# MBTI Dating Chart: Is (s)he attractive enough?



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

It's not wrapping paper, it's pretty meat.
I like pretty meat.
Makes me drool.

This thread is nonsense.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Kr3m1in said:


> It's not wrapping paper, it's pretty meat.
> I like pretty meat.
> Makes me drool.
> 
> This thread is nonsense.


Things taste better when they're pretty. :X


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

android654 said:


> Things taste better when they're pretty. :X


That's why they have a 'presentation' score on Iron Chef ;P


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Kr3m1in said:


> That's why they have a 'presentation' score on Iron Chef ;P


:O You must be god! Your wisdom is endless!


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

android654 said:


> :O You must be god! Your wisdom is endless!


Yeah by me, you can only be infinitely wise if you fail to exist.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

To tell the truth, I'm alright with most people so long as they are a person I get along with and we click. So long as they aren't hideous and they aren't a shallow moron. I can see past a lot of looks for the right personality.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redmanINTP said:


> No, no, this is actually quite scientific and thorough. Here's the best way to break it down:
> 
> _10: Almost flawless and very rare. Could be a top model, top playboy centerfold, (nationally amazing, the MENSA of hotness)
> 
> ...


I'm assuming this is your own personal view, or that of society in general? Also, it's interesting how being overweight relegates women to "4.5 and below", yet underweight isn't mentioned. Does being underweight have the same effect?


----------



## Tahlia (Dec 14, 2009)

Actually I kind of have a formula when it comes to dating too. It is probably a little less planned out but I must admit I have types I don't really want to date because I just know we are not very compatible. No INTJS, ENTJS, No SPs for long term relationships, No ISTJS or ESTJS.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> I'm assuming this is your own personal view, or that of society in general? Also, it's interesting how being overweight relegates women to "4.5 and below", yet underweight isn't mentioned. Does being underweight have the same effect?


It's his preference. How could someone not have one? Besides, there are plenty of people who are infatuated with overweight women, one person not liking them wont cause a global imbalance.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

android654 said:


> It's his preference. How could someone not have one? Besides, there are plenty of people who are infatuated with overweight women, one person not liking them wont cause a global imbalance.


I know it is, and I don't disagree. I was asking him about his preferences.


----------



## Shemp (Mar 29, 2011)

I couldn't palm my face hard enough. I rate many things on a scale of 1-10, this isn't one of those things. I don't get how anyone can date based on personality type. Stupidest fucking idea ever. Can't we all just date people we want to, fuck up countless times until we find someone we work with and get married or just live together?

Also... Not sure if troll.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> I'm assuming this is your own personal view, or that of society in general? Also, it's interesting how being overweight relegates women to "4.5 and below", yet underweight isn't mentioned. Does being underweight have the same effect?


It also says "etc." That's the flexibility of this system.


----------



## Akrasiel (Oct 25, 2009)

Physical attractiveness only plays a mild role. Above all, hygeine, and health of mind and body are the bare minimum. Deformed people, obese, anorexic, mentally unstable, dirty, smelly etc people repulse me, not because I care about their attractiveness on a sexual level, but more so simply on a cohabiting level. For me to take note of someone, they have to stimulate my intellect or one of my interests in some way /after/ meeting the standard hygeine and health prerequisites. I do not dress up the fact that I tend to be repulsed by the mentally handicapped either.

Basically
Clean, healthy person with either a common interest or adequate intellect=datable.

No correlation to MBTI.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Since people's looks change for better or for worse as you get to know them, I believe my chart is a better representation of the relationship between looks and MBTI for dating preferences. The first impression of a person's looks is known as their _base score_ on the 1-10 scale. Their looks once you get to know them is known as the _actual score_. For each personality type, determine the base score then add the modifier to get their actual score. This chart will be revised in time to include modifiers for pheromonic factors, money, age, and penis size. 

ENTJ +3
INTJ +3
ENTP +2
INTP +2
INFJ +1
ENFJ +1
ESTP no modifier
ISTP no modifier
ENFP no modifier
INFP no modifier
ESFP -1
ISFP -1
ESTJ -2
ISFJ -2
ESFJ -3
ISTJ -3

:wink:


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

10 is just superfluous. Bombshells and drop-dead gorgeous people, anyone would recognize even if you have different tastes, but for me extremely beautiful people are all pretty similar and it's pointless distinguishing between a 9 and a 10. Similarly, to colleges, any SAT score from 2200-2400 is basically the same, same with 2000-2200. I'm a woman and I like men, but I do have "types" in women, and even though I don't find Angelina Jolie to be my type I have to admit she's a 5.

I prefer a five point scale.
1: You can't even look at without some unpleasant thoughts.
2: Not ugly to the extent of 1, but still unpleasant to look at.
3: Average, plain. If you're attracted to a 3, it isn't because of his looks.
4: Good looking. Positive, but not superlative adjectives to describe them.
5: You can't believe your luck. He looks like a Greek god.

As for what I personally like, I think I'll most likely end up with a 4, preferably of the INxx variant. I don't think I'm good looking enough to be matched with a 5, but seeing I'm a 4 myself it's simply a more comfortable relationship.

@Nitou: That's a good idea.


----------



## JMoney (Apr 16, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> You actually rate people on a scale of 1-10? That's quite sad, in my opinion.


all guys who are sexually aware do this, atleast subconsiously. It's just instinct.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> What would be the difference between 9.99999999999999 and 10 in this scale?


9.99999999999999:









10:












skycloud86 said:


> What exactly is it supposed to be? I've seen this picture before, but not sure why it seems to have a tumour around it's jaw.


It's a well known scientific fact that the longer one spends alone, that a tumour slowly buils up in their face, this poor fellow has it in his jaw.


Also, pic related:










Well done OP.


----------



## Ormazd (Jan 26, 2010)

I'm not good with Paint okay! :crazy:


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Selene said:


> You're just upset that you're a 1 on the *Selene's Attractiveness Scale*.


Nice.
But, I have a scale that beats yours for simplicity.

Are you an INFP?
Yes ---> You _may _be eligible to date me.
No ----> Piss off.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Arbite said:


> 9.99999999999999:


_*Blasphemy!*_


----------

