« PREVIOUS ENTRY
I’ve got an Atom feed now

The science of “beer goggles”

Most of us have, at some sodden point in our lives, learned the hazards of “beer goggles”. Indeed, research shows that 68% of men or women who hand out a phone number at a bar regret it the next day — after realizing the hottie they’d met was, in fact, not.

But now a neuroscientist has actually worked out a formula describing the precise interaction of booze, lighting, and distance that produces this dread syndrome. In Nathan Ephron’s equation, which is above, “Β” stands for the intensity of one’s beer goggle effect, and it is calculated by these variables:

An = number of units of alcohol consumed

S = smokiness of the room (graded from 0-10, where 0 clear air; 10 extremely smoky)

L = luminance of ‘person of interest’ (candelas per square metre; typically 1 pitch black; 150 as seen in normal room lighting)

Vo = Snellen visual acuity (6/6 normal; 6/12 just meets driving standard)

d = distance from ‘person of interest’ (metres; 0.5 to 3 metres)

The upshot is that the effect isn’t just about drinking: It’s about visual ability. A dance floor lit by black-lit bulbs would produce an epidemiological surge of beer goggles. As Ephron notes, “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.”

Presumably this stuff is a bit hard to calculate while you’re smashed beyond all recognition, but as Barbie said, math class is tough.

By the way, this stuff was funded by the contact lens firm Bausch & Lomb.

(Note: In a bit of hilarious mistyping, I inititally wrote this post as “beer googles”. And I didn’t mistype it that way once — I typed it wrong the whole way through! What would one call the digital age version of the Freudian slip? A Weinerian slip? Thanks to my brother-in-law Rob for pointing out the error!)


blog comments powered by Disqus

Search This Site


Bio:

I'm Clive Thompson, a writer on science, technology, and culture. This blog collects bits of offbeat research I'm running into, and musings thereon.

Currently, I'm a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a columnist for Wired magazine. I also write for Fast Company and Wired magazine's web site, among other places. Email or AOL IM me (pomeranian99) to say hi or send in something strange!

More of Me

Twitter
Tumblr
Flickr


Recent Entries

Teleportation, the last battle, and the Creator talks: How the world ends inside an online game

My latest Wired magazine column: Troll taming at Whitehouse.gov

Apparently NASA is filled with Joss Whedon fans

Incredibly weird, inch-wide single-celled creatures discovered rolling across the sea floor

In praise of the 3-hour game: My latest Wired News video-game column

» visit the Collision Detection archives

Clive Thompson's Tumblr
a bunch of stuff

March 25, 2009 » 05:10 PM
I had to ask! I was investigating getting DirecTV for my new office when I saw this pop-up window …

March 22, 2009 » 08:54 PM
““From an acoustical perspective, music is an overstructured language, which the brain invented and which the brain loves to hear.”” - Basics - In One Ear and Out the Other - NYTimes.com

March 20, 2009 » 04:48 PM
“No wonder young people find mainstream journalism uninviting; it would almost be more frightening if they embraced what passes for news today.” - The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers (Page 2)

March 19, 2009 » 01:12 PM
Printing The NYT Costs Twice As Much As Sending Every Subscriber A Free Kindle

March 18, 2009 » 08:44 PM
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” — Edward Abbey” - Via Thor Muller’s twitter stream.

» visit my Tumblr

Recent Comments

Photos

» see all of my photos on Flickr

Collision Detection: A Blog by Clive Thompson