Two Date Minimum (Joce)

I learned two things in 6th grade science: 1) the scientific method and 2) how to light spectacular tabletop fires with alcohol burners. In this blog post probably only one of these is relevant: a) the scientific method. Now I’m sure Mr. Bratton would disagree (and most actual or even peripheral scientists, also, probably some other people who just like science but aren’t actual scientists) but dating is a science. Not my science, mind you, I’ve always been more of an arts and humanities type. Also, “math is hard for girls,” so luckily, other than figuring a tip, not much math is involved. Anyhoo, dating is a science: a set of standards and procedures that we follow to determine a logical result. And now, because science is also kind of magic, let me wave my wand and walk you through the “Scientific Dating Method.” 

The question
Aackk! Will I be single forever?! Is there anybody out there that is a good fit for me and vice versa?!

Do background research: gather information and resources
My grandma used to say, “there is someone for everyone,” and judging by the motley crew of all shapes, sizes and economic status publicly displaying affection at my local Saturday market and/or movie theater, I would say she was probably correct. Also, pretty much everyone on this  Top Ten Worlds Worst Leaders  list has been married at least once.

Construct hypothesis
It seems likely, considering I am a relatively intelligent and well adjusted person, that is not bad looking, that I probably won’t be single forever. And since my grandma sure knew what she was talking about when it came to cooking and the proper way to get most stains out of a tablecloth, she was probably pretty well informed about compatibility and the likelihood of one finding ones mate. Also, Robert Mugabe has had two wives and I think most people would agree that guy is a complete tool, so, clearly, there must be someone for everyone. 

Test with an experiment: collect data
I find it takes exactly two dates to decide whether or not someone is a good fit.  On the first date everybody is on their best behavior, has spent a few minutes on their appearance and the information exchanged is surface: where do you come from, do you have siblings, what’s your sign? Often I’m so caught up with being on my best behavior, my own appearance and not releasing some significant piece of information that may encourage my date to leave prematurely, that I’m not really paying attention to the minutiae of the interactions. It’s more of a general vibe situation. On the second date is when I get “down to the nitty gritty.” I start noticing idiosyncrasies, mannerisms and manners; I get more comfortable with exposing truths and consequences and decide whether we have a similar sense of humor, level of intelligence, food preferences. I notice shoes and teeth, hands, hair, and we talk about movies and music. 

Analyze results, draw conclusion
Yep, not a good fit. Unfortunately, rarely do both parties agree on the outcome of date two. On a recent second outing, my date was practically naming our first born while I was trying to come up with the nicest way to get out of the doorstep kiss at the end of the night: “the duck and turn,” “the quick peck,” “the avoid the hug with the hand on the door?” On another recent second date, I was thinking “boyfriend material!” and apparently he was thinking, “never calling her again!”

Hypothesis is true, hypothesis is false or partially true
I’m not willing to concede that the hypothesis is false, though of course, it has not been proven true, just yet. Retesting is required, for as long as it takes to get a positive outcome.

Report results           

Think! Try again
Maybe I need to figure out someway to work the spectacular tabletop fires into the experiment?