Mofo and Other Mysteries

October 26th, 2009 by Christian Rudder

Because we run a huge dating site—OkCupid, which is free—and we studied math together, Chris and I like to sit in a circle (a line, really) and look at your data. Normally the data is pertinent and leads to revealing studies of human interaction, like our last post about how race plays a big role in online dating. But this week, just for fun, and to take a break from heavy subjects, we’re going to look at some of the more offbeat numbers we’ve come across—the statistical outtakes, if you will.

All of the following are user-submitted questions from our database. We’ll start with this one:

First of all, it’s nice to see that there are still some users hanging on to “blackguard” as a term of friendly disparagement. Also, we thought it was interesting that gay men lag behind their bi and straight brothers here. I’m sure many of you are already thinking “fafo” to yourselves, so I won’t even make the joke.

We were surprised on a couple fronts here. One, we had no idea that this many straight women were interested in sex with a strap-on. Duly noted, duly feared, ladies. Two, nearly one in seven straight men answered “yes” to this, and even for OkCupid’s sexually adventurous user base, that’s a pretty wild number. My best guess is that since the question doesn’t specify either way, some bros assumed it was asking about strap-on pizzas.

Next we have this incredible table:

Yes, 2 in 5 people (and nearly half of all men!) think they are one in a thousand. You do the math: that’s 100% melted.

Here’s how the U.S. breaks out by state, in one of our color-coded maps. Green means more people than average in a state think they’re geniuses; red means fewer. That bastion of American scholarship, Mississippi, came in green, of course. And apparently almost half of Nevadans are geniuses, which is at once laughable and slightly credible, seeing as how it must take a certain amount of brains to create a hell-on-earth. On the other hand, huzzah to West Virginians for their relative humility.

Finally, we ran a query on suicide for an upcoming article comparing people from Canada to other marginalized Americans. The topic’s certainly less frivolous than the rest of this week’s post—and the Canada/U.S. comparison didn’t turn out to be very interesting—but we felt like we had to publish what we found:

It’s pretty dramatic data. Here’s one way to look at it:

and another:

. . .

Thanks again for reading, everyone. If you’re curious about the dating site we run, or would like to prostrate yourself before a vast pool of online geniuses, check out OkCupid. It’s free and awesome.

Also, we’ve been submitted to the Mashable Open Web Awards, in the Best Corporate Blog category. If you have the inclination to vote for us, you can do so here.

109 Responses to “Mofo and Other Mysteries”

  1. Xin Huang says:

    hey dudes, send some love back, i’m doin free IT for ya here <3 😛

  2. ReadItFirst says:

    I think more people need to carefully read the suicide question. Having “considered” suicide does not mean “is currently suicidal”. You can’t equate this result with a general joy of living and/or stability within any of the polled demographics.

    The genius question made me laugh. I’d be willing to say 95% of those who answered “yes” are full of shit. “Genius” is one of those things that means significantly smarter than the rest. Since IQ is based on a mean score of 100, to have nearly a majority be “genius” is self-defeating.

    The genius poll, I think, mostly shows how completely self-absorbed the general population is.

  3. Meganano says:

    What alarmed me was that gay people across the board were so much less interested in strap-on play than the bisexual people. Strap-ons are so aggressively marketed to lesbians… but who knew it was the bi girls who REALLY want to date the ones who are packin’.

    And yes, I do believe that fully 14% (or more) of men want strap-on play. I took the unofficial poll in another setting and many men were unafraid to admit their interest in such things.

  4. Demiurge says:

    Definitely surprised at the high percent of gay guys needing/wanting the strap-ons. It could just be wanting a threesome “but not really”.
    I’m not surprised at the low number of straight guys wanting them because a lot of straight guys still think it’s gay if it’s a strap-on. Probably a lot of guys also won’t indulge their girl in anal, just because it’s “that place”, and those same guys wouldn’t want anything in their own ass even if they could get past the fear that they’ll turn gay.
    Incidentally the girlfriends of this latter group of guys would probably contribute to the pool of straight girls wanting it. but as mentioned above, they do have more orifices, so.

    As for the suicide question, even OKC has wrongfully associated having EVER thought of suicide, with actually wanting or trying to do it. It’s the same with the question “can you see yourself killing someone?”. I can visualize myself walking the Earth for the next 60-70 years and carving happy meals out of every other living person, but that doesn’t mean I’d ever actually kill anyone, it just means I can, literally, visualize whatever I damn please. Incidentally, put a person under extreme circumstances and they WILL kill someone even if they never thought they would, so those kinds of questions are pretty much moot either way.

  5. SelfishJerk says:

    I’m straight and have had a strap-on experience, but hey.. can you do a percentage on the number of men who actually get stimulated by that?

    seriously, my prostate just sort of sighed and surrendered.

    Apparently for quite a large amount of men that is supposed to be an erogenous zone.

    okay, I’m writing the question for stat purposes specifically now.

    ps. it’s a giggle how many people get fascinated by the ol’ strap-on topic. me included.

  6. snarkinthedark says:

    A couple of basic statistical points here, instead of getting caught up in any particular question (and I really was going to respond to the Genius question in particular):

    (1) Statistical sampling. OKC is a fairly self-selective site. That’s not to say that there aren’t outliers, but I suggest that the outliers on OKC are probably the typical users of a more mainstream dating site, in the societal sense. While OKC users may also subscribe to or another site (eg, eHarmony), it’s less likely that subscribers from those sites would cross-navigate over to this site (it happens, but as I said: outliers). OKC, at least initially, tended to cater to a certain type of individual. I’d say they’re generally much smarter, much geekier, and far more ‘open-minded’ than the standard pool. And since we have no access to data on the standard pool it’s really difficult to make any assertions.

    (2) Quite a few of the questions on OKC are just plain posed wrong for this particular kind of analysis. ‘Would you consider yourself to be a genius’ is tricky, considering the fact that, for all we know, OKC *does* get that 1 in 1000 regularly… And sometimes I suspect they do (and I also think that a great deal of people that don’t fit that label are probably less likely to answer the questions at all, or to answer that question in particular). That said, I’m not stating that there’s no gross overestimation going on — there very likely is — but rather that without better actual data supporting or negating the presence of genius-hood *in this particular pool of people*, it’s quite difficult to say if people are or are not overestimating their own intelligence.

  7. Elydan says:

    Too many people considered suicide. Damn.

  8. Andrew says:

    Please. Please do this again. Hilarious. This made my day. Thank you.


  9. JM says:

    I remained friends with this particular ex of mine, “John.” John and I would occasionally have these intimate late night chat sessions. (This was pretty close to the breakup. We don’t do this anymore.) One night he told me some of his fantasies… fantasies he was embarrassed to tell me when we were together. One of them involved a lady with a strap-on. (He said ME at the time, but this is a general thing. I’m sure I’m easily replaced by any attractive woman.) He always projected a very masculine, in-control, persona, and the idea of submitting was very alluring to him. He was embarrassed by it, though, and asked me to delete the chat when we were done. (I did.) He had other fantasies that he shared with me that night, most of them involving being dominated in some way. I think it’s more common than OKC found. He would *never* have admitted that in a survey tied to his identity.

  10. Michael says:

    Interesting data. Any chance of seeing MOEs or confidence intervals (or simply denominators) here?

    Also – where is the suicide article going to be?

  11. Dylan says:

    The ‘genius’ thing may be a bit silly, but it’s a bad question in the first place. What is ‘genius?’ I might be a genius at video games because I’m better at them than the next 1000 people, and someone else might be a genius at Apple. And someone else might be a genius at filing.

    Regardless, rating people no a scale of any kind, which is what statistics is designed to do, is a cruel and aimless task unless you have a purpose that requires particular generalizable traits.

  12. Alex Horschack says:

    Perhaps it’s an evolutionary mechanism for population control. Or maybe our industrialized lifestyles are so toxic and depressing that even if we survive them, they leave us feeling as though life is worthless anyhow.

  13. John says:

    It’s sad that even now, straight people are less likely to think about suicide, which to me seems that gay and bi groups are treated wrong

  14. Darc says:

    There are too many fucking emo chaches out there!

  15. Mozai says:

    You have to watch out for statistics; self-selection of your sample group sneaks up behind you.
    For instance, another way of looking at that last statistic is:

    Straight Guys Yes: 0 (0%) No: 34,282 (100%)
    Everybody Else Yes: 0 (0%) No: 6,723 (100%)

    Someone else pointed out that you could read the statistic as “just as many, or more straight guys want to kill themselves, but the difference is they achieve their goals!”

    Be verrry careful what conclusions you make from these numbers.

  16. Julian says:

    Cool data, OKC.

    Obviously, most of these commenters don’t really have a good grasp on methodology or statistics; from what I can tell, your analysis is above-board and legitimate (though it would be nice to see p-values or CIs). In fact, have you considered putting together something for submission to accredited journals?

  17. Kutaly says:

    More Bi men and women (comparing to straights and gays) are geniuses.
    That’s why more Bi men and women know what “mofo” means. dah!!!

    PS. I’d like my partner to put a pizza inside my mouth without it being strapped.

  18. Smithers says:

    There is no such thing as a bi-sexual dentist who listens to country music on a rainy Wednesday.

  19. Gruntled says:

    Why do you think the bisexual men and women are more prone to think of themselves as geniuses than others of their respective sexes? Do they think they have discovered something that ordinary people have not?

  20. Tugbootie MacWillywinkie says:

    These are from match questions, aren’t they?

    Heterosexual males know they have a lot to lose by admitting suicidal thoughts on a site where potential partners can weed that out for admitting it. We are expected to shrug off pain, and keep any crying hidden, because you know it scares the whole tribe when even the mighty men seem hopeless.

    Other sorts of relationships either don’t have that selection pressure, or have an opposite sort of selection pressure. Anything that makes you seem like more of a ‘victim’ of the patriarchy is eagerly expressed and volunteered as part of an attempt to bond.

    Guess what, the academic world already has good data on suicidal thinking etc. The only thing your data could be good for is studying behavior on dating sites.

    And hey, yes I am a “genius” in the way that psychology defines it. Which is part of why I know that if the match question doesn’t specify that you are asking in the specific sense of how the psychology field defines IQ, then it doesn’t even require people doing ANY lying to get the results here. The word is used in a much more general way amongst the general population. This site skews geek, and geeks consider themselves to have A genius in a specific area, for example.

    Even with a more specific question, guess what, people lie on dating sites. Other science work has shown that there are ‘liar ages.’ A big one is 29, where there are like 8 times as many people who are 29 on dating sites than there are in the general population, and a dip in the number of people in their low 30s. They lie a lot about height too, for guys especially.

    SURPRISE, people don’t want to be weeded out before they have a chance in person. For a guy, it sucks to be honest, 30 and 5’9″ on a dating site. There are lots of 34 year old guys who are 5’6″ or 5’7″ and telling the world they are 29 and 5’9″ or 5’10” even.

    OKC data analysis is not going to cut it in the academic world. But please do go ahead and try, it will be hilarious to read OKC and your agendas getting ripped apart. Or will you just tell the blog one story, and admit a much different one in the academic writing? You guys are jerks, I hope you choke on your bullshit.

  21. aps says:

    Yeah, the “genius” numbers aren’t too surprising to me, because (a) the phrasing is vague enough to be taken in many ways, (b) I think OKC does in fact attract more geeks and intelligent people than a typical Internet site, and (c) plenty of people are just vain and/or intentionally lie.

    As far as statistical validity, I think the OKC bloggers are well aware that all their data comes from self-selected sources. The things in the Trends blog are for amusement purposes only (though many of them really can surprise us or make us think, even so).

    Hmm, I haven’t bothered to work out the numbers, but I suspect the “mofo” example may not be statistically significant within OKC’s data set.

  22. blah says:

    Tugbootie MacWillywinkie – excellent points, why spoil it with your last sentence, no need for that afaics.

  23. john says:

    I love your numbers, and I love how data intensive OKC is. I just want to second, third, or forth the idea that you guys should give us the statistical meat we know you’re capable of producing (and that you know all us smart OKCers are capable of digesting). P values! Multiple regression! Yay! :)

  24. mitax says:

    Well once again im bazzled with joy over the release of fun stats, so were to begin in my useless commentary?
    Considered suicide? What does that mean, that i thought about how its(the word suicide) spelled? Or maybe any combination thereoff? Anyway, the reason why one would consider suicide(girl=attention boy=lack of girl(yes i am judgemental and selfbiased but your probably american(wich means that you live in a north american or south american country ) so i win anyway)) is always personal and totally irrelevant statistically unless you get someones complete answers to all the question, just as the are you a genius question, it only marks your own level of selfesteem and personal conscience, etc, etc.
    That about that.
    Not so surprising is that canadian str8 women considered suicide more than their counterpart in usa(for some reason canadians arent considered americans on okc) while the str8 males were indifferent, i can only guess this is the reason that shallow bimbo girls are more accepted as a way of life in the land of hollywood, while if you want a random barguy to pay for your drinks, your fellow girls would fron upon the behavior in canada but cheer you on in the states?
    i personally would like to see a shart of what country this behavior gets you the most free drinks and the least drunkenrapes? Is this maybe because canadians are more liberal/intelligent of all the americans(or have i just misunderstood southpark)?
    Mofo has a scandinavian counterpart, its spelled miffo and its even been made to a movie. How little we differ from each other in the end.
    And thank you for humoring me

  25. michael says:

    Alright bi folks! We’re the best at knowing shit, being freaky, and being suicidal I think some congratulation is in order, lets break out the strap-ons and celebrate! In your face L and G. Q, T, How you doin’?

  26. KEYofR says:

    Hey “genius” Their _point_ was to point out that the numbers were ridiculously beyond fishy. Do they all miss things like that in those academic circles?

  27. KEYofR says:

    Also, many of the “poorly phrased” questions are not necessarily anything of the sort.

    I have answered many questions that I know were pretty meaningless without more context and without knowing the mind of the author of the question and/or the person who will read the question and my answer and form a judgment based on them. So I answer anyways, honestly, according to my own interpretation and degree of subtlety. And I understand that some people will think that answer to that question means something simple and surface, like, that I’m gay or that I hate children or that i’m uncaring and selfish, or the opposites of all those. etc.. And some other people will read the same questions and answers and think it just shows that I’m thoughtful and honest and introspective. And still others will think it just means I’m a pedant who can’t answer any question or make any statement without so many qualifiers as to bring actual communication to a halt while we wade through all the exception cases that the statement or question could possibly apply to.

    This stuff is just data. And it’s interesting and fun. It’s valid just purely on those points alone.

    It does not need to be useful for some simple purpose like trying to claim that you know what it means or implies about the participants. So it’s kind of pointless decry that “This data is useless for describing or predicting any actual things about the people involved.” . I would have thought that was already self evident,
    It’s still true data and it’s still interesting. All you are saying is that it’s not the data you have in mind and can not be used for the purposes you have in mind and is not interesting in the terms you have in mind. Well, So? It is what it is, and it does not actually claim to be more than what it is that I can see. The only broken thinking I see here is in the responses that act as though anyone even for one second said that this was a scientific study intended to gauge _anything_ objectively.
    And yet, at the risk of repeating myself, that doesn’t make it either untrue or bad data, or useless, or uninteresting to ponder. You just ponder it in the proper context, which means bearing in mind exactly all the “faults” though they are not faults just factors, that everyone has mentioned, and many more, and more subtle and indirect ones that they have not.

  28. Thane says:

    1 in a thousand? As I recall, the Genius level is at about 140, give or take, which is more like 1 in 100, or even 1 in 75, depending on who runs the test.

  29. Cameron McKenzie says:

    The strap-on question makes sense to me.

    If you are attracted to male, you might answer “no” because you think it’s unnecessary, your partner has the real thing so why settle for a substitute?
    If you are attracted to women, you might answer “no” because you simply don’t like male genitals and you don’t want to “simulate” them even with a fake.

    Obviously there are exceptions, since not all of the people in those categories said no, but this may explain why SOME people said no.

    If you are bisexual, you may be with a female partner but still enjoy male genitalia. In this case, a strap-on is both desirable and necessary, and neither of the above reasons I gave can apply. You may still have reasons to dislike using a strap-on, but there aren’t as many, hence fewer people in that category are opposed to it.

  30. MC says:

    I got some great belly laughs from this article. And amusing speculation is what statistics are good for. I’m concerned about drawing conclusions based on statistics; because a stick-figure oversimplified understanding of sociology, supported by a statistic, ends up creating justification for an oversimplified outrage. The real world is so multi-layered and nuanced. Institutionalized injustices and collectivist groupthink impairing civil liberties are becoming so common. We can’t afford the stick figure consciousness.

    For example, look again at the suicide data. Straight men tend to “consider” suicide less. Is that REALLY because they have a better life? Or is it because everyone else tends to dwell on their own feelings (being more prone to awfulize about their lives rather than get in there and do something about it) more? I think straight men are more prone (because they are so completely pussy whipped) to become selfless drones, never considering their own feelings for a moment; becoming machines to meet expectations others put upon them. So they don’t have time for their own feelings, including both uplifting feelings and awfulizing ones. Their quality of life is in many ways lower; not higher, not that there’s any need for competition or comparing ourselves, one class to another.

    My point is that statistics can be used to justify prejudice. I am tired of statistics used as justification to oppress straight white christian men. And I am not a straight white christian man.

    If you oversimplify “oppression” with a stick figure consciousness, you’re going to advocate broad-brush “solutions” that create more problems than they solve by creating institutionalized injustices that become the new norm. The new norm is better than the old norm in some ways; but we don’t have to substitute one dread for another.

    Prejudice itself is the problem. Brotherhood is a two way street. Tolerance means everybody.

  31. mart says:

    I’m afraid the numbers concerning suicide isn’t all that surprising. We’ve seen such a trend for a long time, both as to ‘considering’ and ‘committing’.

  32. SFG says:

    Question for the site-runners. You’ve got all these personality traits like ‘dorky’ and ‘aggressive’. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn some of them correlate. Have you ever thought about cross-correlating them with each other? All you’d have to do is take everyone’s numbers and do a Pearson correlation coefficient on every possible combo. You’d have stuff to write about for weeks, and it wouldn’t take too much processor time…

  33. WhoaNow says:

    Perhaps people from “dumb” states think they’re geniuses more often because they run into stupid people so much.

  34. goocy says:

    I just love reading your analyses.
    I do them for a living, but you have a far larger user base – which is fun for statistics.
    Keep on doing that and keep on being curious!

    With a wink,

  35. Shinobi says:

    I already found some great casual sex AND met the love of my life on your website. And now you’re publishing statistics that fill my geeky statistician heart with nerdy glee. You can really stop doing things to make me like you now. Seriously.

  36. ninebees says:

    Wouldn’t that be a line /segment/ you sit in? :)

  37. oppss says:

    welldone! it’s my first time to bump into this section, v interesting indeed and i have to give credits to OKC. I think it’s v useful to use these data and having a good understanding on nowaday ppl. jus wanna show my appreciation of yr genuine thoughts, thumbs up dude!!! pls keep it on, cant wait to read more!!! ;D

  38. Pat says:

    I love this blog. Every time I check it out, there is something that is simultaneously fascinating and horrifying. I laugh a lot thanks to you guys. Keep up the good work.

  39. Ducky Sherwood says:

    1) Nobody *ought* to be surprised at the higher level of suicidal thoughts by GLBT people.
    “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers, according to the Massachusetts 2006 Youth Risk Survey. A 2007 San Francisco State University Chavez Center Institute study shows that lgbt and questioning youth who come from a rejecting family are up to nine times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. And for every completed suicide by a young person, it is estimated that 100 to 200 attempts are made (2003 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey).”

    I can’t find a reference now, but I read a mainstream newspaper article in about 2004 that said that teen suicide rates had dropped to 10 per thousand from 11 per thousand ten years earlier, and the researchers quoted were quite forthright that they believed the change was due to greater acceptance of GLBT people.

    Think about it. Presume you come from a family that believes that homosexuality is a sin and a choice, and you think of yourself as a good person but try as you might, can’t help but think homosexual thoughts. How do you resolve the people you love telling you that you are an evil person? Maybe you decide that they are right, and so off yourself.

    Of maybe you get so freaking tired of being harassed at school, and don’t see any hope of it ever getting better. What do you do then? Suicide might seem like a tempting way out.

    2) It is reasonable for most people to think they are above average when it comes to vague questions of ability. If you are really really good at math and suck at learning languages, you probably value math more than languages. Thus you say yes.

    If you are really adept at social interactions, but suck at school, you probably value social skills better than schoolwork. Again, you might say you were a genius.

    The same thing happens when you ask people if they are above average drivers. Some see the question as asking about ability to drive safely and courteously, while some see it as asking about the ability to make the car do what you want. The former group would see someone who drives very fast, weaving skillfully in and out of traffic as a poor driver, while the latter group would see the chumps in the slow lane as poor drivers.

  40. zugbug says:

    OKC you guys are great – I agree wholeheartedly with the others – keep it comin’!!!

    In the defense of OKC, I’d just like to point out that they did almost no interpretation of either the statistics or the questions – just presented and pointed out some interesting results. And these are very basic statistics – raw percentages from the OKC database. There’s almost no analysis, not much room error, and they’re not making any claims about what it means, either within OKC or outside of OKC. And they’re not claiming to be academics. A lot of people here are making assumptions that OKC is making assumptions, which is not supported by the evidence.

    Demiurge says, “OKC has wrongfully associated having EVER thought of suicide, with actually wanting or trying to do it.”

    I can’t find any evidence for Demiurge’s claim.

    Tugbootie MacWillywinkie – “Guess what, the academic world already has good data on suicidal thinking etc. The only thing your data could be good for is studying behavior on dating sites…. OKC data analysis is not going to cut it in the academic world. ”

    Who ever said anything about the academic world? And btw these data would be fine for the academic world, depending on what claim you were trying or not trying to make.

    Regarding the suicide question, what is striking to me is how large the percentages are in all categories. To me this really suggests something about that (supposedly) unique human characteristic – consciousness and awareness that we will someday die. I think because we have this awareness it follows that many of us would consider the idea that we could, in fact, kill ourselves. And I would agree with the obvious assumption that probably because straight men fit in to society the most effortlessly, they would have thought the least about the idea of killing yourself.

    Second, I’m surprised that so many people take high genius response so seriously. Another possibility is simply that it’s an easy and fun question to cavalierly answer, “Hell, yeah, I’m a genius!” (tongue-in-cheek). Because it’s an anonymous situation, it’s easy to answer in a silly way. I don’t believe that such a large percentage of people really seriously believe that they are geniuses. And while I’m sure that the numbers are pumped up to some degree by liars, I’d guess that they’re even more pumped up by people just simply not taking the question very seriously (non-malevolent lying). Especially because (as many have pointed out) the word “genius” is not defined.

  41. Andrew says:

    Re the strap-on. I found the straight men percentage curious, too. Maybe since you wrote “partner”, men wouldn’t mind doing it with their wives or other lovers; to please those or because some men are true masochists. (Masochism is embraced to varying degrees by the population, but identifiable in weaker or stronger forms in about 14% of men, women and children.)

    The other explanation also hinges on “partner”. Some business partners, some Bridge playing partners, some beggars already feel they are being back-stabbed by their partners, so just one mild and in a sense funny way of getting screwed by the partner would be welcome. By 14% of all male partners, be their partners men, women, or elephants.

  42. Andrew says:

    Two people CAN sit in a circle. Unless the geometrical shape of the line is specified, any curve, continuous or not, can be drawn to include two points. You, of all wizened math whizs, should know that.

  43. Andrew says:

    I was disappointed in the replies to the “am I a genius” question. In fact, I expected an overall 100% “yes” reply rate across the board for this question.

    My reasoning is that everyone:
    1. Thinks he or she is above average in intelligence (since it is impossible to directly sense the intelligence in strangers);
    2. Assumes automatically that “Am I a genius” is a rhetorica question when uttered by the self.
    2. Is stupid.

  44. just stuff says:

    Great blog! Last year I sat in an academic class that talked about alternative ways to get information about human behavior and your site is probably the best example yet. Like some people here said, you really should publish this stuff it will make the academic world more interesting that’s for sure.

  45. thaine says:

    anyone who uses the word blackguard as a term of disparagement is a friend of mine.

  46. Incite awry yacht says:

    Well, I was going to consider suicide too, but I wanted to wait until I got to heaven to try it. That’s the nice thing about heaven, if you are really frustrated you can do it as many time as you like. That must make everybody there happy.

  47. M says:

    I find it very interesting that Bi people, male or female, have the highest rate of suicidal thoughts.
    It’s a tough road we walk, many people don’t realize that.
    Straight people are “normal”
    Gay people are stood up for and have a community.
    Bi people are still judged and discriminated against.

  48. Canuck says:

    “Finally, we ran a query on suicide for an upcoming article comparing people from Canada to other marginalized Americans.”

    Could you link to the article from here please? I’m curious to see how you construe “people from Canada” to be “Marginalized Americans”. Do you mean “Americans” as synonym for “people from the USA” or “people from any country in north or south America”? How and where are Canadians “marginalized”?

  49. Mr. Giggles says:

    The one constancy between all the questions: Bi folks are most likely to say “yes” to all of them. Coincidence?

  50. jane says:

    New Mexico is mostly desert, which made it perfect for nuclear weapons testing back in the day. There was a huge influx of brilliant physicists and scientists who brought their families with them, settling in long-term. It’s still perfect for testing awesome scientific stuff, weapons or not. The population of national labs and universities relative to the low population of the state therefore likely contributes to it’s high percentage of “genius” individuals.

    I wish I worked at Los Alamos.