They don't say: does the data represent single *straight* men and single
*straight* women only?
Because, boy, it would be a big disappointment for all those extra single
straight men on the west coast to move east only to find that many of those
extra "single" women in New York City are quite happily lesbians.
Seriously, my point is that an apparant bulge in singles numbers may not be
because there are actually so many extra unattached singles, but rather
because (for example) the source data considers participants in long-term,
but unmarried gay couples "single" -- not besides, there's an implication
that "single" really means "single and seeking the opposite sex" As some
commentors on the linked post have said, I'd really like to see the other
deographics, such as sexual orientation and race.
~~James
_________________________
http://www.turtlezero.comOn 6/19/07, Sven Gato Redsun <svengato at svengato.com> wrote:
>
>
>
http://creativeclass.typepad.com/thecreativityexchange/2007/04/the_singles_map.html>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070619/1ad697a6/attachment.html
Locked
