Your Dating Net Worth — a tongue-in-cheek calculator

Before you slide anything.

The dollar figure here is what economists call a shadow price — a stylized estimate of what your traits would be worth in an idealized market if one traded in dollars for them. Dating markets don't actually exchange dollars; the figure is a metaphor for the relative scarcity and pull of your traits against the partner pool's revealed preferences. It is not a measurement of your worth as a person. Your real value is not your salary, what matters in your life is not your CV.

The model is also research-informed, not research-derived. We did not use direct data — we synthesized what we understand as the most important findings from the dating-economics literature and approximated what the research suggests is roughly true. Some coefficients are tightly anchored to specific findings (the importance of height and income for men's dating value is the strongest); others are reasoned synthesis. Half science, half art. Quick map of what the model isn't seeing:

The 1–10 scale is crude. Attractiveness here means overall appeal to your likely dating pool. Someone can be a 10 in one subculture or partner pool and not in another. The model does not separately estimate racial, cultural, or body-type preference patterns, because these are totally subjective. It's also calibrated against standard deviations, not deciles: a 10 isn't the top 10%, it's the top fraction of a percent. The personality slider is calibrated the same way: 5 is average, 10 is rare-saintly, 1 is genuinely horrible. Again, these figures are subjective — and if you're looking for a relationship, you don't need everyone to think you're a 10, you just need one person to.

The variables aren't fully independent. The model treats height, attractiveness, and personality as separate sliders, but in real perception they interact. A man's "overall attractiveness" rating typically already includes his height; perceived kindness gets shaped by physical attractiveness (the halo effect); confidence reads back into attractiveness ratings. We separate them so people can experiment with combinations, but real-world perception is more entangled than the sliders suggest.

People rate themselves generously. The better-than-average effect is one of the most replicated findings in psychology — most people rate themselves above the median on attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, driving. The research appears to suggest men in particular are more likely to rate themselves overconfidently.

Intelligence isn't a separate slider. Its dating-market effects mostly route through income and education, which the model partially captures via income. We don't include a standalone IQ slider because self-rating is unreliable.

Cross-age dollar comparisons have limits. The headline dollar figure is meant to reflect cross-age market reality — a 25-year-old at the top of her market and a 60-year-old at the top of his are not equivalently positioned, and the model tries to honor that. But partner pools mostly don't overlap across wide age gaps; a 60-year-old and a 25-year-old aren't really competing for the same people. The percentile shown alongside the dollar figure is within your own age cohort. Both are useful — together they tell you more than either alone.

The model doesn't see your partner. Their religion, values, income, deal-breakers, whether you have chemistry — invisible. Two "high-value" people are not automatically a match.

The model collapses outside its calibration. Built on our interpretation of largely US online-heterosexual dating research. It will not generalize cleanly to religious communities, many diverse cultural or subcultural dating markets, polyamorous dating markets, many international markets, extremely rural dating markets, and more.

This is v1 of an experimental model. Extreme inputs are likely less reliable than normal inputs. The model is informed by our interpretation of aggregate dating-market research on typical ranges. At the extremes of any input, we expect the value of the model to weaken.

Not everything that matters can be measured. The most important qualities of a life partner cannot be compressed into a dollar figure.

Why create such a scale? Heterosexual dating is a reflection of both individual and social preferences. Understanding how these preferences play out, even approximately, is important to understand our world.

The trends identified in the model might not be good for society. Many people dislike the dating patterns captured in dating research — the importance of height and wealth for men, the importance of youth and beauty for women. These dating patterns do not show up everywhere, but research suggests they are commonplace. Pretending they don't shape behavior, or refusing to name them, doesn't help anyone navigate the world they're actually in.

Short-term market<br>Long-term market

Initial attraction, hookups, swiping. Looks-heavy,...