daletom Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 For all the folks who are sad, discouraged, or depressed because they are "nn" years old ("nn" is some number between 15 and 40), and don't have a boyfriend or girlfriend, have you taken the time to work through the analysis shown at: "Peter Backus uses alien maths to explain why single men can't find a girlfriend" http://www.news.com.au/technology/student-peter-backus-uses-drake-equation-to-explain-why-single-men-cant-find-a-girlfriend/story-e6frfro0-1225818675860 "Peter Backus - Why I Don't Have a Girlfriend: An Application of the Drake Equation" "Why I Don't Have a Girlfriend: An Application of the Drake Equation to Love in the UK" http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/phd_students/backus/girlfriend/why_i_dont_have_a_girlfriend.pdf See, the answer all comes down to simple numbers! Link to post Share on other sites
BoneyHadger Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Let’s be generous and say I find 1 in 20, or 5 % of age appropriate women in London with a university education physically attractive. (0.05) LMAO @ calling 1 in 20 women physically attractive being generous. Link to post Share on other sites
sillyanswer Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 See, the answer all comes down to simple numbers! Blessed are the geek: for they shall inherit the earth. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
ChessPieceFace Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 LMAO @ calling 1 in 20 women physically attractive being generous. What HE FINDS physically attractive. SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. I see tons of "hot girls" that I can objectively say are attractive yet are really NOT a type I am attracted to. Good lord, I can't believe I have to explain that. OP, I fail to see any point to what you linked. Skimmed through the video and I feel dumber just for the small parts I watched. Fails to be informative and fails to be comedy. It's a shame because there really is a good opportunity for scientific analysis on this topic: why western men can't find a good wife anymore, including things like feminism destroying the family, and women believing contradictory things (they should make as much as men while finding a man who makes more than they do.) Would have been interesting to see real numbers on that one. Wasted opportunity. Link to post Share on other sites
BoneyHadger Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 What HE FINDS physically attractive. SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. I see tons of "hot girls" that I can objectively say are attractive yet are really NOT a type I am attracted to. Good lord, I can't believe I have to explain that.What is "objective attractiveness" in the first place? Is there some sort of unified system of rating attractiveness of all individuals? And if there was, how (if at all) is its objectivity achieved? Link to post Share on other sites
Author daletom Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 OP, I fail to see any point to what you linked. I thought it was an example of a geeky/nerdy person (like myself) poking a bit of fun at geeky/nerdy people, by taking a "scientific" approach to what is fundamentally a non-scientific question. Actually, there ARE a few accurate points behind his calculations (e.g., relationships don't happen if there is NOT attraction, people tend to be attracted to others with similar intelligence and education, etc) but the arbitrary assignment of probabilities is the glaring weakness. It's a shame because there really is a good opportunity for scientific analysis on this topic: why western men can't find a good wife anymore, including things like feminism destroying the family, and women believing contradictory things (they should make as much as men while finding a man who makes more than they do.) Would have been interesting to see real numbers on that one. Wasted opportunity. There probably ARE examples of both valid, and bogus, research into the factors you mentioned. Perhaps somebody can find and post examples for discussion. There is a slightly-related study, dealing with the correlation between vocations and relationship stability, mentioned at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091607509.html but I'm not aware of anyplace online where the study itself is freely available so we cant really build a discussion thread about it. Link to post Share on other sites
Mrlonelyone Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I did something like that for myself once. It went. N = number of people in my state. (approx 11 million) O = proportion open to a relationship with a bigendered bisexual biological male. (about 2 X the proportion who are openly LGBT) E = proportion who have at least a 4 year degree. (about 30%) F = proportion who are not overweight or obese ( about 30%) A = Proportion who are between 20 and 40 (15%) S = number of such people who are single (as in not married the only good statistic, about 50%) There are about 10,000 people I could get with in this state or 0.09% of the people here. Which sounds about right to me. What kind of a person can really have a relationship with more than 1% of the people? 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts