What would your dating eligibility score be out of 100?

Imagine a dating service where each client is summarised as a single dating eligibility factor. Basically, a score out of one hundred that encapsulates looks, personality, intelligence, age, wealth and talent.

Could this work in practice, or is human attraction too nuanced to apply any rigid formula?

We asked AI to derive a formula, using real world data.

The idea of a Dating Eligibility Factor (DEF), rated from 0 to 100, offers a provocative way to quantify what makes someone desirable as a romantic partner. The DEF combines multiple dimensions. Looks, personality, intelligence, physique, wealth, talent, and age form a composite indicator of dating potential.

While no algorithm can capture chemistry or emotional depth, a structured model helps illuminate how these factors interact to influence perceived eligibility across life stages. This is how AI weighted the importance of each attribute.

AI Weighting
Above is how AI has weighted each factor, with looks over three times more significant than talent!

To calculate your own DEF, you would simply multiple the weighting above for each factor by your score out of 100 for that factor, then each component score would be added together to calculate the overall DEF.

So, your if looks are 78 out of 100, your looks component alone would be 78 x 0.22 = 17.16

Below is a full example.

But how do I score myself out of 100 for each factor you may ask? Here are AI’s thoughts…

Looks: Timeless Appeal vs. Cultural Standards

Looks still form the anchor of attraction. Symmetry, grooming, and presentation signal vitality and genetic fitness, though perceptions vary by culture and era. However, age modifies how looks are interpreted, Youthfulness may be valued in early adulthood, while grace and self-assurance become attractive markers later in life.

Scoring remains based on visual appeal, with age-adjusted baselines:

A 25-year-old might score 80 for clear skin and symmetry.
A 45-year-old could also score 80 if they exhibit vitality, confidence, and refined style appropriate for their age.

Thus, the looks component should be age-normalized rather than universally fixed.

Personality: The Lifelong Magnet

If looks catch the eye, personality keeps the connection alive. Traits such as empathy, humour, confidence, and optimism consistently predict long-term relationship success. Importantly, personality tends to improve with age. Experience often tempers impulsiveness and deepens emotional intelligence.

To measure it quantitatively:

Use self-assessments or validated tools like the Big Five model.
Weight agreeableness, stability, and sociability most heavily.
Apply small age bonuses for maturity, communication, and self-awareness.

Older individuals frequently gain a modest DEF advantage in this domain.

Intelligence: Mind Meets Magnetism

Intelligence, in the context of dating, is more than IQ. It includes curiosity, adaptability, and emotional awareness. It influences compatibility, humour, and shared worldview.

A balanced metric could include:

Education or demonstrated expertise (objective).
Conversational creativity and empathy (subjective).

As with personality, intelligence often correlates positively with age, up to a point where open-mindedness and flexibility sustain the appeal. Thus, a 50-year-old with intellectual vibrancy might rival or exceed a 25-year-old’s score.

Physique: Health, Energy, and Self-Care

Physique reflects lifestyle, discipline, and overall health. Though younger individuals naturally benefit from faster metabolism and higher energy, older adults can maintain impressive physiques through fitness and nutrition.

Possible measures include:

Body composition and endurance metrics.
Lifestyle indicators like exercise frequency or sleep quality.
Subjective impressions of vitality and posture.

Age-adjusted scoring should reward relative fitness, not raw athleticism. Someone in great shape for their age can easily outscore a younger but sedentary person.

Wealth: Resources and Stability

Wealth influences both perceived security and opportunity. However, its desirability depends on life stage and cultural context. Younger people may be valued more for potential than possession, while older individuals are often judged by financial stability and independence.

Quantifiable indicators include:

Income percentile by age cohort.
Savings rate, debt ratio, and asset ownership.
Evidence of planning and responsibility.

This factor tends to increase naturally with age until retirement, when financial independence or residual stability maintains high scores.

Talent: The Charisma Catalyst

Artistic, athletic, or intellectual talent adds texture and intrigue to a person’s appeal. Talents provide conversation sparks, community involvement, and social visibility. Though its weight is modest, it can disproportionately influence attraction by amplifying confidence and charm.

Evaluation could combine:

Achievement level or recognition.
Frequency of creative or performance-based engagement.
Self-reported skill and passion intensity.

Talent tends to remain stable across the lifespan, with some skills (music, acting, writing, craftsmanship) even deepening with time.

Age: The Dynamic Multiplier

Age is perhaps the most nuanced addition to the DEF model. It operates both as an absolute factor and as a modulator that shapes other traits. Rather than assuming “younger is better,” age is best treated as a compatibility curve reflecting balance between youth, maturity, and vitality.

a. The Optimal Age Band

Most people’s DEF potential peaks during a window where vitality, maturity, and stability intersect, often between ages 25 and 45. Outside this range, scores need adjustment based on self-maintenance and life-stage appeal.

b. The Compatibility Function

Attractiveness often depends on relative age rather than absolute age. A 30-year-old might be highly desirable to someone 28 or 35, but less so to someone 60. Thus, age scoring could integrate a compatibility delta based on the target audience’s average preference range.

c. Suggested Age-Scoring Framework

90–100: Prime combination of maturity, vitality, and confidence (e.g., 28–40 in most contexts).
75–89: Slightly younger or older, still highly appealing within peer groups.
60–74: Noticeable divergence from societal norms of “dating prime,” but offset by fitness or success.
<60: Either very young (immature) or significantly older (low energy) for most pairing, though exceptions abound.

Crucially, age interacts multiplicatively with other variables, enhancing personality and wealth while tempering physique and looks.

Interpreting your overall DEF score

Age plays a pivotal role in explaining why DEF peaks and tapers over time. Not because aging inherently reduces value, but because priorities and compatibility evolve.

While the DEF model offers clarity, it must be used ethically. Quantifying desirability risks turning dating into a competitive marketplace. Instead, the score should be seen as diagnostic. A tool for self-awareness and growth. Someone with strong intellect and personality but a low physique score might focus on health; a youthful person with low maturity could work on empathy and reliability.

Age, in particular, should remind us that attractiveness is dynamic, fluctuating with wisdom, vitality, and social context. True desirability is cumulative, not fleeting.

Ultimately, the goal is not to assign a rigid number, but to understand how balance across time shapes the art of attraction. A high DEF isn’t about perfection. It’s about authenticity, growth, and harmony between who we are and where we are in life.

If you enjoyed the ideas discussed here, you might enjoy a thoughtful workplace romantic comedy, The Attraction Abacus written on this exact subject. Click on the image below to find out more.

Your dating score, out of 100, is…

💔 The Gentle Fade of the Workplace Romance

Personality is more important than looks to women?