LRRcast for cHustle 05 - Street

[Yukikaze]

Rageliness too is involved, I think. The angrier and more agressive you are, the manlier you are.

Which is more manly: going on a berserk rage and killing anyone who gets in your way, or telling that unstoppable rage to sit down and shut up, and talking things over calmly? A true man is not beholden to any carnal instinct. He does what he does because he wants to, not because of mindless biological imperatives.

To which I add: sex is not manly, abstinence is. Like calming one's rage, abstinence is telling that unstoppable sex drive to sit down and shut up.

[Lyinginbedmon]

To which I add: sex is not manly, abstinence is. Like calming one's rage, abstinence is telling that unstoppable sex drive to sit down and shut up.

But only if you could easily get some.

This portion of the equation should be a comparison value. Ability to acquire sex versus the ability to decide not to.

[Master Gunner]

Interesting.........I think the "conquest" idea brought up earlier may be the most sensible way to deal with all this.

Sex is considered "Manly" because it is seen as a conquest. However, abstinence is also Manly because it is the conquest of your biological imperatives (and, depending on your situation, social pressures). Becoming a Warlord and conquering all of Asia is Manly, yet it is equally as Manly, and then some, to make that warlord back down from attacking your own territory through diplomacy and bluffing. None of these aspects of Manliness or conquest are mutually exclusive, and with so many ways to approach the problem that are of equal awesomitude/Manliness, a single "Conquest" variable probably best deals with most of these situations.

So I thus revise Doctor Insanovic's formula to be:
M=C+(Ld+f)^R

Where:
M represents Manliness
C represents Conquest(liness?)
L represent Largiliness
d represents Denseliness
f represents Facial hair
And R represents Risk to health.


Thus, if your manly activity involves little or no conquest, it is still manly. However, if it does include conquest (and few Manly activities that I can think of off the top of my head don't), it results in a directly proportional increase to the Manliness.

[Yukikaze]

I believe "Conquestliness" aptly describes the ratio of available sex versus claimed sex. Also, abstaining in the face of available sex is engaging in Conquest of your inner desires.

However, I believe that Conquestliness may, in fact, be more important to one's manliness than Largeliness or Densliness. I propose an equation more similar to:

M=(C^R+(Ld)^P)f

M is Manliness
C is Conquestliness
R is Riskliness, as a Conquest of great Risk is far more manly than a Conquest of minor Risk. Together, C^R is known as the Toughliness Invariant, or T.
L is Largeliness
d is Densliness
f is the proponent of facial hair
P(for Pyro) is Fireliness.

We should get a Wiki page for the study of Manliness.

[The Jester]

The Jester wrote:
Rageliness too is involved, I think. The angrier and more agressive you are, the manlier you are.


Which is more manly: going on a berserk rage and killing anyone who gets in your way, or telling that unstoppable rage to sit down and shut up, and talking things over calmly? A true man is not beholden to any carnal instinct. He does what he does because he wants to, not because of mindless biological imperatives.

To which I add: sex is not manly, abstinence is. Like calming one's rage, abstinence is telling that unstoppable sex drive to sit down and shut up.

I was under the impression we were talking about a stereotypical Man, not what we think defines actual manliness. I don't honnestly think many, if any, of the things we have been discussing so far provide a very accurate meter for measuring actual manliness, although that's just my oppinion.
I was contributing things that I thought add to the stereotype of an alpha male, testosterone fuled gorilla...
In a sense of fun...

You know?

So conquestliness of your innermost desires and self control are not, therefore, particularly manly. When viewed from the perspective of the mildly insane, aforementioned gorilla.

[Yukikaze]

So someone who sets their beard on fire and has a large dick is the manlyist man ever?

Alex, quick! Light your beard on fire!

[Master Gunner]

I think the point of this isn't to create an equation that applies solely to the stereotypical man, to to all variants of Men in their Manliest forms. Take a look at Brad and Morgan. Clearly, they are different breeds of Man. Morgan is far more along the lines of a stereotypical man (or at least, tries to be), While Brad is a more elegant, high-class man. Can one say that either is more manly than the other though?

Let's take a look at the most recent revision of the Manliness Equation (Manquation?), and how it breaks down for each of them.

M=(C^R+(Ld)^P)f
Morgan
Conquest: Well, he's Morgan, don't really need to go into much detail here.
Risk: His arm's currently in a sling, 'nuff said.
Largliness: Swiss Meat Roll, the Gigantor, shall I go on?
density: Meat is dense, and Morgan knows his meat.
Pyro/Fireliness: ....Actually, don't know how much experience Morgan has with fire off-hand, so I'm goign to ignore this for now.
facial hair: Morgan has some good stubble going on at the moment, even if he lost it all during Desert Bus.

Brad
Conquest: He managed to conquer the Japanese Bureaucracy through an item quest as just one example.
Risk: He took on the Japanese Bureaucracy in an item quest, that takes serious hutzpah.
Largliness: Look at the size of his chin! Those Mandibles! Then there's his weapon collection (e.g. this). Not to mention the extent of his knowledge and all of his stories, which leads me too...
density: Brad has an astounding amount of knowledge and awesome stories packed away in that head of his. Not to mention that steel is quite dense.
Pryo/fireliness: To make it fair, I'm ignoring this here as well. Although I'm pretty sure radioactive urine would count here.
facial hair: He had facial hair, but it coalesced into those mandibles.

[Yukikaze]

Can't help but wonder if facial hair should have less of an effect on manliness. One should not be able to become more manly simply by not shaving for a week or two.

Perhaps the f and P variables should be reversed in the equation I suggested.

[edit]I have made a serious calculation error. Behold: the Incendiary Exponent.

P is an exponent, not a multiplier. This makes sense, as 0 fire reduces all Manliness to 1 instead of 0. Note that fire can be either literal flames or a figurative "firey personality."

Perhaps an equation closer to

Code: Select all

M=(C^R + (Ld) +f)^P

more accurately represents our value.

Note that facial hair is no longer a multiplier or exponent, but merely another component. This better represents the fact that while he always appears cleanshaven, James Bond is still a manly specimen.

Also, according to this equation, we can now more clearly see that the loss of Paul's beard, while damaging to his manliness, did not entirely eradicate it, and in fact brought his pronounced chin into better perspective, enhancing Paul's L factor.

At the same time, I think it can be agreed that while he still had his beard, Paul was still not as manly as Brad, due to reduced Largeliness.(Assuming there is an equal Densliness of knowledge.)
[/edit]

[Master Gunner]

I would suggest that P be made logerithmic. That way, to manliness increases ten-fold with every increase in P, and 0 P doesn't effect the equation at all, it just disappears for that calculation.

So that would be:

Code: Select all

M=(C^R + (Ld) +f)*10^P

[The Jester]

Courage? I'd say courage is pretty manly. The courage to be yourself, be an individual, and do what you tihnk is right regardless of consequences, peer pressure or even common sense, dammit!

...I got a little carried away there.

Couragliness? I still prefer courageousness, if it's all the same to you.

[Metcarfre]

I think you are all forgetting that manliness is in direct proportion to largeliness. Ergo, your equations are wrong.

Now, we can define largeliness as perhaps, different than commonly used - largeliness of facial hair for example, or largeliness of ones conquestliness - but the essential value, largeliness, determines manliness.

[Master Gunner]

Stop ruining our fun, you.

[Kdz]

I think you are all forgetting that manliness is in direct proportion to largeliness. Ergo, your equations are wrong.

Now, we can define largeliness as perhaps, different than commonly used - largeliness of facial hair for example, or largeliness of ones conquestliness - but the essential value, largeliness, determines manliness.

It's been several years since I've done this math, but wouldn't, in the equation in its current iteration, still represent manliness in direct proportion to largeliness, as one still depends on the other, even with all the other variables?

If not, the solution is simple:

M=xL
where x=the rest of the shit we did

Alternatively:

M=L
where L=the rest of the shit we did.

And when I say "we," I mean "everyone else."

[Master Gunner]

According to wikipedia, M=xL would keep L in direct proportion to M so long as x was a constant. So if we can get L on it's own, then our equation will still hold true to Manliness being in direct proportion to Largliness, as long as we're talking about the same thing/activity.

So the quick solution would be:

Code: Select all

M=[(C^R + d +f)*10^P]*L

However, I may do some calculus in the morning to come up with a better equation.

[Kdz]

On the meta:
Is formulating an equation for manliness manly?

How would that fit in the equation?

[Master Gunner]

We're conquering math and the mysteries of Manliness. At the rate the formula is increasing, it has a fair amount of largliness as well. I, at least, am contributing facial hair towards this. If I bring in some calculus, the density will certainly go up as well. Sadly, however, there is little risk (other causing the universe to instantly disappear and be replaced by something far more bizarre, which may have already happened) and it's not on fire. Yet, anyway.

[Unlucky]

Is formulating an equation for manliness manly?

How would that fit in the equation?

/0?

[Kdz]

I think it would be more of a case of it cancelling itself out.

Like x*y/x=y , because the 'x's cancel.

So perhaps we'd be dividing manliness by itself.

[Yukikaze]

Courage? I'd say courage is pretty manly. The courage to be yourself, be an individual, and do what you tihnk is right regardless of consequences, peer pressure or even common sense, dammit!

Courage is the conquest of one's fears.

Actually, Conquestliness and Riskliness end up being fairly catch-all variables. Together, they also boost overall Manliness significantly, which I feel to be an accurate representation. Additionally, Riskliness is more important than Conquestliness in increasing overall manliness, which is true, as a minor conquest which carries a lot of risk is considerably more manly than a major conquest that had no risk associated with it.

I also agree with Master Gunner's suggestion to make P logarithmic, such that fire may only amplify one's manliness as an accessory.

In conclusion, I agree with the most recently-posted equation for manliness:

Code: Select all

M=[(C^R + d +f)*10^P]*L

[Doctor Insanovic]

M=[(C^R + d +f)*10^P]*L

Fools! This will not do at all! MANthematics is a science of simplicity! We do not have the patience for long equations, therefore we must simplify all factors into a neat but accurate condensed formula. For instance, I should very much think that Fireliness comes under Risk to health, and therefore can be expressed simply as R. One may want to create a separate equation for the constituents of R, and say that it is a derivative value, of which Fireliness is an element, but for the sake of the equation for Manliness, only the whole R value is used. (an example, one does not say that Force=mass(displacement/time^2), instead it is said that Force equals mass times accelleration, accelleration being a derivative value, but not being expressed as such). Largeliness can also represent different elements, and be comprised of them, such as largeliness of a conquest when dealing with the manliness of a conquest. Denseliness must be an isolated coefficient of Largeliness (there are no other factors working on the amount that Denseliness multiplies Largeliness by, which does not seem to be the case in the revised formula, i.e. (C^R + d +f) where d does not directly alter L). When measuring the mass of something, it is calculated by its volume times its density (Largeliness times Denseliness... actually, this being the case, we could further simplify the equation by writing Ld as m, which represents Massliness. Though it would detract from the fun of saying that Manliness is in direct proportion to Largeliness). These facts all being reasonable, I think we can safely assume the original formula of M=(Ld+f)^R can be used without problem, though if one wishes to find the value of one of its constituents they may expand the equation or transpose the formulae of other constituents into the equation to do so. I must make one change to my original equation however, just to make Manliness actually directly proportional to Largeliness, we must move f out of the bracket containing L. So, a revised equation would look more like this: M=(e^f)(Ld)^R thereby letting f make no difference if it=0 and also letting the quantity of M rely on that of L, unless d=0, in which case L is pointless anyway. For all those wondering what e stands for, by the way, it is the same e used in logarithmic equations.

So, I maintain that M does indeed correctly = (e^f)(Ld)^R in its simplest form, the other elements mentioned being constituents of those in this formula.

Once again:

Code: Select all

M=(e^f)(Ld)^R   OR   M=(e^f)m^R

[/rant]

[Unlucky]

[/rant]

And with that, LRR forums were owned in their discussion of what Manliness is.

Also, you needed paragraphs. That was a real pain in the arse to read.

[Kdz]

I honestly think that Conquest is more important than Facial hair, and not just because it was a concept I introduced. Otherwise, how do you explain the Native Americans? Total badasses, men all around, no facial hair.

I still think Facial hair is vital to the equation, though.

[Yukikaze]

Manliness is not inherent in simplicity. Some of the manliest things in this world are also incredibly complex. Automobiles, firearms, nuclear weapons. All three of these are arguably manly, but they are also incredibly complex.

[Kdz]

Manliness is not inherent in simplicity. Some of the manliest things in this world are also incredibly complex. Automobiles, firearms, nuclear weapons. All three of these are arguably manly, but they are also incredibly complex.

Also notable: What do all three of these things produce? EXPLOSIONS

[Master Gunner]

Also, in neither of your equations is Manliness in direct proportion to largliness, a problem that we had just fixed. You can't have an exponent on largliness, you can only have a constant of "k" (given the context in which Morgan gave that statement, we're going with the direct proportion specifically applying to any given object/activity/thingy, so everything else would remain the same as largliness increases).

Also, going into space. Incredibly manly for any number of reasons, but also among the most complex things to do (hence why the term "rocket scientist" is often used as a generic term to describe any particularly smart person).