Equation: The Difference Between Girls and Guys

• 2010, Twenty shmen! We'll still be making jokes like this if we reach 3010... there Len. Lord forbid we're not all over-evolved pompous jag-offs by then.

• Sorry, but this is wrong. For all the girls I've ever met, the equation for weighing up a guy has been: Intelligence + humour + (money + looks)^2 Girls are every bit as shallow as men, only they put more importance on money than we do.

• Who ever has the balls to turn that in is my hero. LOL man.

• WOMEN BE SHOPPIN!

• YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS! I've read through the comments and, NO ONE has got it... IT'S A VISUAL JOKE PEOPLE! The woman's "equation" lines up with his genitals (size of penis) and the man's make the visual of 2 breasts. The penis size is then made fun of with $ closest to the body and intelligence furthest away. The hotness + breasts is a throw to the cliche that it is just hotness that matters, intelligence and humour are just incidental. Incidentally who among you isn't from the good ol' US of A? I'm especially disappointed in you... Don't wanna be an American Idiot...

• the men's equation is backwards, the woman's is missing the "crazy" factor and both are missing the "alcohol factor" but totally hilarious otherwise.

• hmmm

• interesting comments - but obviously all made by a bunch of liberal arts majors or inummerates. men rate women as : ((intelligence + humor)/(maintenance+psychosis))^looks! with all quantities on a 1-10 scale. for you liberal arts folks, the '!' is the factorial function, and the '^' is exponentiation. women rate men as: (logr(his income/ her income)*(intelligence +humor + looks))+i*rnd(10)+ sqrt(2) where logr is a log to a random base, i is the imaginary number. the log term goes negative if he makes less than her. 'rnd(10)' means a random number between 1 and ten. this makes a woman's rating of a man always complex and irrational. I think that the above equations, while slightly more difficult to use, are more reflective of reality and will disabuse anyone of the clearly false idea that they can actually have any idea of what goes on in a woman's mind

• For those claiming women are as "superficial as men" in judging the opposite sex? Totally NOT true. I ask only one thing: which sex is *more likely* to marry or even date a disabled person? I rest my case.

• yeah, it should be: looks * (sanity + humor + intelligence)

• Stupid sexist title ... it should be difference between girls and BOYS NOT girls and GUYS

• ahehehe..this is usually true...:-)

• I can�t believe you people are arguing about this. Classic. I think the comments are funnier than the picture. +1 to the idiot society for completely missing the point.

• Equation to rate women should be "(Look + Humor)/Intelligent" We need no smart women whose control over men.

• Ummmm, there is a much more accurate scale out there. It is the Tucker Max Female Rating System: http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/the_tucker_max_female_rating_system.phtml

• I think people are forgetting these things are purely for humour, and do not represent any "eternal truths". JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE

• Oh, so girls are better than boys, I get it. My experience has been that in school, there was always a better looking guy. I always ended up in the "friend zone" and it was made clear to me that my intellect, talent and humor did not matter. The horror stories my girl "friends" told me about the good looking guys they dated apparently weren't bad enough to make them overlook their superior physical appearance. When I got out of school, there was always a guy who dressed better or had a better car, etc. I didn't have any female friends: I was invisible to them. I was a starving artist and looked the part. The best reaction I could get from a woman was a sneer. When I began my career, suddenly I was surrounded by available women who all found me to be smart, funny, gifted and intelligent. Go figure!

• @Gonzoboy I bet you're ripped, could fight in MMA and make a lot of money amirite?

• This was clearly created by a woman.

• Men rank women on 1-10 so you fail there. Women rank men on two scales depending on their age. Young women rank on looks. Once a woman hits a certain point in her life money becomes number one followed by looks.

• You nerds need to stop arguing about the variables of the equation and FUCKING GET LAID. The joke is that it is far harder to entirely please a woman, and men simply either will or will not fuck her. Christ you guys are pale, go get some sun or something!

• actually the average male does not look for humor in women. Humor has been masculinized and is considered more or less a pretty feather in the mating ritual, which is why the class clowns are always little boys. They are realizing that humor is a good way to be noticed, and they then begin to refine it. This is also why the biggest names in comedies are of men, and why they are geared towards men. intelligence too has been masculinized throughout history. Because of gender roles and males being in more competition for higher paying jobs, society has come to consider intelligence a masculine quality. As a result of these two: Smart women intimidate men. Funny women tend to be considered as "one of the guys"

• "I would change that to: looks * (1 + intelleignec + humor) (That way a good looking woman can score high, even if she's not the sharpest or funniest tool in the shed.)" Did you graduate from 2nd grade? 0 times anything equals 0. 0 looks ( 1 + 0 intelligence + 0 humor) = 0. It'd have to be 1 + looks (etc...)

• HEY PEOPLE IT'S SUPOSED TO BE FUNNY DON'T TAKE IT LITTERAL JUST FUCKING LAUGH CAUSE YOUR ONE OPINION DOESN'T COVER THE WHOLE GODDAMN WORLD WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT GUYS LIKE TITS AND HOT CHICKS NOT THE BRAINS THAT COME WITH THEM AND GIRLS LIKE THE MONEY AND ATTENTION THEY GET FOR CATCHING A HOT GUY IT'S COMMON AND YET FUNNY DON'T TRY AND SIMPLIFY THIS CONCEPT JUST GO WITH IT

• men's pov should be: 5x Looks + 0.25x Intel + 0.25x Humor - 30x Makes more money than you

• I agree, this isn't realistic. The typical man-hating mentality is indeed captured above, but from what I've seen in the last couple decades put most emphasis just on looks for women. If they did care so much about intelligence + humor + money, I know a lot of guys who would be getting laid like rock stars, but because they lack in the looks (=confidence) category, they are jerking off most nights. The world doesn't work like what we list above, at least not in the US. (in some places like Japan your resume seems to be sufficient, at least in my experience) It's unfortunate, just like that nerdy guy in Van Wilder said: "Unfortunately, having best GPA doesn't get you laid."

• What's "mate" mean? Someone to screw tonight or someone with whom to live the rest of my days with? I assure you that those two scenarios activate very different calculations.

• will she do the dishes and clean house? http://www.fuartv.org/

• It's funny because it's true :D

• Anyone pay attention to the author of the above infographic's last name??? Kind of obvious that someone with the last name of "Fuk-u-man" might have issues with men... plus you're all taking this way too seriously.

• Or as a coworker of mine used to say: beauty x brains is a constant

• Isn't anything to the 0 actually 1?

• I love Jimmy more now than I ever did!

• It seems like humour isnt given enough credit on the womens equation. Studies have shown tht a sense of humour is often the first thing women look for in men, followed by wealth. Also the equation doesnt mention any sort of X-factor. I'm sure we've all met ppl we've been totally bowled over by who havent scored tht highly on this graph and also met ppl we'd score highly who we were largely indifferent to. You cant forget that x-factor that makes ppl fall head over heels for someone without really being able to explain why.

• Perhaps the woman's equation for assessing men should read: money * (intel. + humor + looks) Or perhaps this is just rather dumb altogether.

• Another devolution in the Venus/Mars debate.

• There is way too many cunts posting here...

• Actually it is biologically accurate. Women use traits to make sure they have beneficial genes passed onto their child as their criteria. This includes money (does he have enough resources to raise a child). The man looks for the best possible mate (looks) then considers other factors such as intelligence.

• First off, nice work on the graphic...very entertaining. Second, I am a dating coaching (yes, people pay me for it) and I've written pretty extensively on this subject matter. To make this formula useful for comparing between the sexes and not simply within each sex, we're going to want four variable on each side. Making this adjustment does not pose too much of a challenge if we simply equate money with social status, our respective positions in the social hierarchy. If we make that substitution, we can easily see this is something that is valued by the other sex as well For example, if you take two women and, all other things being equal, one is a celebrity (e.g. snowboarder Torah Bright) while the other is not, a man is probably going to find the celebrity woman more attractive. And just as men place a disproportional weight on looks in their attraction response, women tend to value status much more highly than the other variables. So the new "equation" becomes... Women want: Status x (Intelligence + Humor + Looks) Men want: Looks x (Intelligence + Humor + Status) Now everyone go get laid! :]

• This chart is a mathematics FAIL.

• I don't see how this infographic disparages men. It simply states that, generally, men aren't as critical about women as women are about men. By adding $ as a factor for women, the infographic could also be stating that women focus too much on money alluding to how stereotypically superficial women are. That construction would make more sense because men are stereotypical about looks, and thereby can be construed as an equal knock back at men. I completely agree with the infographic. Intelligence doesn't mean anything unless there's a sense of humor to highlight it.

• This makes no sense, other than to further the stereotype that women are poor at mathematics.

• ^ A bunch of queers.

• Women are just as shallow as men when it comes to looks. Sometimes more so. This graphic is inaccurate.

• Yeah, that is so 1993, this is 2010, Here is the facts .... For guys it is all about; Does the girl look hot? is she in shape? does she have great BQQBs? how about a smooth vag, tight rear ? can I park in back? will she/can she give a deep throat BJ? will she swallow? will she do the dishes and clean house? Is her family rich? will she get a X2 paying job so I can play video games? Will her sister do me too? how about her mother? how about her brother too? Yeah that graphic is just stupid.

• What... ever happened to being able to giggle at something and move on? Constructive criticism is welcome, and while flaming is anticipated, it doesn't change you from being less of a douche about it...

• Yeah, thta is so 1993, this is 2010, Here is the facts .... For guys it is all about; Does the girl look hot? is she in shape? does she have great BQQBs? how about a smooth vag, tight rear ? can ii park in back? wiishe/can she give a deep throat BJ? will she swallow? will she do the dishes and clean house? Is her family rich? will she get a X2 paying job so I can play video games? Will her sister do me too? how about her mother? how about her brother too? Yeah that graphic is just stupid.

• This is not an equation. These are two formulas.

• I'm pretty sure that for men rating women, looks^2 or looks^3 is more appropriate.

• There's a good reason for guys to prefer good-looking women. Healthy women make healthy babies. Why use more sophisticated criteria? Women, on the other hand, have to find a man who will bring home the bacon no matter what. Diversification of strengths is usually more important than maximizing any one. However, I would say that already having money is a pretty good indication of fitness. So money weighs more highly than any other factor. It's nice to pretend otherwise, but it's just not as often true. Guys want looks, girls want security. It's not shallow, it's just how we take care of real needs.

• Actually, the equation you put together (looks x (intelligence + humor)*) implies that if a girl is neither funny nor smart, it doesn't matter HOW hot she is. While I'd tend to agree, that's sort of the opposite of the point you're supposedly making.

• Oh my god, why are people taking this so seriously? It's just a joke, which is pretty funny. Lighten up people.

• Awesome! Another chart that digs into the established fact that men are oafs just looking for a hot woman to marry and that women are perfect beings (who marry men fully knowing that all they care about is whether his wife is hot). This made my day and was just as funny as when my friend said, 'working hard or hardly working?...man, we laughed and laughed at that one.

• It's 2010 and we're still making jokes like this? "Nah, but seriously, it's like, guys and girls are TOTALLY different."

• I would say for guys : (looks * (intelligence + humor) + money) If a stupid ugly girls is really rich, she might be attractive for some (most) of us :p

• Hahahaha. Intelligence and Humor???? Multiply with 0 you get 0! Looks + Attitude + Fun

• There is only one problem with this equation... note that addition and multiplication do not work the same way... i.e. .5*.5=.25 where as .5+.5=1....

• So guys can score up to a 4 while girls can only score a 2? Interesting.

• Really? These men VS women infographics are getting so old. Same with stand up comedians that point out meaningless differences between men and women. This isn't 1993 anymore.

• It seems like the equation for "How guys rate girls" is missing the crazy variable. Please reference the Barney Stinton's "Hot, Crazy Scale".

• I would change that to: looks * (1 + intelleignec + humor) (That way a good looking woman can score high, even if she's not the sharpest or funniest tool in the shed.)

• Rubbish. Women are equally superficial, and this is just a man-hating infographic based upon nothing except some urban legend about women and men based upon poor observations and biased situations. In other words, this is good for entertainment, but nothing else, because this is NOT how women and men work.

• A few problems with this equation. First, the best possible score should be the same for men and women. However men top out at 4 whereas for a woman it is 2. Second, there is already a well-established ten-point scoring system. Third, this scoring system suggests that a man finds a "perfect 10" woman with average intelligence and humor as attractive as a "5" with perfect intelligence and humor. Considering how popular gorgeous women are regardless of their intelligence, I'd say this is not true. Cute concept but a could use some work.

• It is funny.

TotalComments: 64