What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rating Game: The Foolproof Formula for Finding Your Perfect Soul Mate
The if you're always getting dumped it's because you're dating people who are better than you. If you're always dumping people it's because you're dating people that aren't good enough for you. Rate yourself and others, only date those who rate the same as you!
The Start rating, using the book's fast and fun 1-10 score. Ratings are based on four areas; face, body, personality, and life situation.
The The Rating The Foolproof Formula for Finding Your Perfect Soul Mate is the ultimate guide to finding the person who's right for you. Utilize the easy and fast points system and start dating the right people right now!
The Start rating, using the book's fast and fun 1-10 score. Ratings are based on four areas; face, body, personality, and life situation.
The The Rating The Foolproof Formula for Finding Your Perfect Soul Mate is the ultimate guide to finding the person who's right for you. Utilize the easy and fast points system and start dating the right people right now!
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 10, 2009
Okay, I'm really disappointed that goodreads just ate my review... not very encouraging as I rarely take the time to write reviews :(
So, here's the short version. Reba's books is suprisingly compelling and predictive despite its superficial approach to dating and relationships (it is not solely superficial, though largely so). The theory is that most dating fails because one is 1) dating down (and always dumping people); 2) dating up (and always being dumped); or 3) in dating denial (and not dating). [I'm so clearly a 3....:] Her proposed solution is to rate oneself and others on a 1-10 scale in four areas: face, body, personality, and living situation. The scale is as follows: 10=perfection; 9=the best in the room; 8=great; 7=good; 6=above averaage; 5=average; 4=okay; 3=below average; 2=not good; 1=call security. Note that one person's 9 may be another's 5, so there is a personal/intuitive aspect to this and it's meant to be used on an individual, personal basis, not a competitive social basis.
Once you have the four numbers, you average them and lop off the decimal. Voila! That's your dating range. If you're a 7.5, then you want to be dating in the 7.0-7.9 range. Your numbers can change over time and in some cases, the relationship itself can change your numbers for better or for worse (e.g., life situation), resulting in a sort of Heisenberg principle of dating/rating...
I can't decide if this is conflicts with or complements (or both) Falling in Love: Why We Choose the Lovers We Choose which discusses mating and dating from a psycho-socio-cultural perspective covering a lot of fascinating academic research and clinical case studies. Here's one of the examples (which probably belongs in a different review, but what the heck): two strangers, a man and a woman are brought into a room. The experimenter takes a polaroid of the man and gives him a polaroid of the woman. The woman never receives any photo; the man receives a pre-selectted photo of an "attractive" or "unattractive" woman (i.e., not of the actual woman he is about to speak to). They have a 10-minute conversation, which are recorded and judged for liveliness, warmth, intimacy, sexiness, and sociability. The women who spoke to men who *thought* they were talking to a beautiful woman were friendlier, more open, more flirtatious than the women who spoke to men who thought they were talking to unattractive women.
So, here's the short version. Reba's books is suprisingly compelling and predictive despite its superficial approach to dating and relationships (it is not solely superficial, though largely so). The theory is that most dating fails because one is 1) dating down (and always dumping people); 2) dating up (and always being dumped); or 3) in dating denial (and not dating). [I'm so clearly a 3....:] Her proposed solution is to rate oneself and others on a 1-10 scale in four areas: face, body, personality, and living situation. The scale is as follows: 10=perfection; 9=the best in the room; 8=great; 7=good; 6=above averaage; 5=average; 4=okay; 3=below average; 2=not good; 1=call security. Note that one person's 9 may be another's 5, so there is a personal/intuitive aspect to this and it's meant to be used on an individual, personal basis, not a competitive social basis.
Once you have the four numbers, you average them and lop off the decimal. Voila! That's your dating range. If you're a 7.5, then you want to be dating in the 7.0-7.9 range. Your numbers can change over time and in some cases, the relationship itself can change your numbers for better or for worse (e.g., life situation), resulting in a sort of Heisenberg principle of dating/rating...
I can't decide if this is conflicts with or complements (or both) Falling in Love: Why We Choose the Lovers We Choose which discusses mating and dating from a psycho-socio-cultural perspective covering a lot of fascinating academic research and clinical case studies. Here's one of the examples (which probably belongs in a different review, but what the heck): two strangers, a man and a woman are brought into a room. The experimenter takes a polaroid of the man and gives him a polaroid of the woman. The woman never receives any photo; the man receives a pre-selectted photo of an "attractive" or "unattractive" woman (i.e., not of the actual woman he is about to speak to). They have a 10-minute conversation, which are recorded and judged for liveliness, warmth, intimacy, sexiness, and sociability. The women who spoke to men who *thought* they were talking to a beautiful woman were friendlier, more open, more flirtatious than the women who spoke to men who thought they were talking to unattractive women.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 of 1 review