Beer Goggles
Author
Discussion

JonRB

Original Poster:

80,081 posts

302 months

Friday 25th November 2005
quotequote all
From the BBC News website:

BBC said:

'Beer goggles' effect explained
Alcohol is not the only factor in the beer goggles formula
Scientists believe they have worked out a formula to calculate how "beer goggles" affect a drinker's vision.

The drink-fuelled phenomenon is said to transform supposedly "ugly" people into beauties - until the morning after.

Researchers at Manchester University say while beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, the amount of alcohol consumed is not the only factor.

Additional factors include the level of light in the pub or club, the drinker's own eyesight and the room's smokiness.

The distance between two people is also a factor.

They all add up to make the aesthetically-challenged more attractive, according to the formula.

The formula can work out a final score, ranging from less than one - where there is no beer goggle effect - to more than 100.

Nathan Efron, Professor of Clinical Optometry at the University of Manchester, said: "For example, someone with normal vision, who has consumed five pints of beer and views a person 1.5 metres away in a fairly smoky and poorly lit room, will score 55, which means they would suffer from a moderate beer goggle effect."

The research was commissioned by eyecare firm Bausch & Lomb PureVision.

A poll showed that 68% of people had regretted giving their phone number to someone to whom they later realised they were not attracted.


(Link)

john75

5,303 posts

277 months

Friday 25th November 2005
quotequote all
Worrying how I also seem to pull mingers when sober thro must be the lights in the club

munky

5,328 posts

278 months

Friday 25th November 2005
quotequote all
It's wrong you see, because the formula is missing a term representing the time since one's last pull.

UKBob

16,277 posts

295 months

Friday 25th November 2005
quotequote all
munky said:
It's wrong you see, because the formula is missing a term representing the time since one's last pull.
too true

JonRB

Original Poster:

80,081 posts

302 months

Friday 25th November 2005
quotequote all
munky said:
It's wrong you see, because the formula is missing a term representing the time since one's last pull.
Good point.

"Desirability of female tends to infinity as t1 tends to infinity (where t1 is time since last shag)"

>> Edited by JonRB on Friday 25th November 13:24