Sunday, February 05, 2006

Experiment #9

A friend and I have been having a running disagreement about internet dating sites. He says that they are a normal, modern way to meet people. I take the position that everybody else on the internet, particularly maternal relatives of eebmore, are old, balding transvestites who want to have their way with me and then cut me into convenient pieces. I also think that internet dating sites tend to be porno for the materialistic. Thus, an experiment was in order.

This experiment was conducted to test the validity of the following hypothesis: In internet dating, virtual penis length is directly proportional to wallet thickness. Stated mathematically:
where; Lwang is male endowment, k is a proportionality constant, and twallet is wallet thickness.

In order to test the hypothesis, a methodology was employed that held all variables relatively constant except personal income. Thus, two photographs of the same test subject (who, by the way, is not me) were obtained from an internet personals site. The subject's geographical location was selected to be very distant from the Baltimore metropolitan region.

On a different popular singles site, that happened to have a 7 day free trial, two ads were placed. The first ad was for the lower income (LI) subject and used the photo on the left. The key characteristics for LI are as follows: Age=34, Height=6' 1", Weight=200 lbs, Nonsmoker, Occasional drinker, No children, Income=$25k-$35k, and Occupation=Cable TV Service Rep. The second ad was for the high income subject (HI), which used the picture on the right. HI's characteristics were given as: Age=35, Height=6' 0", Weight=205 lbs, Nonsmoker, Occasional drinker, No children, Income=$50k-$100k and Occupation=Chemical Engineer.

Both ads were run for for a 10 day period, with the 10 day periods being staggered. The singles site's search engine keys on zip code, so adjacent zip codes were selected to ensure that searches were overlapping.

Results and Conclusions
Responses that were obvious spam were excluded from the final count (i.e. Svetlana from the Ukraine wants to meet you at The response tallies are as follows:
Lower Income Guy(total): 4
Lower Income Guy(adjusted for spam): 1
Higher Income Guy(total): 10
Higher Income Guy(adjusted for spam): 7

The following chart depicts the experimental data with a least squares fit to determine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The points used to represent income are the median values for the income ranges provided above. It is readily apparent that the hypothesis has, at least, been qualitatively verified. Obviously, the 2-point nature of the experiment casts doubt on the true nature of the relationship (quadratic, cubic, tantric, logarithmic, etc.) but for our purposes, the assumption of linearity will be maintained.

The appearance of the y-intercept term (-3) was suprising, as it was expected to be zero. In other words, our hypothesis assumes that no income equates to no virtual penis length. This is clearly an underestimate of the situation and suggests extrapolation might be meaningful, which is provided in the next chart.

From the second chart, it can be observed that in the Baltimore internet dating market, a male is virtually penisless if his annual income is at $22.5k. As income falls below this point, virtual penis length becomes increasingly negative. Since it is beyond the scope of this experiment to determine whether a negative penis length translates to an ipso facto virtual vagina, this phenomena will be referred to as virtual anti-dongality. Regardless, the following conclusions can be asserted:

1. In internet dating, virtual penis length varies linearly with income.
2. As male income approaches $22.5k/year, virtual penis length approaches zero.
3. Having an income below $22.5k/year leads to anti-dongality, which is the result of negative vitual penis length. It has yet to be determined whether this makes anti-dongaloids more or less attractive to other males.
4. eebmores mom is apparently very wealthy.

In closing, it has been clearly established that materialism is alive and well in the Baltimore dating market. This may be one example where the axiom, "You get what you pay for" does not apply. Unless, of course, we are discussing eebmore's mother. In that case, pocket change or pizza crust will suffice.


At 6:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

dude, your constraints are off. you can't have negative penis length. therefore it must be approaching zero as income decreases. maybe asymptotically.

similarly, what are the upper boundary conditions?

At 6:34 PM, Blogger eebmore said...

*applause* !!!!!!!!!

At 9:14 PM, Blogger eebmore said...

oh, and just for clarification, i didn't actually read the post. math makes my head hurt. i was just applauding the mom jokes. you see, I'm kinda dumb.

At 10:31 PM, Blogger tfg said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 11:24 PM, Blogger Broadsheet said...

Wrong parameters sweetie. Do a plot with a successful women's income and penis size. I win.

At 12:08 AM, Blogger elcapitanhink said...

Well, if I know anything, its what your mom taught me: You can't assume linearity.

At 10:57 AM, Blogger Cham said...

You are drawing so many assumptions and conclusions from a pathetically small group of data points: 2. How do you know whether that graph is linear or parabolic or increases exponentially?

You should have a minimum of 5 data points, and it would be even better if you had 7. Go back to the drawing board and put up a dating contestant that has no income, one that has income between $100-150K and then income over $150K and then how about a trust-fund baby who never has to worry about income. (Trust-fund baby will probably get a reply from me)

And find a better looking guy. The mustache went out of style in the 80s.

At 12:11 PM, Blogger Broadsheet said...

Cham -

I'll arm wrestle ya for the Trust Fund Guy. If he's got a boat? - oooo baby.

At 7:18 PM, Blogger tfg said...

Cham-Quite, true. Any time you have a relationship between two points, linearity is bound to follow. Since I won't be publishing in the Journal of Gigglestick Metrics, I'm going to stick with the results at hand.

Broadsheet-I don't know why men are intimidated by successful women. Personally, I dream of being a house husband, or better yet, a stay at home doggy dad.

At 4:27 PM, Blogger Scott said...

I read your blog pretty regularly - but I skipped this post. I figured if I am going to read a blog to get out of doing work - I don't want to have to do math and stuff. Well I was pleasantly surprised. Math can be fun!


Post a Comment

<< Home