- Norwood rank: Measured on Norwood-Hamilton scale stages 1 (minimal recession) to 7 (severe baldness). Score on 0-10 scale: Stage 1 = 10, Stage 2 = 8, Stage 3 = 6, Stage 4 = 4, Stage 5 = 2, Stage 6-7 = 0. Baldness reduces perceived attractiveness and dating desirability.

- Athleticism: Measured by upper body strength (e.g., bench press max in kg relative to body weight) or muscularity (e.g., fat-free mass index, FFMI = lean mass in kg / (height in m)^2). Score on 0-10 scale for FFMI: <18 = 2, 18-20 = 4, 21-23 = 6, 24-25 = 8, >25 = 10. Upper body strength and muscularity account for variance in bodily attractiveness.

- Health indicators: Measured by composite of biomarkers (e.g., resting heart rate in bpm, blood pressure systolic/diastolic in mmHg, absence of conditions). Score on 0-10 scale: Resting heart rate <60 bpm = +3, 60-80 = +2, >80 = +1; Blood pressure <120/80 = +3, 120-139/80-89 = +2, >140/90 = +1; Deduct 2 per chronic condition. Health perceptions influence partner selection.

- Sexual prowess or anatomical characteristics: Measured by erect penis length in cm. Score on 0-10 scale: <10cm = 2, 10-12cm = 4, 13-15cm = 6, 16-18cm = 8, >18cm = 10. Penis size affects attractiveness ratings, with preferences for larger sizes.

- Height: Measured in centimeters. Score on 0-10 scale: <170cm = 2, 170-175cm = 4, 176-180cm = 6, 181-185cm = 8, >185cm = 10. Women prefer taller men with a minimal threshold effect.

- Body Mass Index (BMI): Calculated as weight in kg divided by height in meters squared. Score on 0-10 scale: <18.5 = 3 (underweight), 18.5-24.9 = 8 (normal), 25-29.9 = 5 (overweight), >=30 = 2 (obese). Slender or athletic builds associate with higher desirability, though variance is smaller for men.

- Facial and overall physical attractiveness: Rated subjectively on 0-10 scale via peer or self-assessment, incorporating symmetry and averageness. One standard deviation improvement boosts selection success by 20%.

- Health indicators: Measured by absence of chronic conditions (0-10 scale: 10 for no conditions, deduct 2 per major condition like diabetes). Associates with sexual desirability.

Aggregate P as average of component scores.

Social attributes score (S) components and measurable relations:

- Annual income: Measured in USD. Score on 0-10 scale: <30,000 = 2, 30,000-50,000 = 4, 50,001-80,000 = 6, 80,001-120,000 = 8, >120,000 = 10. Women prioritize resources and steady income in long-term mates.

- Occupation prestige: Ranked using standard scales (e.g., NORC General Social Survey prestige scores, 0-100). Convert to 0-10: <30 = 2, 30-50 = 4, 51-70 = 6, 71-90 = 8, >90 = 10. Influences desirability, with smaller effect than attractiveness.

- Social status indicators: Measured by network size (e.g., number of close friends/connections) or leadership roles. Score on 0-10: <5 connections/roles = 2, 5-10 = 4, 11-20 = 6, 21-30 = 8, >30 = 10. Influences dating desire, more for women evaluating men.

- Dependability and kindness: Rated on 0-10 via behavioral observation or surveys (e.g., Big Five personality inventory agreeableness score, convert percentile to 0-10). Associates with communal attributes for desirability.

Aggregate S as average of component scores.

Intellectual attributes score (I) components and measurable relations:

- Intelligence quotient (IQ): Measured via standardized tests. Score on 0-10 scale: <90 = 2, 90-100 = 4, 101-110 = 6, 111-120 = 8, >120 = 10. One standard deviation improvement increases selection chances by 2%; women value intelligence.

- Education level: Measured by highest degree. Score on 0-10: High school = 3, Associate = 5, Bachelor = 7, Master = 9, PhD/Professional = 10. Associates with ambition and resource potential.

- Ambition indicators: Measured by career progression rate (e.g., promotions per year) or goal achievement count. Score on 0-10: 0 promotions/goals = 2, 1-2 = 4, 3-4 = 6, 5-6 = 8, >6 = 10. Women place value on ambition.

Aggregate I as average of component scores.

To rank order: Compute P, S, I scores; apply equation D = (0.4 * P) + (0.3 * S) + (0.3 * I); compare D values across individuals.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768219&forum_id=2),#49226827)

(Yes they are 100% my bio kids. I actually got one paternity tested on the sly because I had my own doubts, and the other one is beyond any doubt a full sibling to the one I confirmed.)

Anyways I bring this up because I am curious how your grok thing here would factor in the quality of any existing kids (as predictive evidence of future kid quality), if at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768219&forum_id=2),#49226842)