I don’t normally read the Wall Street Journal and fall off my chair laughing. But, I had the occasion recently to do just that.
Jo Craven McGinty wrote a piece on finding love. Complete with an equation. (Of course, it was the week of Valentine’s Day.)
OK. I am a nerd. I not only understood that equation completely- but I have used my own version of that equation over the years.
The equation I am discussing- the Drake Equation- was developed some 55 years ago. No, Dr. Drake did not develop this analysis to find a mate- but to determine how many places in the galaxy could accommodate intelligent beings. (Don’t you see the similarity already???)
Peter Backus, some 50 years later, decided he could modify the equation to determine his chances of finding love in London. (I believe I first used my variant when I lived in Charlottesville [Virginia] some 3 decades ago.) In essence, he substituted ‘intelligent alien’ for ‘girlfriend’. Now, Jo Craven McGinty thought it odd that Backus wanted to find a single woman, about his own age (31) who was college-educated, attractive, and with whom he could get along. (By the way, Backus was disappointed. He realized the pool of candidates from whom he could choose was a paltry 26.)
You see, I think like that all the time. No- not someone 31 years of age, but probably closer to twice that age- but with those same criteria. And, while I didn’t quite recognize that I was using the Drake Equation, I’m not surprised I was.
I wasn’t the first- and probably won’t be the last. Some have determined their chances were zero (no one that met the criteria existed). NPR Correspondent David Kestenbaum admitted that, while enrolled in the PhD Physics program at Harvard, he and his classmates used the equation. The ‘Big Bang Theory’ [TV show] used the idea for an episode. You can see the pattern- we nerds tend to rely on equations and logic to solve the difficult problems in life.
But McGinty faults us for use analytics and not courtship to find a mate. Excuse me- I will use romance and courtship- after I find someone with whom I could fathom I could spend the rest of my life (or at least a few months). Yet, McGinty also admits that Backus did find a mate. As did others. (Alas and alack, I have not yet found a permanent match.) But, McGinty thinks it’s because they (those who succeeded) put aside our analytic side.
I doubt it. Analytics and logic are too strong a component of our being for that to be true. But, that doesn’t stop one from looking – and enjoying the voyage.
Maybe you would like to see the equation, too?
I love this! Here is a thought: how about dating someone whom you wouldn’t normally date (as if, maybe outside of your age bracket)?
Muriel recently posted..#MySexySide: Because Sexy Doesn’t Come With A Sell-By Date…
Hmm. For years, I dated women slightly older (those who graduated from college about the same year I did). And, I’ve dated those a few years younger. With one exception- one who was 1/3 younger than I (which didn’t work for only one reason- but that’s a whole different story).
It’s worth a shot, Muriel…
I can’t get my head around the fact that it is all about one equation. It must be my French side, but love is all about being (a bit) irrational from time to time…
Muriel recently posted..How To Come back From The Dead – The Story Of Martin Bouygues
Love is NOT the equation… The equation is to determine the likelihood of finding a partner that meets certain parameters. That’s when the infinitely complicated part about romance, sexual attraction, and timing all come into play…
At least that’s how I see it, Muriel.
No more excuses: this is the equation to find love…http://t.co/djRnJjRqWI via @Adjuvancy
Very interesting. I would like to see it in action if you know what I mean. 🙂
Ann Mullen recently posted..I have the Hubspot Inbound Marketing Certification!!!
You are welcome to try it for yourself, Ann!