|
|
|
|
|
Surprise your sweetie with an extra-charming Valentine’s Day - at home! Our PC® Dine-In Tonight™ soups, pastas, entrees and desserts are quick and easy, so you can spend less time prepping and more time with your dearest!We would love to hear from any men who followed this advice. Please give us details of how well it went over.
I haven't posted much lately on the quest for a Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm because while I continued to monitor the internets for new developments, everything I've found merely echoes what we already know:
But now the quest is over.
In today's Dinosaur Comics, T-Rex gives us a revolutionary new dating paradigm.
You'll have to click through and read all the way to the last frame. Make sure you also read the mouseover text.
I'd like to thank you all for your patience during the years it has taken us to come to this conclusion. Especially those of you who held off on dating until we had this answer.
Mister Sloppy had left an urgent summons in my voicemail. Wise coyotes do not casually deny evil geniuses of his calibre. I hoofed it across Centretown.It looks like Audrey's beau is raising the bar ever higher for the rest of us fellows. She wrote this weekend to say:
My boyfriend and I met up with some of my friends for dinner at a trendy restaurant in Toronto on Saturday night. When I introduced my beau to one friend, I said, “and this is my boyfriend {Redacted} – I’m madly in love with him!” My friend was startled and said, “How wonderful that you can say that out loud and he doesn’t mind!” I looked over at my beau and he nodded and smiled.
My boyfriend really is the most romantic man I’ve ever met.
Previously: RNDP 12: Romantic Gestures that Score with Audrey
Let's take a poll: Who wants the Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm (RNDP) to be over? Everybody. Me too. There are many other things I would like to blog about. For example did you know that there are people out there who think "selfless" means something bad? Click on this google search link if you do not believe me.
But I cannot wrap up the RNDP quite yet because new developments and research keep coming out.
Detecting Infidelity: A study by Paul Andrews and colleagues at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond reported in New Scientist, concluded that men are better at detecting their partner's infidelities than women. In a study of 203 young heterosexual couples, while 29 per cent of men said they had cheated, compared with 18.5 per cent of women, 80 per cent of women's inferences about fidelity or infidelity were correct, while men were accurate 94 per cent of the time.
But then the authors mention these other points:
A series of studies by researchers at the University of Rochester has revealed that men are far more attracted to women in red clothing or surrounded by red accessories than females who sport other colours. What's more, men seem to be especially generous to the lady in red - and are more willing to open up their wallets to wine and dine her.
Looking to improve your romantic odds? Get your date a steaming cup of coffee.Maybe Nice Guys Don't Finish Last?
That's the implication of a new study by researchers who wanted to see if there was any connection between physical and emotional heat.
To their surprise, people who held a cup of hot coffee for 10 to 25 seconds warmed to a perfect stranger. Holding a cup of iced coffee had the opposite effect
Displays of altruism or selflessness towards others can be sexually attractive in a mate. This is one of the findings of a study carried out by biologists and a psychologist at The University of Nottingham.
Some of you singles who have been following the ongoing quest for an RNDP might be trying to decide whether to attend one of the upcoming Speed Dating soirees at the Mooney's Bay Bistro.
I don't want to tell you one way or the other, but I will share with you information I've received through the internet tubes that may help you make up your mind.
The Mooney's Bay Bistro is practically in Nepean. However, you can get there on the #87. I suspect eating is discouraged during the actual speed dating, but the Bistro has good reviews for their food, including compliments on the coffee. [Reviews 1, 2] However, these reviewers may be the type of people who line up for Tim Horton's most mornings. (In other words, conditioned to accept mediocrity.) If you do go early and order food, skip the Caesar salad. Not just because it got a bad review.
Histocompatibility and how they smell: Unless you're on the birth control pill, you need to smell your dates and they need to smell you. The Bistro won't be as overpowering as an Indian Restaurant, but you'll be sitting across a table from them and there will be plenty of Italian food aromas in the air. This means you're going to have find a reason to lean towards them so you can smell them and they can smell you. The obvious way to do this would be to whisper one of your questions or answers. "What are your hobbies?" might not be a good question to do this with. But "what do you think of speed dating?" might be a good one.
It's about the looks: 
You might feel you need to establish whether they are smart, funny, well-paid and share your views on a variety of critical issues. You might also be fooling yourself and you just need to look at them.
They Don't Need to Know About You: While more frequent exposure to a person may cause others to like that person more, knowing more about the person may reduce the affection. In your questioning, you could use this principle to compensate for your natural biases. If you find you like too many people, learn as much as you can about your dates. If you rarely like your dates, either do more of the talking, or get them to whisper to you about what they've learned about the others they've met that evening. This will reinforce for them the things they've learned that have turned them off, and then you can share the information with your subsequent dates, for example: "I understand #6 worked in a mortuary as a teenager".
You don't know what you want: It seems we humans are terrible at predicting what will make us happy. This means that your quest for a partner who is trained in massage therapy, wants a terrier, voraciously reads mystery novels, and wants to take tango lessons could be misguided. It also means that you are likely to be influenced by the mood you've brought to the speed dating. If you are tense, embarrassed and fearing rejection, you may be completely unable to predict finding happy times with any of your dates.
Maybe it really is about the sex: It seems sexual cues can influence a person’s relationship behaviors. It might be that in messing around with another person, you'll not only find out if you have a chance at a good sex life if you stay together, but you might improve the chance of a relationship happening because the sex might lead to love. It's probably difficult to mess around at the Mooney's Bay Bistro, but even subliminally bringing up sex could help you get somewhere.
In Conclusion: We're not saying speed dating is the answer. If you try it, or if you have tried it, we'd love to hear about it.
Audrey, ESI's cultural ambassador, reports on recent fieldwork experiences and the results of listening to sage counsel:
My boyfriends have typically been very reluctant to make romantic gestures. I always felt that it was not for me to tell a boyfriend to be more demonstrative. I reasoned that some men are just naturally more demonstrative than others. I decided that maybe the kind of men who were attracted to me were bold and sexy but not romantic.
A recent trip to Italy, though, caused me to question my theories. I had several dates with a bold and sexy Italian man. I was surprised to find that he was also a romantic. This man played romantic Latin music in the car; he took me for a cocktail at the stylish Café de Paris; he suggested a sunset stroll at the Piazzale Michelangelo and kissed me passionately at a particularly scenic spot; he shared his gelato with me; and he used flowery Italian phrases to tell me how much he desired me.
When I arrived back in Ottawa, I told my friends about my dates. Fourth Dwarf counselled me to choose an “attentive” man for a boyfriend, but to choose a man closer to home.
Well, I took his advice and my new boyfriend is the most romantic man I have ever met. He tells me frequently how much he loves being with me, and he makes many romantic gestures. I thought I would share some of these romantic gestures, in the hope that it will improve someone else’s search for true love.
Audrey’s top-ten list of romantic gestures
Another reason to postpone a shower?While others are off on solo projects and secret projects with artists from other labels, it looks like I am once again carrying this blog. Fortunately, there is a mountain of material in the quest for an RNDP.
We learn of another new dating paradigm in Welcome to Do Land:
Gifted1: dumb! :-/ you've never heard of IWannaGetChemicalChemical.com? it's a pretty incredible new dating paradigm, they can match you up based on chemistry. they use science.4D Analysis: It looks like the folks behind IWannaGetChemicalChemical.com didn't get their venture capital funding. However, there is an outfit called ScientificMatch.com that seem to offer the same service and it seems there is real science behind it. Several studies on pheromones (the most famous of these being the smelly sweatshirt study) have led researchers to conclude that women (who are not taking the birth control pill) are more attracted to the scent of men who share low histocompatibility with them. Histocompatibility is highest when two people have exactly the same immune system genes in the major histocompatibility complex.
Karlito: i hear that it's a rip off. my cousin used it and he went on three dates with guys before he realized that he's not gay. n-e-wayz, that's not an issue for me anymore, i am pure mind. i am free of the entanglements of the corrupt fleshy matrix of the world.
But what about women taking oral contraceptives? It seems they are more attracted to the scent of men with similar histocompatibility, and not attracted or even repulsed by the scent of men with different histocompatibility.
Maybe it is because the pill tricks the woman's body into believing she is pregnant. Perhaps women have evolved to prefer when they are pregnant having male relatives nearby who will protect the offspring because of their common genetic heritage.
Some eyebrow raising questions:
Next: We'll spend some more time on this smell issue. There is a lot of research to delve into. Some of it done here in Canada and even on our friend Megan.
Our next stop on the quest for an RNDP is Google Love. Reece Dano advocates that Google create a new online matchmaking service leveraging their knowledge of us. While other online dating services suffer from limited pools of available people and self-misrepresentation by the people that are there, everybody uses Google and Google knows "your interests, your true friends, your pet peeves, your neurotic preoccupations" and "probably knows about your ‘private’ sexual proclivities".
4D Analysis: Google would indeed have better data and as much computing power as anyone to throw at this issue. You wouldn't even have to sign up for it as Google already knows if you need help finding a date.
But is Google able to tell what constellation of interests will match with another constellation? For example, a man who loves golf can also love a woman who abhors the game, but a woman who likes camping and mountain climbing should never try to be with a man who doesn't even like sitting in a suburban backyard.
More fundamentally, is a high degree of common interests, opinions and preoccupations a good indication that two people should be together? Or that they will want to stay together?
In my next instalment of the RNDP series, we'll see that there is a growing body of scientific research, and we're talking real science with control groups and test tubes, suggesting we should be looking in a different direction entirely.
Two years ago, a blogger named Nurble in a posting titled myspace told us about what he'd initially thought was a new dating paradigm, but turned out to be shameless self-promotion:
...some girl started chatting me up at a bar last night. She didn't actually seem interested, she seemed to just be killing time, so we talked for two or three minutes, then she asked if I was on myspace.
"Interesting," I thought, "is this the new paradigm for the 21st century? No more phone numbers and Swingers-esque waiting x number of days to call and sweating it out?" Maybe we can start giving out our names and email addresses and account names instead of just shooting in the dark.
We can admit what everybody already knows, that the first thing most of us with computers do when we get enough information is run straight to google and try and dig up some juicy info. How fascinating it would be if the new thing was "give me your name, assume I'm going to go home and read everything you've got scattered around the internet, and after that, we'll see."
Interesting indeed. Unfortunately this girl was not on the avant-garde of a new dating paradigm, she was just some actress who had 1100 friends and a poorly designed page full of headshots and pictures of her with celebrities. Booooo.
Unfortunately, this posting in which Nurble revealed himself to be that rare combination of fieldworker and theoretician did not live up to its promise. Nurble rarely commented on dating following this post. We know he was concerned about finding a date for the 2006 Emmy Awards and he found one. In July, 2006 he posted a bit of dialogue that may have been a transcription of an actual exchange from a date:
INTERIOR, NIGHT Guy: Are you going to take your contacts out? Girl: I was thinking about it, why? Guy: Well, if you're going to, then I probably shouldn't. Otherwise we might find ourselves in the worlds sexiest game of Marco Polo. ...and, scene.
In September of 2006 he revealed that he sent a copy of What's Your Number by Ian Pooley to a woman and it "didn't really work out..." but this could have been at anytime before this. We know that he later had a beautiful girlfriend lying in his bed while he was blogging about songs. And now he is moving to New York with his beautiful girlfriend. The same beautiful girlfriend? Perhaps.
4d Analysis: This fieldwork gives us more questions:
Bonus: Here is a Nurble Posting that Aggie will like.
On Questions:
"...questions are more important than answers in shaping the future of science."
- Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief, Science Magazine
To be able to ask a question clearly is two-thirds of the way to getting it answered
- John Ruskin
Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers
- Voltaire
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
- Albert Einstein
On their date, she found that "he was insipidly narcissistic and just plain boring". Showing that she is a true pioneer of science, she continued with her new paradigm and asked out two more strangers. In one case, the man was married and declined. With the other, she reported having two fun dates, a third date planned and being at "that point of either becoming friends or moving on to something a little more serious."
Sadly, I can find no further reports from Ms Brome. Those of you who are pessimists may conclude that something terrible occurred on the third date. I prefer to think that our intrepid researcher found herself in love and chose to protect the privacy of her new partner by not writing about the relationship.
4d Analysis: Brome's new paradigm has one element that explicitly differentiates it from her old paradigm: She is asking out men rather than waiting for a man to ask her out. What is not so clear is whether her old paradigm included going on dates with complete strangers. Whether it did or not, her new paradigm clearly allows it. In this paradigm:
Her anecdotal report suffers from the main problem with research in this field: the small non-random sample makes it impossible for us to draw general conclusions. However, it does demonstrate that while her paradigm can result in a boring date, it can also result in a fun date.
This leads to a formula I have developed for assessing the Expected Value of a Date (EVD) for someone using this paradigm:
EVD= Pb × Ab + Pf × Af
Where:
Let's assume that the date will be boring if the man has narcissist personality disorder, Asperger's syndrome, or is an accountant.
Narcissists: 1% of the population have NPD, but perhaps 75% of those with NPD are men. So lets say 1.25% of men have NPD. [Wikipedia]
Asperger's: It's hard to get a handle on the prevalence of Asperger's, let's go with a high estimate of 0.4%. [Wikipedia again]
Accountants: It's danged hard to find out how many accountants there are in Canada. At least I couldn't find out in the five minutes I spent looking. But I found out how many Canadians were employed in "Finance, insurance, real estate and leasing" and in "Professional, scientific and technical services" in 2007: 1,060,400 + 1,136,900 out of 16,866,400 employed = 13%. [Statscan]
Making the unlikely assumption that there is no overlap in these groups, we arrive at a total of 14.7% for Pb and a corresponding 85.3% for Pf or that it will be a fun date.
Now, how bad is a boring date? Let's set an evening at home watching CSI and Law and Order as 1 fun unit (Fu) while an evening at home with nothing on but reruns is 0 Fu. Can we say that a boring date is -1 Fu? And the average fun date is 2 Fu?
If so we get:
EVD = 14.7% × -1 Fu + 85.3% × 2 = 1.56 Fu
This means that a woman who uses Brome's paradigm regularly can expect over the long run to have evenings that are noticeably better than watching new episodes of CSI and Law and Order.
This is an important finding, but the quest must continue because we have not yet settled whether fun should be a focus of dating and we don't know the likelihood that dates with smiling attractive strangers will lead to deeper relationships.
____________________________
[1] We should not assume that Ms Brome is shallow. Liking someone's looks can go well beyond appreciating their high cheekbones and low waist-to-hip ratio. It is also about noticing whether they have kind smiles for their friends and the serving staff, how often they laugh instead of frown, whether they have an artful sense of style or a lack of vanity, and much, much more.
[2] This is why Aggie avoids Big Crab's Daddy Shack.
Our next stop on the quest for a Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm (RNDP) takes us to Best Life Services where we meet dating coach Katherin Scott who offers a "new dating paradigm that yields an abundance of fun, positive, and promising dates". On her own website, Making Love Work 4U, she says she coaches "Singles to attract true love and keep it... forever!"
To get you to this new paradigm she offers the following services:
Feng Shui? Weight loss? Speed Dating? This isn't a new paradigm, it's 90s new age mixed with 80s marketing.
But let's dig a little deeper. She has a Q&A page on Making Love Work. It's light on dating talk but it does have this:
Q: Where exactly can I meet a great guy? I've looked everywhere and I'm exhausted.
A: It seems to me that you're looking for the perfect place to meet the perfect man. Actually, anyplace is the perfect place to meet a perfect man. (My dad used to say "Love is geographical. Wherever you go, you can find love!")
My guess is that you're not getting good results because of the WAY you're dating. Recognize you are the constant in this equation. Therefore, you must change YOU -- and the way you're going about dating. Take the time to evaluate your dating history and patterns.
Remember, the definition of dating is - spending time with multiple people for the purpose of having fun. Sounds like you aren't having fun. Stop doing what you're doing - and do something different. Change your approach and your attitude.
Scott's answer makes several things clear. The key lies in her "definition of dating" as "spending time with multiple people for the purpose of having fun". While there is no definition of dating that satisfies everyone, it is generally agreed that dating can take place when there is only one other person involved; and while everyone would likely agree that having fun is to be pursued on a date, the usual purpose of dating is to see if the two people can develop their relationship further.
I think what Scott means is that for her the paradigm, or ultimate example, of dating involves having fun while spending time with multiple people (presumably consecutively rather than concurrently). I assume that what makes her paradigm "new" for her clients is that she helps them analyze their old patterns and become someone who has fun.
Judging by another page on her website, she uses a battery of personality assessment tools like Meyers-Briggs, along with the standard life coaching technique of asking open-ended questions that force you to come to the conclusions she has made for how you should change your life.
Should dating be about having fun? In Jane Austen's Persuasion, Wentworth realizes he is in love with Anne after she calmly saves the day when everyone else is all in a dither over the silly Musgrave girl's concussion. I have a pirate friend who tells me that before he met his wife, he would deliberately create situations of stress to see how the women he dated handled a crisis. For example, one relationship ended when his girlfriend took it badly that he had locked his keys in the car at a mall parking lot. Oddly enough, he says he never tried the stress test with the woman he married.
4D Analysis: Katherin Scott's new dating paradigm involves mystical crap that cannot be supported and has an emphasis on life coaching that makes me skeptical, but her website has given us a number of points to keep in mind in the quest for an RNDP:
By the end of this series, we should have the answers to these and other questions.
P.S. Stacey, although it means more work for me, thank you for providing a copy of the "Hooking Up" article. Zoom forwarded it along to me just like you figured she would. If anyone else wants to send me email, I'm at gmail.com. fourth.dwarf
P.P.S. To the person who dropped a copy at my door of I Kissed Dating Goodbye by Joshua Harris who I understand exposes the "Seven Habits of Highly Defective Dating" and offers a realistic outline of how to have a biblical vision of marriage, I am really not sure if I'll be offering thanks or not.
Monty of Much Ado About Monty... is the third link Google gave me in the quest for a revolutionary new dating paradigm. He is also my favourite of them all. I thought about saving Monty for later, but today really is the day to showcase him.
Just over a year ago, Monty was finding that his dating strategy using Gaydar (eHarmony for non-straights) wasn't working and so he came up with a new plan in a post called Changing tactics...:
I've decided to stop dating a bunch of new guys each week and instead, focus on the guys I've already met. ... I am not dating-with-relationship as the goal, but rather it's more about making friends with the guys I have met. If a relationship is going to happen, it will happen in its own time (and most likely when I least expect it). No use trying to force it - I just need to relax and enjoy the company of these guys!
...Naturally, Monty can't completely change his spots and so to keep things interesting, I'm allowing myself one new guy per week. So, whilst I haven't jumped off the Gaydar merry-go-round completely, I'm at least slowing it down to a more manageable pace. And I'm liking this!
Two weeks later, Monty gave an update in My New Dating Paradigm...:
I've been rabbiting on about my New Dating Paradigm over the last couple of weeks and as everyone is aware, I've not been so successful in sticking to it.
...now, instead of a hard and fast rule of ONE newbie per week, it shall simply be my goal to date only one newbie per week. That way, if I do end up with two or even three newbies in a week, I'll be simply exceeding my goal...
I must say however, that I have succeeded in slowing down the dating merry-go-round and so the NDP is achieving its purpose. I'm having more 2nd, 3rd, 4th dates etc which is much more fun! And I'm getting to know these guys better and becoming friends with them. Life is so much less stressful and I'm definitely not feeling as fatigued as I was when on the merry-go-round. Yay!
Now it is a full year later. How did Monty's new dating paradigm work out? Today his post is titled: The L-Word...
And NO, I'm not becoming a Lesbian! The L-Word I'm referring to is THAT one...yes, dear readers, LOVE!
...it's only since I've been out - 22 months and counting - that I've been open to the idea of a relationship ergo LOVE. And as you, my dear readers, are aware, since then I've certainly been out there trying to find Mr Right - and finding lots of Mr Right Nows (and the odd Mr Oh-What-the-Hell-Were-You-Thinking-Of)! That is, until I met McBrad. Ahhh, the gorgeous McBrad.
...
And so last weekend, we were lying in bed talking - proper serious talking, the relationship kinda stuff - and it just came out - naturally and honestly and soberly! And boy, did it feel good! McBrad obviously liked it and definitely showed me how much he liked it - WOW!!! But I was really happy that I did hold out until I was ready for it. (Not that he pressured me or anything - that was the really nice thing. He wanted me to know how he felt and was happy to wait until I could respond) And now, I just want to keep telling him! I don't of course - don't want to overdo it, but it's just such a liberating thing! I love McBrad!!! And I want eveyone to know! Wahooooo! :-)
4d Analysis: Monty's "old" dating paradigm was to see 3 or 4 new people every week. The "new" dating paradigm was to see 1 or 2 new people every week along with 1 or 2 that he'd been out with before. The new dating paradigm clearly worked for him.
As he is just one person and self-selected rather than randomly selected, we have no statistical confidence that his NDP would work for others. On the other hand, he has demonstrated that his paradigm can work for at least one person. We have no such proof from the authors who brought us the "Feminists in the Office without Chivalry" and "Hooking Up" paradigms.
Google's next hit in our quest for a Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm (RNDP) is an article called Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause : Editorial: the new sex in ... Although we cannot see the article because it is behind a pay wall, Google tells us that it says:
The new dating paradigm is to get together casually, called “hooking up,” a term that defines a lack of commitment or expectations other than sex and ...
4d Analysis: Unfortunately, I blew my research funds on a bottle of tequila and couldn't afford to buy this article. They might be on to something, but isn't "hooking up" what fuck buddies did in the 80s and what free-love hippies did in the 60s? In other words, not new?
The first place Google takes us in our quest for a Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm (RNDP) is Gradspot.com where a writer named Gritz tells us that the new dating paradigm is to look for career-oriented women at the office and forget about chivalry.
Paradigm Shift #1: The office is the new bar
As Rosenbloom explains, “Those who follow the evolution of the workplace romance say the stigma may be fading because the line between business and personal life is blurring among younger workers. They are working longer hours. Their workplaces encourage collaboration. And, of course, most single people are in the work force.”Paradigm Shift #2: Feminists are the new hot girls...A “career-oriented” women—too often used as a descriptive shorthand for a feminist—is now more acceptable than ever....Paradigm Shift #3: Chivalry is dead
Fourth Dwarf Analysis:
It appears Gritz and the writer Stephanie Rosenbloom have spent little time in the workplace and possibly less time dating. The only "new" thing in this 3-part paradigm shift is the throw-away line that "chivalry is dead". People have always hooked up wherever they happen to meet. Feminists have always been the hottest women. If chivalry is dead, based on the comments we've seen about how it's appreciated when guys pay for dinner, fellows who revive chivalry are well appreciated.
It could be that Gritz is suggesting that women should stop looking for chivalry in the men they are dating. Unfortunately, Gritz has given us no basis following this suggestion, but we'll explore the idea in future postings.
Several weeks ago, I told you all how to get down to kissing at the movies, and a bunch of you turned it into a silly discussion on paying for meals and assessing personal characteristics. Near the end of this discussion, Zoom suggested that "The world needs a Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm™."
Does it? I almost replied, Isn't what I've suggested good enough? Get yourself next to a snoggable someone in a dark place and try out your moves! It might not be revolutionary or new, but it works.
However, many of you are not willing to accept my expertise in this area and maybe it's my fault for not giving you enough reason to. So, I have embarked on a quest to find a Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm (RNDP). (I won't be trademarking it as Zoom suggested because I believe in freely sharing the wealth of my intellectual property.)
Step 1: Go to Google.
A search for "Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm" only gets 1 hit. (Of course, by the time you are reading this, it'll be 2 hits, and far more if you're only getting around to reading this after I've finished this series and the world catches on to the brilliance of the RNDP). The lack of other hits is a sign that nobody else has found a revolutionary new dating paradigm and may even be evidence that Zoom is right that the world needs one.
A search on "Revolutionary Dating Paradigm" gets the answer "No results found for "Revolutionary Dating Paradigm". (Not anymore of course, but how about I stop writing these parenthetical disclaimers and we just take it as understood that every time I describe a search, this posting and any posting that quotes it will be on Google if you try the search yourself.)
However, when we try "New Dating Paradigm", we start to get somewhere: 15 hits.
Step 2: Literature Review
I have examined each of the sites with references to a new dating paradigm and I am happy to report that while a couple are useless for our purposes, there is some valuable work taking place out there on the World Wide Web. There are relationship scholars who are using their formidable skills on this topic and even some who are doing crucial fieldwork at their own risk and expense.
Investigating the work of these scholars has taken me on a wide-ranging adventure. I've combed through scientific articles, Wikipedia entries, the urban dictionary, and many other sources.
In addition to looking for new dating paradigms, I've also investigated new dating schemas, and new dating methods. (Did you know that to tell how old bones are, radiocarbon dating is out and now they're measuring the amount of radiation that has been absorbed by the sand that is found with the bones?)
Step 3: Report back on the new paradigms
In upcoming posts, I will be looking at sites that describe a "new dating paradigm" and reporting on what we can learn from them.
Step 4: Report back on further work
Following these posts, I'll be exploring schemas, methods and other research avenues that have been suggested in the paradigm research.
Step 5: Conclusion: The Revolutionary New Dating Paradigm
That's right - a conclusion. This series will end with an answer. Not a suggestion that further research needs to be done and a request for more funding. You'll be getting your paradigm.
In Attendance: Coyote, Independent Observer, Agatha, Conch Shell,Fourth Dwarf (late, with justification). Guests: Crazy Hat (left early), Painted Stick (arrived shortly before end)
Conch Shell offers to take minutes. 4D and others laugh and mention how she never posted the last time she took the minutes. Coyote says CS will have to offer up assurances. CS offers to pay for a round of alcoholic drinks at the next Emergency Meeting if she doesn't post the minutes. It's agreed.
Agatha asks that the minutes reflect that Coyote brought red marshmallow hearts for the group, expressing love toward us all.
Meeting items begin.
IO presents his [redacted] to 4D for the [redacted]. Others are given a deadline extension of a week.
CS inquires if Z is a [redacted.] 4D explains she's too nice. Coyote mentions she called the cover band by the wrong name when she linked to them, further evidence that she isn't one of them.
Move ahead to the main item: the Appearance and Disappearance of [redacted]. CS wonders about the timing of it all, considering that it existed for months when we didn't know about it, but when we find it (Thanks, Aggie!) and begin to enjoy it, within two weeks it's gone.
Aggie: "Is it a Conspiracy?"
All ESIs insist that none of them did anything this time to ruin it for the others. Coyote points out that [redacted] showed her more readers were seeing it, plus she had friends warning her. This makes sense to us. 4D comments that he liked the message of [redacted] being [redacted].
IO puts on Larry King persona and asks: "What is her frame of mind, in one word?"
CS: "Consistent".
ESIs agree that it was enjoyable while it lasted.
Coyote comments that in his experience every woman calls her ex a narcissist. When ESIs attempt to draw personal examples from Coyote's own past, he refuses to indulge. Coyote adds that his canine nose sniffed out that this was an inappropriate relationship from the start, and he didn't think she should go on dates with [redacted] in the first place. 4D says that we all knew it was going to be a disaster, therefore Coyote doesn't deserve a bone. Aggie says she didn't know it would end so fast. Coyote blathers on generally about the rebound/needing time phenomenon. Everybody ignores him, as is usual when he gets onto this topic.
CS asks about whether [redacted] might become a lesbian now, considering all these disappointments. 4D says a lesbian fling is a possibility because all modern women are bisexual. He then asks CS and Aggie to comment on this. They don't.
4D returns tiresomely to the narcissism discussion and points out that narcissism can be relation-based. For instance, if a man is not that into his partner of the moment, he won't be that focused on her, but on himself -- classic narcissism. Coyote furthers that when a man plays a musical instrument or other entertainment tool for a long time, he should pay attention to when his audience gets bored.
Meeting digression: Clinton/Obama? Ann Coulter, Yuck. Is the U.S. anti-English monarchy or just anti-taxation? No decision taken.
[Redacted]: Sorry or Not?
Coyote says [redacted]. Aggie says [redacted]. 4D says it was a facebook problem, not a blog one.
Ethical Discussion of the Day: [Redacted] . . . can we metablog her? 4D points out that we periodically metablog others like Zoom and Megan. Aggie wonders if she'll get scared and delete her blog? It's pointed out that she's writing a book on her blog subject(!!!!) ESIs agree that it's about balance. Anyway, only the Fifth Muse has inspired us as obsessively, and that's unlikely to change. ESIs agree to test-metablog her through these minutes. All feel her date wasn't very successful, and think it good that Three Date Man was honest with her.
Aggie says online dating is depressing and degrading: suggests instead that all hopefuls go to Venus Envy, get some good electronics, and adopt cats. She insists this is what she'd do, if she were [redacted].
CS interrupts: "Let the minutes reveal that IO is blackberrying"
Some Hon. ESIs: "Bad form!!!" IO asks when that was decided.
Group discusses Rebecca Eckler's blog and the finer points of emotional voyeurism. ESIs then congratulate Zoom over her best blog posting awards. 4D states that the knitting bloggers had a lock on the awards, that it was a conspiracy, and a future blog entry will be dedicated to this.
Aggie wants to discuss the Bank Street Irrelevants. "They're trying hard."
IO: "Why?"
It's declared that they're like a [redacted] cover-band, are having a good time, and some ESIs are happy for them.
This brings the conversation around to music, the nature of compliments and insults, and their relativity. It's revealed that IO is a fan of the [redacted] without having ever heard them. CS thinks one can't be a fan in such a scenario. 4D believes IO can be a true fan, just by understanding the concept. CS comments that this is as hollow as an empty shell. Others ignore CS and comment that IO should look the part of [redacted] when he's their [redacted].
Aggie points out that she deleted [redacted] because it revealed [redacted] about [redacted ].
Next Agenda Item: status of our blog & Google search hits. 4D says it's a good blog and he's happy with the postings lately. He likes the Word Cop part, because [redacted] loves it. Coyote states that our #1 Google search hit is for "high maintenance women". 4D loudly takes credit for the posting, and reveals Google ranking tricks: the posting is titled "high maintenance women" and it links to other sites about "high maintenance women". Coyote states that "Mumumelon" is our second mopst popular Google hit, and yoga booty ballet is a distant third. We used to get more hits for yoga.
With all topics covered, we move to Action Items:
Aggie states the next meeting should involve discussion on how to make ESI the most popular blog ever, so we can make money and retire. 4D mentions that CS needs to write up the minutes.
Resolved: That at some point in the future we will discuss creating the Elgin Street Institute, as another moneymaker.
Meeting Adjourned.
Okay, the business pages these past months have been full of stories about Canadian sportswear manufacturer/marketing powerhouse/success story Lululemon™: Lululemon™ founder sells out for a gazillion bux! Lululemon™ goes public with a monster IPO! And just yesterday: LuluLemon™ snags a former Starbux™ CFO for its board! Omigawd!
