First of all, the o.p. needs to refrain from attempting to impress people using a barely understood area of knowledge from a half-remembered snoozemath class and then getting pissy when called out on his ignorance. It is bad form and unimpressive to the ladies, as it combines ignorance and insecurity.
To expand on what Shagnasty said, the so-called “bell curve” is simply a graphical plot of the probability density of a normal distribution. The normal distribution is so named because it takes a population distribution which is indexed by a single variable or (set of independent variables) and “normalizes” it (i.e. it is divided by some factor, in probability distribution the sum total) and shifted to the mean, about which the population is symmetrically distributed on an exponential function. This distribution represents a wide number of phenomena that can be characterized by variation about a point on a defined interval.
For instance, if you were to stand on the end of a crane and drop marbles onto hot asphalt or clay (so that they do not bounce, and the only variations are slight deviations in how you release the marble) you’d find the resulting distribution about the radial distance from the target point to be a normal distribution. Most single variable populations studies about any arbitrary characteristic of a roughly homogeneous population–say, height, IQ, or propensity to fall for random bullshit guys throw out in a bar conversation–fall nicely into a normal distribution for a sufficiently large population. Errors in measurement also fall into a normal distribution, and this is therefore used on otherwise discrete measurements to capture the difference between what is and what is measured.
The normal distribution also lends itself nicely to being able to distinguish between modifications to a variable that will have a significant effect (within a few standard distributions) to those which will have a very small effect (many standard distributions out, toward the “swan’s tail”). This is the basis for business and process improvement methodologies like Statistical Process Control and Six Sigma; unfortunately, many business-type people don’t seem to understand that these methods only apply to processes that can be quantified in terms of a few discrete variables and measured on a statistical basis, and do not apply to low volume, highly variable business practices, and so have been much maligned in their misapplication.
To address the question of the o.p.:for a sufficiently large population (~1000) there is very likely some member in the 1st percentile region, and someone in the 99th percentile. For a much smaller sample size, the odds that someone is near the tail ends of the curves are much lower, but still non-zero. From the o.p.'s description of the interaction it would seem that both parties were operating from barely remembered knowledge further compounded by the acoustic environment and doubtless haze of intoxicating beverages, and so little in the way of comprehensible discussion did or was likely to ensue.
Wendell Wagner, I find that quantum mechanics makes for a more engaging topic to be wizardly about, though Jearl Walker’s The Flying Circus of Physics is really the go-to book for physics anecdotes to use in bars to impress women. Mind you, none of this has ever gotten me laid, but nor has a knowledge of Russian literature, Eastern European history, or a comprehensive reviewing of the films written by Charlie Kaufman. Having a good line of utterly meaningless patter and a ready supply of minor insults seems to be the most effective strategy with picking up women.
Stranger
