Kevin Presents the Crazy/Hot Postulate

One day when I was watching an episode of CBS’ hit TV sitcom How I Met Your Mother, one of the main characters in the show makes a provocative mathematical representation of a woman’s “datability.” In this, admittedly overly simplified definition, a woman’s datability is determined by her ratio o f hot to crazy. Please watch the video for the full theory as defined by Barney.

So what Barney has done is define a classical economics indifference curve, with datable women above the graph and undatable women below. Now while his ideas are interesting, it’s ultimately too simple. To start off, every man has differing Crazy/Hot Graphs (CHGs), representative of their preferences. In Barney’s case, he prefers his women to be hotter than they are crazy. However, there is no reason why the preference ratio has to be 1:1 or better, nor does that ratio need to be consistent throughout the graph. The linear graphical depiction as presented in HIMYM is a rather unique case. To make a more generalized graph that fits the majority of guys, I would like to present my own Crazy/Hot Postulate).  While the details are up for debate, the general idea is there and 60% of the time this will apply every time 

To start off, we should define the parameters of our graph. Starting with the X axis, we start off with 0 crazy, indicating a completely rational logical human being. Basically a man with boobs and better hygeine. This axis then runs to 100% crazy, on the level of Elizabeth Bathory of Hungaria or perhaps the classy broads of 2Girls1Cup. On  the Y axis we have a pretty stereotypical 0-100 Hot Scale. With 0 as Hillary Clinton and 100 being ludicrously hot (insert your ideal woman here, as long as it’s not Hillary Clinton). 



Figure 1: Crazy Hot Graph


Now let’s move to the plot itself. In my estimation, the y-intercept can not be 0. No matter how not Crazy a girl is, there’s a certain Hot threshold that most guys simply will not dip below. Starting from there, we have a traditional exponential rise. In the beginning there is not a significant demand of Hotness for an increase in Craziness because the total Crazy is so low. But as the total Craziness builds, every additional increase in Craziness warrants a much higher increase in Hot. In lay terms, if your girlfriend is low in Craziness and high in Hotness (much like the significant other of yours truly), she sits well above the curve. Any minor increase in Craziness will not nudge her past the line into undatable territory. But if you happen to have a girl that’s sitting right on the curve, any prolonged or permanent increase in Craziness without the necessary increase in Hotness (or vice versa, as stipulated by her location on the graph) will make her as unappealing as a conversation  on cramps and bloating.

Let’s continue. As you can see there is a point at which the graph no longer rises continuously, instead there is a discontinuous jump to a platform we designate the Jessica Alba Plateau. The jumping off point is personal to each guy depending on his risk tolerance. We arbitrarily drew the line at the level of Crazy where there is SIGNIFICANT risk of physical harm. When the risk is already that high, any further increases in Craziness is virtually unnoticeable. After all, if you’re gonna get stabbed in the leg with a butter knife, what’s another fork in the arm? Thus there is no further demand on Hotness with additional increases in Craziness. The extra demand is made at the initial jump point. This Hotness differential between the endpoint of the continuous graph and the start of the JAP is the luxury tax a girl must pay to be THAT crazy and still datable, something we call the Preposterously Bananas  Levy (PBL).



Figure 2: Area under the curve = bad times


Well that basically sums up the major points on the graph. Now let’s look at one final thing, a simple integral. From here you notice that the integral defines the entire undatable zone. Since the area changes drastically with individual  CHGs, this is reflective of each guy’s selectivity factor.