Ha! I know that strategy too: rank order them as they come in, ignore the first 1/e percent (roughly 37%), and then take the first one after who is your best so far.
This is probably not good dating advice, although lots of people take a far looser version, which is that there is a strong urge (and societal pressure), to settle down at a certain age, and a lot of that pressure is because the assumption that the dating pool dries up around the early 30s (which I think is kind of a wrong assumption, but whatever).
However, this formula is fantastic for finding apartments. Take an n which is the number of apartments you think you have the tolerance to look at (say 15). Look at then n/e (~5) of them without any chance of renting to get a feel for the market, and then take the first one after that that's the best.
spidere: Isoquants! I had thought of these as indifference curves, mainly because it's my demand curve, not the production (!) of women.
susy: The idea is that each increasing number is exponentially more unlikely: somebody who's a 10 is just someone who that our intellectual minds are just perfectly matched. To put it another way, I've never met a 10 on either scale. For a long time, I believed that meeting a 10 even with complete antipathy on the other scale, would be enough, so those people would have to be very rare.
Yeah, that's the idea. Of course, for most people, you don't really know exactly where they fall (especially before a first date), so you just take your best guess, your margin of error, and hope for the best.