62.  Higher than I would have expected.  I'm unusually family oriented for a man my age.

I too have noticed that a high percentage of transhumanists, even famous ones, tend to be single

I just took the quiz and I scored an 85

I scored a 123.  Heh.

It might've been higher had a couple of questions in the quiz not been so flagrantly outgoing.  Some criticism of "quirkyalone":

1) The site looks like a bunch of outgrown emo kids on antidepressants, even the logo.
2) They have a strong extroversion bias; they need to rework their quiz questions to accomodate introverts.
3) I scored a 123, and yet I have no interest in joining those people.  I should get extra points for this, so let's say I scored 235959.
4) The author registered a trademark on "quirkyalone", let the corporate personality branding begin (tm).  "I like your personality," "Thanks, I got it from the internet... nice shoes."
5) Too much estrogen, "if you are a man, assume you are a women" is sexist, I don't want to assume to be a woman, at least use a... gendernym? (tm?)

Questions like "when you go to a bar to meet somebody" annoy me... why would I want to do such a thing?

Did not take the test but I definitely fall into that category. I am raising my son alone and would much rather do it that way. Anyone I meet would have to be very self-sufficient and not want to live with me! (Reasons being that I read too much and my child deserves my full attention in the evening.)

77

I am very individualistic, but I do NEED social interaction.
I do meet all those signs, except maybe 2 though

I scored "99", however, I see the concept of "quirkyalone" as being a bit faddish, and possibly a jargony way of simply saying, "I don't define myself THROUGH my relationships, but rather through my interests and preferred activities".  In my case, I know that I am more interested in quality than quantity when it comes to interactions.  No company is better than bad or annoying company in my estimation.  

I do think it is healthy to get some outside input at times -- lest I start getting too wrapped up in Anne-land, and perhaps get caught in some sort of circular mode of thinking that limits my ability to come up with new possibilities for combining data. However, I don't feel I've ever had trouble getting this sort of outside input when I need it. And I am curious to hear other people's ideas. However, I imagine (and hope) that people do only comment on my ideas because they feel inspired to do so, and not because they're worried about maintaining a certain frequency of reciprocity. That's certainly the way I approach my own commenting and interacting -- I basically comment and interact when I feel compelled to, and this compulsion has to be intrinsic -- it's not some sort of piece of a social contract.  I don't understand social contracts for their own sake: the value of any interaction is only as good as its content, and in most of what I observe between other humans, there is a lot of contractual-type stuff but less in the way of the sort of communication likely to facilitate such things as intellectual discourse.

I am in a committed relationship (going on 7 years) and the reason this relationship works so well is that we'd both be happy if we were single, and were plentifully happy when we met.  We are together because it pleases us to be (and there are various advantages, both economical and convenience-wise, to cohabitation).  It always makes me shudder to hear that someone claims to need a partner to "complete" them.  People should be able to complete themselves!

Since we're comparing scores--107.

Sigh. Neologisms. Ay! What's the matter with the perfectly good label, "confirmed bachelor" or "confirmed spinster?" I think this actually something that is very, very old. It's just that they're on the Web now so maybe it's hip again.

Anyway, what probably has changed in these modern times are the reasons for people opting out of the whole gene bashing scene.

This takes us to transhumanist motivations for being confirmed bachelors and spinsters, including my own, since I think I'm pretty squarely pigeon-holed in this category.

We know that the educational system stinks. We've gone through it ourselves, seen its shortcomings and we know there might be better pedagogical technology in the future so, why our put our kids through that?

The world is already full with billions of people. The species is in little danger of dying out any time soon. Even a thermonuclear exchange might not be sufficient. Children in the post-industrial world consume twenty times the resources of kids in the developing world so, why make more?

If we believe that aging can be cured, aren't kids a poor substitute for agelessness?

Are the economic reasons for being in relationships really that compelling? You have someone to share rent, mortgage or property tax with? It's nice to have a backup to help you through a rough patch and lean times but that's what friends are for.

One of the things that you learn as an adult is that mature love and simple attachment matter much more than anything else. Infatuation is an evolutionary hack cooked up to get us to bang genes together. It's only temporary.

The whole idea of a "soul mate," the perfect completion for you, is propaganda. The much kinder truth is that there are plenty of fish in the sea. If it doesn't work out with someone, there's always someone vaguely like them you can try and learn again with.

I suppose it's a matter of taste but I personally believe libido is something easily and cheaply satisfied alone. Some people need partners for it to feel great. Others don't. Perhaps that's terribly selfish but, is it really?

So in the end, what I think matters most to me is old friends, whom I've known for decades. who I still stay in synchrony with. That's not really easy to do but I think doing that reduces love to it's most basic, uncluttered elegance. Love of the world. You slowly come to love the world, horrible though it is in spots.

I don't know if transhumanism has intensified this trend or not but, I think it's  an increasingly common thing among my generation and the ones that have followed. Older people have asked me why are we (my generation.) marrying and settling down?

We see the raising divorce rate, the rising costs of quality child raising, the raising costs and uncertainty of retirement for ourselves and our parents and grandparents (and occasionally great grandparents.), the hypersaturation in the media by, as yet unattainable, youth and beauty and a growing number of us think, "Why bother? Who am I trying to impress? What does this really mean?"

The whole family raising, dogs in the suburbs, middle-age spread, increasing net worth, marriage thing is just a lifestyle now. Me, I'm just not interested anymore. I got other things to do.

Maybe this view point is bitter but, I don't think so. It can be very liberating if your personality is suited for it. If not, there's a McMansion waiting for you the spouse and the kids on the edge of the urban sprawl.

Normally I don't preach about this stuff. It's often hard to justify to some people. I just let them draw their own conclusions about my decisions and leave it at that.

Anyway enough bearing with the baring of my soul.

I think I'm on the extreme side of this concocted label. I've never had a date, or been intimate with anyone. (not because of mental/physical deformality :P)

I don't believe in "love", the majority of relationships are most likely founded on desire which are destined to cause more problems than solve once the desire fades and it moves onto another object/person.

I think it's important for people to place importance on self-sustainment for emotional needs. In this way happiness isn't conditional and the person is alot more stable.
Unfortunately as a product of evolution, it is very hard to resist desires that are going to take you down the wrong path. The only realistic way is prevention.

106.  I agree with what 235959 said.  Looking at this site, and espescially the quiz I am struck by the idea that this whole concept was created by some woman depressed that she was unsuccesful at finding dates, most likely on Valentines day, since that is oddly enough the day she decided to have Quirkyalone day, which strikes me as an attack upon romance than the idea of creating a sub-culture.  She most liekly created it as a form of self-medication for her own emotional problems with the added bonus of being able to help other women out with it.  Her blatant bias towards women almost gives one the idea that she actually hates men for not choosing to date her.  Then again, I tend to be very harsh about others.

Haha Peregryn, that was funny.  Though you make a lot of assumptions, I think I agree with you.  Deep down, these types of women are just bitter about men... either that or penis envy.

I am so politically correct

I think I saw this on a T-shirt once:

"Penis envy is just a phallusy".

Excellent points, Mr. Farlops, on relationships. Marriage is definitely not an economic necessity for most people, especially women who have access to quality health care and education. I am lucky enough to be earning alone what the average Canadian family makes, so I really have no financial need for a partner.

I would argue that our "fast food" approach to everything has damaged the way people look for and engage in relationships. You could also call it the Seinfeld approach. "He has a mole on his neck. She slurps her coffee. He likes to watch Oprah..."

AggressiveProgressive, I would not say I was bitter about men, but rather at age 32 I feel perhaps that men are less likely to be interested in me. I have stopped concerning myself with what men think and whether I am attractive enough. It is liberating in many ways and I am "not looking", which is also a great place to be.

Sure "quirkyalone" is a neologism, but I'd rather call myself that than "Single Mom"...still a dirty word in some corners.

neuronymph, I haven't seen anything to conclude that you are remotely similar to the person who made that quirkyalone site.  Although the author has many biases, the term may well indeed be suitable to describe many of us.

I am sure it could be replaced with other terms.  Mr Farlops offered "confirmed bachelor," but I always thought that was a pseudo euphemism for a gay man.

There seems to be this growing realization that we are emerging from a biologically induced hallucination. This hallucination emerged to keep our ancient ancestors bashing genes together. It was necessary.

But now our culture has grown so powerful that it's on the verge of supplanting emergent biology with designed biology. We see these ancient drives for what they are: a set of complicated, emergent hacks to perpetuate the genes and the species.  In the minds of some, knowing this trivializes these drives.

But I bet most quirkyalones (Argh! The word is just too damn twee!) don't really think about it that deeply. They've just given up and moved on.

On the negative side, I do wonder if many of these quirkyalones aren't suffering from some dangerous perfectionism. I wonder if some of these people have wordlessly and unconsciously decided that if they can't live in the perfect world propagandized in all the dysfunctional love songs, they're just not going to bother. It's like the fox and the grapes.

On the other hand, I wonder about long term viability of human personalities when confronted with lifespans stretching into millions of years. If human personalities can't deal with those huge amounts of change and experience, how on earth can human relationships? If you pull back far enough many of our motivations seem so silly.

On still another hand, in the immortal words of Slartibartfast, hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. Have a little fun!

Come on Mr. Farlops, neologisms can be fun, why do you have to be so Farlopian?

Ahem, the correct term is "Farlopsian." (See? I can be twee too!)