The Drake Equation Applied To Finding An Ideal Mate

So there's this equation that is used to determine the possibility of intelligent life on other planets in our universe and apparently a couple of physicists extrapolated this to apply to (funny enough) the scant likelihood of finding an adequate girlfriend within our cities.

So let's see how this affects me with rough numbers just for demonstration purposes.

• I start with the population of the metro Atlanta area. (Roughly 429,000).
• Then from there, I whittle it down to my age range: we'll say from the age 24-35.
• This leaves me with about 35% or so of the population.
• Then I'm looking for a college grad, which knocks out about 3/4ths.
• Then I realize I need a single girl, which lowers the odds even more.
• How many of those remaining girls are attractive to me?
• Of those girls, how many are attracted to me?

Then all of that is before I really even get to know anything personal about them; their religious views (or lack thereof), their political leanings, temperament, etc.

Basically I'm probably left with relatively little chance of finding a girl that would be good for me. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not desperate for a girlfriend at this point, but it really puts the whole 'perfect match' thing into perspective when physicists are using an equation normally used for determining the existence of intelligent life on other planets and applying it to finding an intelligent partner here on our home planet.

Then again, using this equation at all probably says a lot about one's singlehood.  Maybe.

For the actual paper on this, check this out. (PDF)

Update: I found out This American Life did an episode on this.  Check it out.

Guys With Symmetrical Brains = Gay. Asymmetrical Brain = Straight, study finds

(Vice-versa for the women.)

So there's a new article that's out on NewScientist that details a study from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden that gives insight based on findings regarding similarities between the brains of those who are gay in comparison with those who are straight and of the opposite sex. The study details how they've observed physical differences between the brains of gays and heteros.

According to the article:

The results showed that straight men had asymmetric brains, with the right hemisphere slightly larger – and the gay women also had this asymmetry. Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women.

I've always thought it was silly that people suggest that those who choose their 'alternative lifestyle' were not born with this gay-love gene (so to speak) naturally embedded in them but rather they voluntarily created these innate sexual desires in their psyche (so that they would undoubtedly be shunned by mainstream society, voluntarily live as black-sheep to be denied several benefits given to the rest of society all for the sake of wanting to plaster a rainbow sticker on their car because 'it looks cool.')

But even if there is now a way to detect physical characteristics of a 'gay brain', that's not to say that you wont find the occasional straight woman mouth-banging her straight girlfriend in the corner of the club, surrounded by every dude with their Motorola Krazr in hand to document the scandal for a later splash-session. As you undoubtedly are aware--when two girls make-out, this isn't conclusive evidence as to the sexual orientation of said girls. However, let two straight guys make out and there will be a slightly different appraisal of 'the matter'. If not for the social expectation that men be macho, would you see more male B.F.F.'s swapping out the outdated high-five for a high tongue or a friendly hand-job?

So I was curious (non-sexually this time); why is it socially "awesome!" and not an indicator of sexual preference when a straight woman eats her girlfriend's face? Yet when a man whose Myspace sexual preference status on his profile reads 'straight', does the same thing, there'd undoubtedly be comments from his top 48 (and possibly Tom) asking what the hold up is, and wonder when he'll be "Myspace Gay Official."

There would be no acceptance of this explanation: "Dude. Yeah, I only make out with Ryan when I drink too much and get like totally GAYsted. It happens, right guys? Come on. Who wants to go to Hooters with me? I hear there are boobs EVERYWHERE! Guys. Guys?? Hey, come back. My brain is asymetrical!"

So as I often do with faced with a quandary I cannot figure out on my own, I turned to the wide vastness of bottomless knowledge from the people on the World Wide Internets. We all know what straight men think about straight men that make out, and we kind of have an idea of what straight women think about straight women that make out (they hate them because they're doing it for 'attention.) But what do gay women think about straight women that make out? Here's what I found:

What do gay women think about straight women who make out...?

So what do gay women think about straight women who make out with other girls just to get a man's attention? do you not care? or does it piss you off. I'm a straight girl myself and I have two other straight friends who decided that they wanted to become lesbians for the summer they both decided to only make out with each other only if there was a guy involved my other friend who doesn't even agree with gay marriage or think it's right to be gay(Yes I know confusing) talked about how she thinks that girls are hot when she sees them out in public ,even though when I'm with her and she sees a girl she says mean things about her but if she's a guy she's all up on his nuts trying to get his number. So this confuses me and pisses me off and I'm straight so what do gay women think about girls like that who only pretend to be gay for a mans attention?

Answer:

i think its ******* bullshit because it makes it harder for us ( the girls that are gay) to come out of the closet as an legit lesbian. Also it makes it harder for people to accept homosexuality as being a feeling and a lifestyle instead of a choice made by some dumb chick to turn some dude on. To put it plain and simple its really pointless. Also I know that you didn't ask this but, I think your friend who "says" she has a problem with gay people and then "says" chicks are hot and then kiss them, might just be a little bit gay.

I hope this helped you out
have a great day!

Lesbians want 'legitimacy' people. And I wish more of you would be conscientious of this. In all actuality though, this girl's concerns are misguided---I don't foresee a shortage of blue-balled dudes standing by willing to act as Lesbo Legitimizers.

and...


...although I do sympathize with the plight of the asymmetric-brain wielding lesbian in that advice column, I think the things she says are counterproductive to her cause. If she wishes to remove sophomoric P.D.N.G.A. (public display of non-gay affection) from the public arena, she must also be willing to accept the realization that others may be able to cast a preference of their own on what should/should not be displayed publicly as well, and at times, they may even act on it.

But really, I don't think I was supposed to have a point.



Additional resources:

NewScientist article - Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

It's Okay To Keep Those Feelings Inside

Contrary to popular notions about what is normal or healthy, new research has found that it is okay not to express one's thoughts and feelings after experiencing a collective trauma, such as a school shooting or terrorist attack.

I need to print out this article and hand to my girlfriend mid-bitching session when considering her trifles are a lot less significant than the scenarios mentioned in the article that don't require venting of any sort.

Edit: I technically don't have a girlfriend but that's obviously just a coincidence. This being the case in no way implies a direct correlation between the statement I just made and my current relationship status of 'none'. I think.

a 'sticky' situation

You might remember in 2002 when the Cobb County school district in Atlanta opted to circumvent a sticky situation between several parents and the scientific standards of their school board by inserting a sticker inside their biology textbooks that stated evolution was "a theory, not a fact" and should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Maybe not so surprisingly, the A.C.L.U. immediately accosted the school board for their overzealous impediment on the constitution, but the school board stated they were only wanting to assuage those parents who were pretty upset with what appeared to be a no-win face-off against evolution being promulgated in public schools.

In November of 2004, Clarence Cooper - a federal judge in Atlanta – began hearing testimony about this situation and in early 2005 ruled that the placement of these stickers within the textbooks violate the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state, and further, by perhaps putting much emphasis on the phrase ‘this is a theory’ aside the phrase "not a fact" summarily after--it appeared to have the possible, even if inadvertent aim, of dissuading the students from giving a respectable level of credence to evolution.

It was believed that the wording may very well play on the students' preconceived notions of what a theory is without giving much weight to the actuality of the rigorous standards a 'scientific theory' must withstand, and the consensuses that much be reached, to be labeled as such. A scientific theory isn't an arbitrary guess, after all.

Keeping that in mind, it’s somewhat fascinating that Florida's anti-evolution school-board members may have gotten far less than what they actually thought they were getting, and far more of what they don’t want.

Yesterday, By a vote of 4-3, the Florida school board members opted to have the word 'evolution' replaced with the phrase 'the scientific theory of evolution' as the meat of their compromise, thereby ironically using the powerful phrase ‘scientific theory’ as the opponents’ own coup-de-grace. Until now, Florida's schools weren't required to teach evolution. The old curriculum guidelines didn't even mention it by name.

Nice.


Additional resource(s):

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed a bill that says that a student can receive a passing grade in an Earth Science class if they say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth an hour ago, and then planted false memories into every single living creature on Earth to make it seem like they’ve been around longer.

Read the rest here.

(He's being facetious, but you get the point.)