Xkcd dating pool

I still find myself more in the camp of "14 is the lower bound for dating." In fact, I am now eagerly awaiting the day an xkcdian parent pulls this out to mathematically prove to their 12yr old daughter why she can't date until she's at least 14. We were technically dating, but I don't know that most people would consider it that. And I'm going to have to agree that "too-crazy-to-date" variable needs to be taken into account when considering the available pool.

xkcd dating pool-75

(Take into consideration i seem to fit in here, except the computer stuff, clueless around them! From what I've seen the "too crazy to date" factor actually decreases with age, as teenagers are pretty crazy.When I was first reading the comic, my criticism wasn't so much that there would be more "undateable" types at older age so much as that there would almost inevitably be fewer samples which exhibited highly desireable traits.From what I've seen the "too crazy to date" factor actually decreases with age, as teenagers are pretty crazy. *(Although I will openly admit that he's pretty high on my list of people who I think it would be fun to meet one day and who I would almost certainly have a blast with as a friend type.) The Austin pool of potential is a very scary place.However, the "too sane to date them" factor does increase with age faster than that, skewing results. I'm not trying to lower my expectations so much as get rid of them altogether. My biggest concern is that I'll actually be forced to meet someone new and grudgingly admit that it wasn't as painful as I thought it would be. That's why I troll this forum at work : )My graphs (made with the US Census data) are somewhat less promising than those the protagonist made: (click to enlarge) This one seems to spike at 27, although with the following caveats: The data was discrete (and discreet) rather than continuous; as a result, I took the midpoints of each group, and when required, split the data sets assuming that the data within was evenly distributed (ie, if I needed to know the number of single 23-24 year olds, I just multiplied 20-24 by 0.4).But I should also be working and I'm not doing that either.

yeah, once one hits late 20s, it is definitely no longer the case that craziness decreases with age.It depends on if we're talking about people that would be good to date, or people that you would date? should be 120/2 84 = 144 months, which still gives a negative range. Does the fact that I don't actively search for a romantic relationship make it more difficult to find one? I'll save my philosophy of relationships for another time, but I think on the whole I am incredibly content. The groups were 15-17, 18-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84 (I dropped the 85 group because it was too sparsely populated - only 100-odd singles compared to 16000 single 20-24 year olds and had too wide an un-creepyness zone).I don't get why everyone is saying that 14 year olds can't date under this formula. So the acceptable for a 10 year old is 60/2 84 = 114 months. I would make this into a nice frequency density histogram, but the graphing software I have access to is Excel, which won't do bars of varying width.Most importantly is it growing faster than the increase caused by the larger age range?Perhaps a more difficult one (but more important) would be "is-she-my-type" which would fall under an even smaller subset of the "not-too-crazy-to-date".Actually on friday it would have to be [(26.003/2 7), (26.003-7)*2]...