PDF Document:
Why I don’t have a girlfriend: An application of the Drake Equation to love in the UK Peter Backus
Most people would rather die than think, and most people do.
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
o.o
Holy fuck that was depressing. I have high standards and Regina is a little bit smaller than London. Just a bit though.
Depressing in a funny way though. I'll plug some numbers in there to see what I come up with later.
keep us posted
that was really interesting
second try
I tried this earlier and then my internet connection died (because apparently SaskTel sucks now) and I lost it all. So this is attempt two. Because... I'm still awake. Even though I barely slept last night. Yah.
G = N* x fwomen x fRegina x fage x fdegree x fattractive x fnon-religious x fvegetarian
I added the two terms there on the end because they are further conditions (although religiosity is as much a statement about the other direction too). The other terms are the same as his, but I use Canadian demographics.
G = 33,967,000 x 0.51 x 0.0061 x 0.136 x 0.37 x 0.05 x 0.44 x 0.1
He then adds some further factors, let's again assume half are married, but instead of his others, assume that my two added factors dramatically increase social compatibility in both directions such that there is a 1 in 4 chance of bi-directional compatibility and that perhaps 1 in 10 will also find me attractive.
So:
G = G x 0.5 x 0.25 x 0.1
G = 0.15
Now... If you recall, G is the total number of people in the city (in his case London @26) who are matchable. G for me is... distinctly lacking a whole number.
No wonder I like big cities. Apparently the person doesn't likely even exist until a city of at least 700,000.
obviously
you need a harem, each member of which fulfills one or two of your chosen requirements.
and more than 1 in 10 would find you attractive.
harems and percentages
Heheh, a harem eh. Thing is, I don't find people who don't fulfil nearly all of those requirements attractive in general. I'd be most flexible on the education factor, but only because a degree is not really a good reflection of one's intelligence.
On more than 1 in 10... that may be on the physical side, but I suppose I was also including the relative factor - kind of like what we discussed on B&N's porch that one day waiting for them to get home when they never did. At any rate, whatever degree to which I'm perceived as attractive, it certainly doesn't appear to have made any difference.
your attractiveness
Maybe those you attract are not assertive - and are waiting for you to be.
It was a looooooooong time before I asked out a girl on a date after the first rejection. If a girls wasn't very direct or actually ask me out herself, I would pretty much never do it. I would always assume women weren't interested in me and was quite amazed when I would find out that they were. I was too shy and lacked confidence.
It was a pretty interesting formula. Makes me wonder though as I have met quite a few women that I seemed to hit it off with and that I think, were I single, would be very relationshipy (me like me own words) material.
probably
Assertiveness still appears to largely be a requirement placed only on males, which I think is kinda dumb. But maybe my perception of this is incorrectly based on my own bias, which exists because I can't actually recall ever having been approached by someone, whereas I've approached many and never once had success.
For myself in regard to approaches, all I can say is that I never really know what to say. I don't tend to approach and talk to people that I don't know, and/because when I do, they react negatively. So whatever I'm doing I guess is not generally socially acceptable but I can't identify what that is**. If I'm already in a social setting then it seems to be fine because there are other words around to draw from, but when I'm not... I dunno, I'm definitely missing something. I also find most people's lives really boring and don't especially want to talk about mundane things.
**(Partial lie, I know that I tend to make most people uncomfortable when I look at them, but again I don't know for sure why that is, I just know it's so and it's why I try not to look at people I don't know when I talk to them.)
---
Edit: Coming out of a recent conversation, I learned of an interesting misconception readers may have gotten, and upon re-reading the thread, I have decided that this post is the likely cause. My bad.
My intention of the second paragraph was to broaden the discussion, although I realize now that I didn't actually state that explicitly or implicitly. By "approaches" I meant starting casual words with any stranger for any purpose not predetermined by external conditions (eg, not chatting with the person behind the cash register as you buy something). Most of my comments in the rest of this sub-thread and other posts as well were referring to this somewhat more generalized situation.
huh
That's interesting, I didn't realize you frequently got negative reactions. That certainly makes it difficult to keep trying.
yep
Yep, it does. And rather less often I get a positive reaction but then a negative one (or non-existent) the next time any attempt at contact is made suggesting the positive was not genuine.
Also - and I'm not committing the reductionist fallacy here, this is just purely my experience - although I tend to get along better with women and converse more easily with them, they are considerably less friendly at first. Guys are nearly always happy to talk to complete strangers but women almost never are. Can see it particularly on faces the very moment you open your mouth. Men soften slightly and tend towards curious slight smiles, women harden and turn defensive, often scowling slightly. Again, just my experience, but I'm curious what others may have noted.
Women can often be leery of
Women can often be leery of men approaching them. A man is potentially a pestering annoyance who won't take "no thanks" for an answer or an actual physical threat. Of course, women are always happy to talk to me :P
Haha, jk. It's not easy to approach a woman you don't know though. A little eye contact or a smile earlier in the evening can be helpful, see if there are any body language cues. I just break out my killer eyelashes, giving her the double whammy of my baby blues! (barf, gag, cheesy, lol)
strangers
I guess what I meant about talking to strangers there was more about like say you're all stuck in a line up and you turn to the person behind/in front of you and say something.
And yeah... that just stole the cheese award for the month lol
Hmm
"I also find most people's lives really boring and don't especially want to talk about mundane things."
Well I imagine people will pick up on that.
Also that mundane small talk can often be referred to as "flirting" :P
Or at least a lead in to it.
Self-Fulfilling
I agree and also think its kind of a self-fulfilling attitude. If you keep telling yourself that you find other people's lives boring, then you are setting yourself up to find EVERYONE's life boring before giving them a fair chance. You wont be able to find anyone's life anything but boring.
So, stop telling yourself that. Start telling yourself the opposite until you believe it and then it will actually come true.
-Dan
misunderstood
I think maybe people misunderstood my statement. I was talking about TV mostly... a lot of people don't really know anything about anything except several TV shows. They know nothing about politics, are completely unaware of scientific advancements, and are clueless about world events and have no interest in any of it. These people just lead completely uninteresting lives to me, and I certainly can imagine a thousand better ways to spend an evening than discussing various tv shows i've never seen. I'm interested in people who use their brains. It is a sad state of affairs, but stats certainly bear out that most of us spend most of our off-time watching sit-coms and bland drama on TV.
Wow
Intellectual elitism fail.
A way of saying this without being such a dick about it is to simply say "I find it hard to talk to people who don't share my interests". Politics, world events, and scientific advancement are every bit as childish and boring as TV shows and you are not necessarily using your brain being interested in those things. There's nothing wrong with people enjoying the popular stories that comprise their culture and wanting to discuss them with each other. People have always done this. Even smart, thoughtful people. Its just different types of interests, not different classes of intellectualism.
Anyway, I don't think I misunderstood and I stand by what I said before. Putting your intellect toward understanding people's interests and appreciating them may be a more productive attitude in building relationships than using it to drive an arbitrary wedge in between yourself and the uneducated peons.
-Dan
i been told yo!
Hahah, that was an awesome post. But I don't think it was an intellectual elitism fail at all - I thoroughly succeeded in representing my pompous intellectual elitism. :p
I'd like to point out though that I did say I ... find most people's lives really boring and don't especially want to talk about mundane things. Of course other people have different interests and other people will find different things boring and mundane. In no way shape or form would I be offended if they said that my life is boring because I don't watch TV (and I have been told this and similar things many many times in many many ways and I really don't care). It's nothing other than a statement of preference, just as mine was. If someone feels insulted because I don't find their life interesting, I think this is their problem, not mine. I am not responsible for someone else's sensitivities, and feel no requirement to lie to them and feign interest when I am really not, just so that they don't feel insulted when other people don't like the same things they do. If that makes me a dick because I won't lie, then so be it.
A distinction must be made. I am very interested in why they may find interesting whatever it is that they do. Infinitely interested, and it is where I will always steer such a conversation. What I find and what I lament is that many of these people do not really like talking about why they like what they like, they only like to talk about the material of what they like.
last paragraph
maybe you just need to give them a little more of a chance to think about why they like those things. sure, some reject any semblance of self-examination, but i've found that most people, when given the chance and once they feel comfortable with me, are open to a thoughtful look at their own interests. typically, this takes more than a few conversations and if people are already off-put by the glazed-over look in your eyes, you'll likely never get to that point.
i listened to an interview with a woman who wrote a book called Marry Him: the Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. might be worth a looky-loo. she does aim at women, but that's because women often have a list that tops 300 items that they are not willing budge on when looking for a partner (height, type of job, colour of socks, shoes, income, relationship with mother... that formula would narrow a woman's field of play considerably more than it narrowed yours). men have three or four, most of the time, but since you're a picky man, maybe you'll benefit, too.
need
"Need" is an interesting word choice. What made you choose it?
The idea of going so far as marrying someone because they are "good enough" seems completely abhorrent to me.
'need' as a word choice
'need' as a word choice simply went with the turn of phrase. i suggest you read nothing more into it than that.
obviously, i'm not advocating marriage if that's not a person's goal and neither is the author as she stressed in her interview this morning. her point is more that people (women, particularly, for what ever reason [although, i think that is the more interesting question]) seem to write people off during the course of their search for a life partner and, at the same time, express sadness that the perfect person hasn't come along. other than that, read the book or not, i don't actually care.
something i did consider when i was listening to her was the notion of perfection (and i'm not suggesting that you're looking for perfection, this is just a thought i had) in a mate. many of us marry young. we don't always know enough very much about who we are or who we want to be and maybe we don't choose people who will fit in well with the person we become. providing the relationship isn't painful for any involved, we have some choices about what to do if we make that realisation:
we can continue in the set pattern and see where that takes us
we can learn to negotiate our differences and compromise and possibly overlook some of those traits that we don't care for
we can leave and join our single friends in pursuit of the One (or the One Better Than This One)
if i made a list of what i want and compared that to Red, he might only score a 40%, but someone else might only score 50% and another only 60% and, really, i don't see much of a difference. even that person who matched at 100% likely has some other hidden habits or traits that i abhor which would bring his/her score down. i would always be compromising something and, well, i'm used to this.
i have come to the conclusion while watching friends look for life partners and studying other married couples i know (obviously not an exhaustive study, by any means) that what i have in my marriage may not be what i want all the time, but i don't really think there is anything better out there. Red is willing to talk and to listen even though i have to shout some times for him to hear me. he has also proved that he is willing to change and adapt and that, not a list of requirements, is far more important in a long term arrangement than anything else.
listened
I listened to it just now; after you said 'this morning' I figured must be Q.
My thoughts... not sure how useful that book would be, but it was an interesting interview. I don't think I'm really as picky as anything like what she described... that was pretty crazy really. Nowhere near that at all. I just strongly adhere to a very few make or breaks, a couple of which happen to be particularly rare in the population.
So I guess maybe my idea of "good enough" that I had previously envisioned was not in line with hers, which is why I reacted so negatively to it.
Why
I believe Socrates was a master of asking people why they do what they do. He pushed people, with his questions, to gain a deeper concept/understanding of why they do anything; to see the real mundane value of their mundane actions. He was not well liked at all. Turns out it pisses people off when they realize they don't have these answers about their own entire life.
Probably note that. Despite it asking questions of interest to a girl, it could probably be a sure-fire sabotage to a potential relationship.
the questions
One would hope this would depend on the style of asking and the nature of the questions. Certainly most people appreciate others taking an interest in their life. I think it would be at least equally sabotaging if you never ask anything at all.
Well
Yeah, it depends on the format and nature of the questions, but I think "why?" is universally the most irritating kind of question to people.
Ask someone what they are doing, they often will feel you are taking an interest. Ask someone why they are doing what they are doing, and it can have complicated reactions: they might feel the answer is obvious and you ought to figure it out yourself, or you're implying they are stupid for not knowing why (and if they think about it and don't actually know, feel like you're calling them out as stupid.)
I'm sure the craftsmen benefited from Socrates' questioning in the end, but they weren't about to give him a discount for it.
hmm interesting
This is definitely some food for thought, and I like how you rephrased it all in this comment. I think I get what you're saying now and did not earlier. The contrast of why to what made sense.
I do wonder if it might depend quite heavily on the subjects though... for example, I get asked both what and why questions quite a lot but I haven't paid that much attention to the surrounding context. I really enjoy both questions so happily dive into the responses, and some others may feel the same (i wouldn't mind hearing from others on this, on how they feel).
I also suspect that I dole out both question types in roughly equal supply - and equally have not paid particular attention to the surrounding context as a basis of comparison between the two. So while sometimes I might get positive responses and other times negative, I haven't been able to piece together why, and this would make sense if I haven't been aware that there is a social difference between the two in particular contexts.
This is really interesting.
You would like a woman who is assertive
and independant, right? So who cares if it makes some people edgy when you look into their eyes? I mean, eyes are a major attraction in the opposite sex,(from either side) and an assertive woman would immediately be put off if she couldn't make eye contact with you. Seems to me that this could be more of a positive for you as it weeds out women who have difficulty with strongly opinionated men.
I care
because it can complicate talking with people.
the relative factor
i wish i hadn't consumed quite so much wine that evening...
hee hee
Well we did intend it for four... we got pretty loopy lol
hmm
i think there are too many assumptions in this formula. did you use stats to determine how many women are married (and would that matter, in some instances?? there are many polyamorous tri-ways who have found happiness with each other) and like northedge mentioned, you really have no way of knowing how many would find you attractive, particularly if you haven't spoken with them yet. i can say with confidence that every woman to whom i've introduced you certainly finds you attractive--i realise that they might not fill some or many of your other requirements, but still, that's got to mean something.
perfection
No well I mean I did use stats but the system clearly isn't entirely accurate. It's just kind of funny really. It's pretty difficult to take into account how people can change in relation to people they meet, which is ultimately what getting to know anyone is about.
Again about the attractiveness though stepping back into the strictness of the equation, take a look at the numbers. Even if 100% do, it's almost irrelevant given the value for G that was arrived at anyway. Going from 0.15 to 1.5 people in a city of 200,000 doesn't really make a lot of difference. To me, that's what kinda makes the whole thing so funny.
imagery
i liked the idea of someone's forearm being a particularly good mate for you
mmmm forearms...
I have my own imagery going on now!
listen, you
Stop being so smartsy fartsy about it. As far as I know, you are a perfectly pleasant and personable individual. I enjoy talking to you and so do plenty of other people. People who are threatened/unsettled by your intensity are not appropriate people for you to be in a relationship. You therefore have access to a supreme filtering tool that is saving you a lot of time, energy, grief, and money (yes, many women still expect the man to pay). I completely understand your frustration. But there's nothing wrong with you. Maybe just take it easy on the new kids. ;)
reply sequencing and filters
Hmm. I'm pretty sure this comment of yours is not meant to be responding to NorthEdge? Pretty sure this is pointing at me... so imma just go ahead and respond based on that assumption. Still not entirely clear how NorthEdge's blog entry somehow turned into a deconstruction of me. It's weird how conversations work, heheh.
So that sounded a lot in the same vein as Frogfoot's comments, re the filter and such. I have to say though, I'm not sure I buy that. I mean, it may be convenient in terms of relationship-finding, but it's not at all useful for just generally finding other interesting people.
As I described in the non-web conversation with Frogfoot that I previously alluded to, there may well be some very interesting people out there who are for whatever reason being turned away by something I (or anyone, this conversation should not need to be centred on yours truly) do when initially encountering this new person. It's a bit... "easy" to say, oh well, if they were turned away then they're not someone who would be interesting. But that's not guaranteed ever to be the case. A very interesting person might get turned off, but you'd never know they were interesting unless you were later forced into a semi-extended social situation (like a classroom or something) with them where both people were forced to get to know each other and might find they have a lot in common. I've seen this happen, so I just don't buy the Filter argument.
Hmm. I guess that's an overly-wordy way of saying that we form false assumptions about the people we meet, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Point is, even if it's hard to avoid them, false assumptions can limit our social engagement.
That said, because I've met you much (much) more recently than other posters on here, that is rather more reassuring coming from you. Reason being, once we know a person, it's a lot harder to say what assumptions we had about them in those first moments we met them. If we like a person we meet, we tend to quickly forget anything about them that initially may have made us wary.
(Arg... must be late at night. My posts are getting longer and longer with each one I type...)
you said it
false assumptions can limit our social engagement
Absolutely. One of my best friends, someone I have known for 10 years, have been in business with for 5 years and that I trust and respect was someone that I disliked when I first met him. I knew him casually for a few months at air traffic college. He seemed like a complete blowhard, a jerk, and quite frankly not all that bright. I haven't met too many people that make such an awful first impression.
Then, when he moved to where I was about a year later, I realised how completely wrong I was. He is very intelligent, highly educated, and approached training with one of the best attitudes I have ever come across. He was my first trainee, he had only a few months less experience than me and he was older than me - yet he was very receptive to the experience. It was quite humbling to realise how completely wrong I was. Not that he isn't a bit of a dick at times but the scenes I saw him in were very artificial - at school, under stress, where everyone is boozing and acting the ass. I never made the effort to get to know him better.
This is also reminiscent of some comments I made before in a past post where we were again dissecting your love life (seems to be fun, hehe). I said that many women no longer find me attractive initially due to my unusual? appearance. But if I can get a chance to talk to them, it's usually quite easy to pick them up. If I did that sort of thing, hehe. A group setting with common friends works well for that. Approaching someone cold, not so much.
trusting the gut
Something in the phrasing there reminded me of something. We've discussed numerous times on SQ about that essential part of science that is learning to be lead by your gut instincts, but not to trust them. Trusting them is what gets people into trouble.
But this isn't really any different in the social realm, is it. We're just as fallible when it comes to gauging other people as we are gauging our finances, or gauging our understanding of physical laws. Bottom line is... we just shouldn't ever trust our gut.
I can't help but think of the memetic phylogeny I developed for that paper. Tier One had this particular trait of humans in it and briefly explained its biological source. It's amazing how widespread the influence of some of those low-level ones.
I have so many things to say
I have so many things to say in response to this thread. So, so, so many. But, I have to go to work. Like, now.
So, just one quick point - gut instincts are important and trusting them is important. Please look up Eve Ensler/feminism ideology for some more on this. Also, that's how anyone I've talked to who has managed to avoid almost being sexually assaulted has gotten out of it. And I've talked to many, many, many more people who ignored the gut feelings and ended up being sexually/physically assaulted. Those warning signs and feelings are one of the most important things you have
Irrelevant. Boys don't get
Irrelevant. Boys don't get sexually assualted.
;)
In all seriousness, of course there are plenty of interesting people who I might enjoy knowing. Who has time for every interesting person? Focus on those who display substance of character and openness. Having that filter doesn't mean you can't bypass it now and then, but it is a handy tool.
?
Boys don't get sexually assaulted?
I guess that was tongue in cheek based on your emoticon?
I often question gut instinct. There's a difference between training and/or experienced people unconsciously recognizing certain cues and people, after the fact, referring to their gut instinct. How many times have they heard a noise, been scared by someone, seen something "wrong," and it turned out to be nothing? We remember the times we were right more readily than times we were wrong. "mother's intuition" is a prime example of that.
careful wording
My wording was not careful in that post because it was my mind wandering. I was more careful in my paper, and I should clarify here because you were right to have a strong reaction.
I said bottom line is... we just shouldn't ever trust our gut. I said it this way because of the distinction I was drawing between trusting and following. In the absence of that distinction - which I didn't take the time to explain adequately - that statement sounds ludicrous. I was meaning that it is a very good practise to use our gut instinct as a guide for our actions (whether investigating a scientific principle, a criminal case, or who to associate with) but we should not rely on it as the only measure. We should let it point the way to what is likely so, but we should not have faith that it is so, all the time.
I think numbers are useful here to further elucidate the distinction. This gut instinct in many cases is simply an expression of risk-avoidance, and it's developed to some extent by the pattern recognition system in our brain. If we spot a pattern in others of negative behaviour, the brain will react by providing the conscious mind with a negative reaction to all of those people, even if it is only right on a few accounts.
Let's take a population of Xs, and let's say that a person (not an X) has a gut reaction towards all people who fit into the X category. Of all those people who fit the description of X, perhaps 60% actually exhibit the particular characteristic that is causing the gut reaction. In this sense, the instinct is "mostly" correct. Now, if that particular characteristic we're talking about is a murdering psychopathic rapist, the risk is very very high. In this case, the pattern the brain spotted might be that only 1% of Xs are extremely high risk, but because that risk is just so high, it is prudent to avoid ALL Xs. Thus the brain gives our consciousness a strongly negative gut reaction to all Xs, even if 99% of them are perfectly decent well-meaning folks.
That is what I meant by saying we can't trust our gut. We can follow it, but we can't out-of-hand believe that our instincts are always 100% correct, even though this is what we're inclined to do thanks to certain evolutionary principles.
This is also of course why most common stereotypes have some element of truth (and sometimes where they may not have originally, they wind up having one because of some other interesting effects). If something is right enough of the time, it doesn't matter that it isn't right all the time; we easily ignore the misses and focus on the hits.
*concludes another long-winded response*
side note
An interesting side story to this is that by becoming intimately aware of what your gut is telling you about people at all times, you can not only become an effective assessor of the personalities of everyone around you, you can also make a ton of money in the psychic business. People have reasons (not usually conscious ones) for the things they think, and if you learn to spot the clues, you can know the probabilities of what they experienced to build those reactions. (It's all about the probabilities.)
Even more interesting is how people look. Our hormonal balance determines a great deal of how we think about things. Somewhat by coincidence, the same hormones determine some subtle characteristics of how our bodies get put together. You can tell a range of likely personality types simply by the way their body is shaped - especially their face because our brain has the most recognition hardware for faces. See a broad face with moderately prominent cheek-bones, that correlates with amicability. See a narrowing of the chin, that indicates a strong sense of individuality and independence. Slightly down-turned outer edge of the eyes - particularly on rounder eyes - and you've got someone who is likely quite empathetic.
None of this expresses consciously in most people, but we all do it. When we see a face, we often get an immediate reaction of whether or not we would like that person. And it is correct enough times that the misses are easily ignored. (Plus, we can't know what we can't know, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. You'll never know if you would've gotten along with the people you turned away.) Our thoughts and our opinions are more biologically determined than some of us would like to think. Eh, let me rephrase. The range of likelihoods for our personality is more biologically determined than some of us would like to think.
A certain friend of ours (me, you, and ursa) from a certain other forum was the recipient of me trying this out, to what she described, as eerily correct. (Beth.) I'm not sure how well she'll remember the incident as it was closing in on a year ago now.
Super Side Note: Beth just
Super Side Note: Beth just came back to the internet world, recently. She was amazingly fantastic to hang out with in person (I actually liked her even better in person than online) and she is one of those people who I wish it was more geographically possible to see more often. I know Leila and I feel the same way about hanging out with you. (Although, she more than I, I'm sure, since you two were actually legit real life friends.)
Thank you for your clarification regarding gut instincts. After you explained, that makes me agree with you pretty much exactly. Not much more I can say on that subject, since you pretty well covered it.
Other things relating to what people have said:
1. Don't worry, everyone, boys get sexually assaulted. 1 in 7 by the age of eighteen. Typically they are assaulted by heterosexual men.
2. Sean, while maybe it is not the simplest or most practical, you could expand where a potential girlfriend could come from by expanding your geographic location. Leila and I were obviously very far apart, and while I know the internet is not the best place for many people to meet a SO, considering other places, even just towns nearby, could broaden your opportunities.
3. I actually don't think most people are "too picky" about who they date. Maybe it's just because I see the other side on a daily basis, but it appears to me (granted, this is only my anecdotal evidence) that many people are in relationships for the sake of being in a relationship or settle for a partner who doesn't treat them as well as they should, isn't as stable financially or emotionally, etc. I think having high standards is a good thing. But, I've always been of the more perfectionist typology.
4. I wonder if that is true about faces actually being reflective of our personalities. I've found that many people find me easy to talk to/open up to me about their lives/problems. And, I'm frequently the person who seems to be approached as a non-threatening entity to ask for directions or whatever by strangers. I've wondered if it's something about my appearance that made that so.
5. I probably have more things to say, but, I've forgotten them at this point.
sphere
Geography is an awkward thing. I've thought a lot about this (your '2'). I don't know that I can do that. I just don't think i'm the kind of person who can have a long-distance relationship like that at all. Not sure how to put this in english... if I can't observe a person, then they stay in the letters. I can get along well with them just fine there, but until I can map them for a while, they won't move outside the word shape place, and I can't really understand things inside that place in that way. If they were with the colours, it would be totally different, but they're not and I can't move them artificially. I've tried, but I can't.
Towns nearby... Hmm. I'm not sure if you know much about the demography of the prairies, but... ya, not gonna happen lol :)
gawd...
You're such a nerd.
shush
Shush you! :p
>.>
that made perfect sense to me....
thought
I thought it might.
Last name crazyness
It has something to do with your geneology.
Moosejaw is only an hour
Moosejaw is only an hour away. And you shouldn't dismiss farm girls as a possibility! So, there are /some/ choices outside of Regina.
And I think it's fine if you know that you're not a long distance person. I think you just need to decide how important a relationship is to you. Is it an added bonus? Is it a necessity? Is it your goal in life to find a partner? It's worth worrying about, extending your network, possibly compromising if it is a necessity...but, if it's just a bonus, then just do your thing, and if you find someone, great, and you don't, that's good, too.
farm girls?
There aren't many of those left lol. The average age of rural SK is something like 62. A great many people under 50 have moved to the cities over the past couple of decades, and 20-30 somethings have already nearly universally abandoned rural life. Lots and lots of soon-to-be ghost towns out there. There's also a stark political and religious contrast between urban and rural people.
I'm not sure I can really make a value statement about how important a relationship is to me without knowing the person. I can say that i'd like to have a relationship... and that I'd rather have one than not have one... but I think that's all I can really say. I dunno. There's a lot of other things that seem to me to be more important, because any one person is not very important so whatever can be done that furthers the lot of more people is more important. And since I've gone for so long without, been in living situations where one isn't particularly possible, and have had a complete lack of success finding myself one for a lot of years now, I guess most of me is pretty thoroughly used to not having one. It's sort of like... I feel a lot less like I am limiting others than I am being limited by others.
I dunno. I'm really tired and I might be rambling. I have this distant memory that sleep is supposed to occur when ppl get tired, but I can't seem to find any. Anyone selling some sleep?
faces
On your 4, it really is true. I had suspected this somewhat sub-consciously for some time, but when I ran across Derren Brown, I learned that this is a common tool in a mentalist's arsenal, and by extension, a tool likely used for several centuries by sooth-sayers and psychics. "Magician's secrets" so to speak. People who look alike often act alike - not always, but often enough that it's a safe bet.
It's one of those things that the body scientific has some anecdotal evidence for and can think of a variety of ways whereby it should be so, but is reluctant to formally pursue it because that will instantly conjure up the shadow of biological determinism and will get the rabble-rousers on their toes chanting about science being all a giant eugenics plot and evolution being the work of the devil. We've seen this happen before. There are some things in science we're just not allowed to explore yet because the public understanding simply isn't keeping pace with our collective knowledge, and our egos are frighteningly fragile. Just too many people ready to leap on anything in order that they may satisfy their need to feel demonized and attacked - terribly masochistic culture that we are.
Just to exemplify this, remember the uproar by that guy who surveyed IQ across the races? This happened a few years ago and caused an international stir. In that case, it really was some jack-ass racist writing a book about his beliefs because his methodology was such crap (belief-lead inquiry) that he couldn't get his articles published. But that sort of thing puts a massive chill on REAL science being done on that entire area and anything related. There might well be such differences between races (not necessarily IQ, but any other number of traits), but we are simply not allowed to investigate it because the act of looking will offend the sensitivities of a great number of people. I might even take flak just for going as far as I did here, but I will defend myself by saying that we know there are medical differences in rates of disease etc, and we do not know all their causes yet, so there are differences whose sources may cause further differences as well. But we can't know if we're not allowed to look.
Bringing this back to faces: Nobody with double-round cheek bones wants to hear they're more likely to be a (non gender-specific) slut. Nobody with forward-set eyes wants to find out that they are more likely to be a manipulative back-stabber (socially, not literally). Because these are only statements of probability, people will completely misunderstand the results because we think in such absolutes.
There is nothing deterministic about it though. Our genes set ranges of likelihood, life determines the rest. It's that way for cancer, athleticism, etc; why should it not be so for personality as well? In terms of disease, we are beginning to think of genetic predispositions as things we should pay attention to throughout life. If we know we're likely to get colon cancer, then we should adjust our life accordingly to avoid this. The same here - if we know we might be predisposed towards an unbecoming personality trait, well knowing this will allow us to try to prevent it from occurring. This is how it should be, but it's obviously not how people are going to understand it at this point in time.
I strongly advocate investigating it for yourself if you're interested, because it's really damned interesting. But you have to be strongly disciplined in any pursuit of it because like anything, if we go hunting for patterns in a highly multi-variate environment based on preconceived notions, we're going to find those patterns whether they exist or not (Bible Code, anyone?). Let the evidence decide, not the gut. Mentalists train their visual memories extensively before doing this. Understandably, if you don't have a fantastic cataloguing ability for facial attributes, it's going to be very difficult to draw any worthwhile associations from such an incomplete data set.
super side note
Good to hear about Beth... I invited her here months back, but maybe with you two posting more regularly she'd now be more interested? Work on her! lol Would be good to hear from her again.
I'll ask her, but, I have a
I'll ask her, but, I have a feeling it wouldn't be her thing...she tends to focus more on the flirty/fun/fluff on forums (I think because she has enough on her own plate to worry about). It would be great if she joined, though. :)