As explained earlier, the Matrix is based on the theory that every relationship’s success is completely based on equality. It can be real equality or perceived equality – both work fine. Relationships fall apart when one partner feels either BETTER THAN or WORSE THAN their mate. An M.D. isn’t going to marry a heroin addicted prostitute. And a brilliant scientist isn’t going to be happy with a stupid idiot, unless the stupid idiot is incredibly hot. In the DCM, that’s what we refer to as “Tradeoff.”

In a relationship, you don’t need to have equality in any given category. You merely need to have relative equality across the board. For example, with myself and Jenna, our strong qualities are not the same. However, our relative DCM scores are very similar. For example, she’s highly sociable – I am not, and that Tradeoff gets picked up in another category where I may be stronger than her.

Under this theory, an M.D. might be completely happy being married to a moron if she happens to be a smokin’ hottie. And of course we’ve seen this play out in real life. Incidentally, the M.D. might be a hideous freak of nature, but his education and income counteract that, allowing him to attract a smokin’ hottie.

However, a hideous looking M.D. would not be compatible with a smokin’ hottie who also happens to be a brilliant businesswoman. She would then have the higher score.

Although not completely scientific, you could fill out the DCM for couples that you know based on your best guesses. You’ll find that it’s incredibly good at predicting relational success.

The interface of the DCM still looks the same, but the formulas and weightings have been revised with the latest statistical information to date. (no pun intended) Obviously, the DCM has a right-leaning slant to it (DUH), but the theory is strong.

Download it here:Dating Classification Matrix v. 3.0

  8 comments for “Dating Classification Matrix – Part Three

  1. HRT
    August 1, 2008 at 10:18 am

    If you want an even more accurate analysis I’m willing to authorize you to use my TrueHotness(c) scale at the wholesale price(because I’m cool like that). Unfortunately the TrueHotness(c) scale had to be recalibrated because a couple of nameless hotties melted several of the control rods, but I’m pretty sure that the new & improved reinforced galvanized steel/titanium/carbonfiber mesh shield should prevent future meltdowns.

  2. HRT
    August 1, 2008 at 10:31 am

    I noticed on your scale it’s impossible to be perfect without blatantly cheating.

  3. Your Incredibly Adorable Little Sister
    August 1, 2008 at 10:31 am

    So apparently I’m not TOTALLY dateable. 4.36 – Looks good for you? Coulda done better. I’m thinking that my pathetic income may have hurt a bit…

    Ahem, I noticed that the peak age for dateability was about 30. Don’t you think I, at a frolicky 20, am more dateable? Hm?!

  4. August 1, 2008 at 10:41 am

    LMAO, OK so I got a zero score … that could explain why I haven’t been on a date since last Autumn … well, that and I don’t feel like dating right now.

  5. August 1, 2008 at 10:59 am

    HAHAHA!!! I scored a .25, “despicable person”. I think when you said the MD would be happy with the super-hot idiot was just bullshit, otherwise my score would have been higher.

    Just sayin’.

  6. HRT
    August 1, 2008 at 11:47 am

    How is it physically possible for you to get a 0 DK? Even on Incredigoofs heavily skewed slightly biased matrix?

  7. August 1, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    I don’t make up the inputs, I just use them. Warcry, don’t you know that the key to happiness is to lie on dateability tests?

    Better knock another point off of the intelligence category. 😉

    j/k xoxoxoxo

  8. August 1, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Incidentally, DK, that doesn’t mean you can’t date – it just means it will only work out long term if the person you date also scores a 0.

Comments are closed.