Confessions of a Ballerunner

Essays on Sports, Arts, Culture, and Life

Dating Don’ts: Applying the ‘Scientific Method’ to Dating

Let’s get one thing straight: what happens in the lab should stay in the lab, right? Easy for you to say if you’re not a researcher or science writer, whose brain functions in analytic mode 24-7…

When I go on a first date with someone, my prospective mate could be forgiven for thinking he had walked into a courtroom for a surprise cross-examination or high-pressure job interview instead of a casual date.

I’m not the greatest at small talk, but I can do it… when I have to. My preference, however is to just get to the point relatively quickly — particularly on blind dates or on-line meet-ups — to determine whether there actually is a connection and therefore a point to the date. Which makes the meandering way in which a date can unfold problematic for people like me. I’m going to chalk my little personality quirk for efficiency up to a combination of my INTJ (“scientist”) Myers-Briggs personality type and Keirsey Rational temperament. I’m all about uncovering the truth and have this compulsion to plan or strategize.

Dating is not data though. It’s about people: you and your date (assuming you are not on a double date, or have asked two or more people out on this given date — which you haven’t, ’cause you’re too decent for that). In real-time. No control groups or experimental mice, rat, or ferret models; ditto for Petri dishes, study patients, or scientific papers for a systematic review & meta-analysis. No slightly geeky but witty crack team of CSI-like researchers to back you up either.

It’s you and you alone. Well, you and your date. The point being you are “on”, so any natural tendency to defer to the flagellated bacterium under your high-powered electron microscope (as the case may be) or equally captivating big, extroverted personality in the room is no longer an option (unless of course, you’ve brought your i-pad with you and you decide to skype your chatty, vivacious BFF in, which could backfire on you, because your date might actually end up liking her instead of you — assuming you decide you are attracted to this guy).

And so, under such pressure to perform, I tend to treat dating much like a job interview or athletic competition, where the rules of engagament are well established. So, of course being competitive, I summon my A-game to win — which is a tricky outcome in a dating context, in that what exactly you “win” isn’t always as clear as it is in a job interview or road race…

If only dating could be conducted like a controlled clinical trial designed to answer one fundamental question: ‘Is this a good guy… for me?’… 

Imagine how useful such a controlled experiment (see Figure 1 below) could be on those occasions* when you’re juggling dating more than one person at once — but not on the same date — and need to make careful comparisons between candidates in order to decide which person with whom you are interested in potentially forming a long-term relationship or meaningful chemical reaction. [*NB: not my preferred approach since I hate multi-tasking, notwithstanding the fact this kind of conundrum is also a relatively rare event for me]

Figure 1: One example of a design for a controlled clinical dating experiment

At the risk of totally geekafying this post (if I haven’t already), I sort of had a non-randomized active-controlled, two-arm cross-over trial (as illustrated in the above schematic) going for a brief period last fall that then morphed, or converged, into a prospective (single-arm) observational study (sorry, Mr. Architect guy).

All this to say, my inner scientist truth-seeker ultimately aims to determine the answer to that most fundamental of questions (in case you’ve forgotten: ‘Is this a good guy?’) in the most expedient way possible, and then, if I judge that he is not, my alter-ego economist/strategist then kicks into high gear and seeks to minimize the opportunity time +/- cost trade-off of this unsuccessful date by devising a proper exit strategy that ideally saves face for both of us.

But backing up a step, any scientist (worth his/her salt) or good critical thinker should ask, ‘well what is YOUR definition of a ‘good guy’?.. Good question, since this definition is inherently subjective, and thus will vary depending on who is doing the defining. 🙂

I like to think I will simply recognize him intuitively when I meet said potential Mr. Right, but the truth is I clearly have no clue – or at least I didn’t until recently. (20-20 hindsight + bad timing seem to be my dual nemeses).

Case in point: a few months ago, I did meet a potential Mr. Right, but didn’t recognize it until too late, because of the specious scientific paradigm I had been operating under to that point about the type of personality I believed my Mr. Right should invariably possess in order to be my ideal fit — the yang to my yin, Mr. Darcy to my Elizabeth Bennet, Pierre to my Marie Curie

I’ll never know for sure now, because I wasted a lot of time while Mr. Potential Right and I were dating, harping on the improbability of our association, fit, and long-term compatibility. You see, normally, I attract guys of the somewhat nerdy scientific persuasion (I know, you’re shocked) despite being a reasonably well-rounded person, myself (avid athlete and love of the arts & culture scene). One of these nerdy-science guys whom I had particularly fancied for quite a while was exceptionally brilliant (a descriptor I do not dole out often), articulate, and could write so beautifully (hello, Robert Browning). I also felt like we spoke the same (often flowery, neo-Victorian) language when we first met. In many ways, I was convinced he represented a better version of myself. (Eureka!) I was sure I’d found my Mr. Darcy at last. OK, maybe the Sheldon Cooper to my (much cooler, more socially aware) Amy Farrah Fowler. 😉

Well, sadly, it didn’t work out. Turns out Sheldon and I were a bad fit despite his meeting the lion’s share of my itemized, imaginary Mr. Right wishlist, except for maybe some of the really important stuff (which, of course, I would only learn in hindsight). And this leads me to the eventual realization (and new scientific paradigm) that I came to in missing my recent opportunity with Mr. Potential Right: it would have been a complete disaster for me to be with a guy who shared 95% sequence homology with my personality make-up (i.e., was a close carbon-copy of myself). Imagine the combination of two intense, serious, competitive, hyper-analytical, impatient, demanding, perfectionistic, critical, intellectualizing scientific types — together… as a couple… Wow, what a recipe for fun!? Sounds more like a train wreck waiting to happen. In my state of protracted love-blindedness, however, it sounded more like a match made in ideological heaven to me until my moment of (delayed) enlightenment post Mr. Potential Right’s serendipitous arrival into my life.

So, at the risk of recall bias (i.e.,  reviewing one’s romantic past with strictly rose-colored glasses), I decided to try and reach out to Mr. Potential Right, after recognizing that my obssessive analysis about our ‘differences’ was really just an outward expression of my anxiety or fear about the distinct possibility that we might have actually been very compatible (or complementary) as a couple because of our differences.

Which leads me to my own ill-advised (20-20 hindsight) personal version of the ‘mail-order brownie romantic entreaty fiasco (see post “Dating Don’ts: Professing one’s love via mail-order brownies” dated March 25, 2012): I decided to reach out to Mr. Potential Right one month after we ended things in the spirit of rolling the dice, seizing control of my life, and taking a risk to see if we could give things another shot.

Since, more often than not, I tend to chicken out with the whole raw, uncomfortable feelings stuff (like a true INTJ, sadly…) in favor of retreating to the relative safety of pontification and intellectualization — which has the untoward effect of making me appear deceptively rational, stoic, and completely emotionally unaffected — I decided to try a different approach to show my softer, sensitive side: a grand artistic gesture! 🙂

I came up with the whole concept while out running one night (solitary running can really be a great catalyst for creative thinking/ideas — just maybe not this one): I would do a series of hand-drawn, colorized sketches on progressively smaller (and differently colored) envelopes – think Russian (Matryoshka) nesting dolls complete with brief recipe card-sized notes (serving as narrative or the ‘pitch’, in case the drawings alone came across as hieroglyphs) — that would tell a (hopefully) compelling story about our (all-too-brief) romantic interlude, and whose overall message would be to ‘give us another chance’. Brilliant, right? Maybe for a Nora Ephron or John Hughes rom-com. But in real life? Probably not so much. Anyway, I had fully committed to my artistic vision and hopelessly romantic plan, so there was no turning back. One sunny afternoon, I stealthily slipped the finished chef d’oeuvre into his mailbox and then waited — not in the bushes or anywhere else near his home, just so we’re clear I’m not some crazy stalker — in anticipation of our most certain joyous reunion à la Jane Austen grand dénouement.

After several days then weeks passed, I realized (sadly) that he wasn’t going to go all John Mayer or Adam Cohen and serenade me with his acoustic guitar from the street outside my bedroom window, nor was he going to one-up me with an even grander artistic articulation of his undying affection for me. I just wasn’t going to hear from him, period.

He had more than likely moved on, turned the page on me, and was probably happily dating someone else by now. (Probably someone far easier to be with, too.) I had lost, not in the competition sense of the word (which can easily be misconstrued when it’s me), but I had lost my chance to be with a really secure, interesting, intelligent, funny, outgoing, athletic, artistic, kind, caring, perceptive, sensitive guy, who also happened to be incredibly attractive — all (or at least, in big part) because I thought being so different from each other in temperament was a bad thing when it turns out it is probably exactly what I need in a partner.

And so, I can do nothing but move forward, having learned from this experience, with the hope that I am now better equipped to recognize the next Mr. Potential Right I will meet. (Hopefully, he’s wearing one of those unambiguous signs you see people wearing or holding at the arrivals gate at the airport in order to flag me down!?)

{As a postcript, I have Mr Potential Right to thank for encouraging me to express myself more creatively, and it was this failed Matryoshka mail experiment that was the catalyst for reconnecting with the kind of art I love doing and in launching this blog.}


Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “Dating Don’ts: Applying the ‘Scientific Method’ to Dating

  1. This one made me laugh out loud 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: