bait and switch

We have received a couple of tongue-in-cheek complaints in the comments section accusing us of misleading our readers with our attempts at clever titles for posts. Specifically, Matt was expecting to see photos of a scantily clad Annette Funicello in yesterday's post entitled "Beach Blanket Bingo," and instead found nasty details about human feces and marauding hordes of jellyfish. (The use of the Jen-Luc "icky" avatar should have been his first clue.) He still fared better than poor Krig, who clicked on a post entitled "Fashionably Late to the Dating Game" and found a newsy item about scientific methods for dating archaeological artifacts, when he had hoped to receive dating advice of some sort. The implication in both cases is that we deliberately lure our readers hither with titillating titles, and then BAM! Just like that, we turn the tables and force them to read something edifying instead. Could these accusations be true? Can we really be that evil?

Yes. We can. We're all about the crafty bait and switch here at Cocktail Party Physics, and damned proud of it, too. Well, not so much me, but that Jen-Luc Piquant, she's got quite the mischievous streak and is a master of the Titular Tease. (It's a Faux-French thing.) She's not sorry, either, and has been chortling gleefully all evening at so successfully dashing her audience's expectations. But I feel some twinges of remorse, especially for the hapless Krig, who is apparently in such dire need of romantic advice that he is consulting the scientific blogosphere. Think about it, Krig: if science bloggers spent all their time dating, when would they have time to blog?

Okay, technically, I'm not a scientist, or even a hard-core GeekGrrl, despite my professional affiliations. (I cannot, at a moment's notice, rattle off my hard drive specifications, and would never dare replace my own hard drive, as it would require actually opening up my computer.) So maybe Krig figured I was one of those Beautiful People who lead charmed romantic lives. If so, I am sorry to disappoint. I was the designated nerdy "Brain" in high school: shy, awkward, two years in braces, no fashion sense, unstyled hair -- you get the picture. Boys never paid attention to me unless there was a scheduled exam, at which point I suddenly had several suitors vying to copy off my paper. When I opted to leave high school after my junior year and head straight to college, the advisor urged me to reconsider: "You'll miss senior prom!" I looked at her like she'd lost her marbles: couldn't she see that nobody would ever, in a million years, ask me to a mixer?

Despite such inauspicious beginnings, we have managed to date from time to time over the course of our misspent youth (and how thrilled we were when we finally had the chance to mis-spend it!), and even establish the occasional Stable Relationship as our early shyness waned and our latent social skills finally came to the fore. Eventually we developed a certain amount of stylish savoir faire, thanks to timely interventions by more fashion-conscious friends. We have emerged from our early gawky cocoon that much more confident, stronger and wiser. Perhaps, after all, we do have some enlightening thoughts for those of our readers who are also floundering in the unpredictable, turbulent waters of modern romance. So fear not, good Krig, today, Jen-Luc the Love Doctor is "In." Bear in mind, however, that the following dashed-off ruminations are based on our own peculiar, admittedly quirky tastes; your results may vary, depending on the Object of Your Desire.

We'll assume that Krig's got the basics covered: things like personal hygiene, mental stability, and the good sense to eschew polyester and plaid clothing (or, for Left Coasters, the dreaded white socks with Birkenstocks -- Aieee!). We'll also assume that Krig is (a) male, and (b) is seeking advice on male/female relationships, since it's the only area in which I can claim to have any firsthand expertise. (Although really, the same basic tips should apply, with just a bit of tweaking here and there to accommodate other sexual preferences.)

1. Improve Your Nonverbal Awareness. One of my favorite physics buttons/bumper stickers reads, "Flirt Harder -- I'm a Physicist." There's a certain degree of truth to this stereotype, although it must be said, most physicists, computer geeks, etc., seem to end up married or in relationships at some point, so they can't be as clueless as they're generally believed to be. Nonetheless, I've certainly seen this phenomenon firsthand. Case in point: A good, geek-friend of mine was at a party, chatting up an attractive young woman, who seemed, shall we say, "receptive" -- until he began arguing with her about the faulty logic of a random opinion she'd expressed. He pressed his point repeatedly, failing to recognize her growing frustration, until she finally stomped off to find someone less argumentative, leaving him to nurse his beer in solitude, comforting himself with the certainty that at least he'd been Right. (He was right; but he also went home alone. Hmm. Food for thought.) This type of behavior seems to stem from an inability to pick up nonverbal cues, which is fortunately a learned, rather than innate, skill, so there's hope for all us social inepts, past and present. Pay attention to the other person's reactions, both verbal language and body language, and respond accordingly.

2. Ditch the "List." We all have preconceived notions about what we think we want in a partner, and sometimes these can serve as useful guidelines. Certain constraints are needed, just like in a scientific experiment (or theory). But this can also impose overly-limiting biases and blind us to that perfect something, or someone, that might be right in front of us. Consider ditching the "list-making" approach to finding a romantic partner and try "looking outside the box" once in awhile.

3. Forget the "Rules". While you're ditching that list of preconceived notions, ditch that copy of GQ as well, along with any other publication that specializes in purveying advice that amounts to the male equivalent of "the Rules." You hate the Rules; you know you do. Why inflict their equivalent on any woman you're interested in dating? I've always said to female friends that the Rules might work, but only on "Rules" kinds of men. If you're a woman and all you care about is manipulating some poor schlub into marrying you, and you're not overly particular about which schlub you entrap, so long as he's halfway decent, then you're probably a "Rules Girl." The same is true for the male equivalent, although there the primary objective isn't so much marriage, as racking up as many random sexual encounters as possible. You'll probably get the caliber of companion you deserve in either case. And if you're a "Rules Sort," you probably won't mind.

Maybe this sounds like a pretty decent short-term tradeoff for frustrated folks like Krig, but consider this: If you're a physicist, or in any other similar high-tech field, chances are you follow the beat of your own drum in your professional life -- otherwise you would have long ago bowed to peer pressure and gone into business management or something a little less esoteric (and a bit more financially lucrative). You wouldn't compromise on what you really wanted in your research. Why wouldn't you take the same tack in your personal life (bearing in mind Point #2 about being willing to dispense with preconceived notions on occasion)? Jen-Luc warns that we are skirting dangerously close to Polonius' trite cliche in Hamlet, "To thine own self be true," but there's a lot to be said for being genuine and not apologizing for who you are. Along the same lines:

4. Don't Be Afraid of Romantic Gestures. There's nothing sexier than a man who's confident and comfortable in his own skin, and therefore isn't afraid to show a little affection and emotion at opportune moments. To paraphrase a famous line in the classic film, Say Anything: don't be a Guy. The world is full of Guys. Be a Man. Come to think of it, rent Say Anything for your date, and chances are you'll win major points. Most women of my era consider Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack's character in the film) to be the archetypal Romantic Ideal; we still get teary remembering that scene where he holds up the boombox outside his true love's bedroom window, playing Peter Gabriel's "In Your Eyes" in order to win her back. *sniff*

One caveat: Romantic gestures work -- but only if they're sincere; anything that smacks of manipulation is likely to backfire. Another common mistake is to be unimaginative or uncreative. You don't need to hire a sky-writing plane or anything over-the-top like that. The traditional roses are just fine, as long as you include a few lines of a love poem by Donne (or your fave romantic poet of choice) to give it that personal, individualized touch. A possible exception is the physics grad student whose  notion of an initial romantic overture is to present his target with an equation scribbled on a napkin ("Here: I made this for you!"). This will probably only work if said target is also in the sciences -- and if so, that equation better be a good one, with or without accompanying roses.

So there you go, Krig; hope it helps. If you're in need of further insight from the male perspective, Brad Hoc has been known to dispense advice from time to time when not indulging in the delights of virtual bubble wrap, and it's usually pretty entertaining stuff. We invite other readers -- and other science bloggers -- to weigh in as well, because let's face it, you can never have too many Geek Love Doctors in the clinic.

As for Matt -- remember Matt, the frustrated Funicello fan? -- we can redress his grievance quite easily, courtesy of a handy dandy Google image search on the original 1965 flick Beach Blanket Bingo. Okay, so Annette isn't clad in a bikini; neither is Frankie Avalon. But there's nary a stinging jellyfish or bit of fecal matter to be found (beaches were cleaner in those innocent days). Enjoy!

Comments

[Alison Chaiken]

Clearly the woman to Frankie's right is pondering self-organized criticality in sandpiles.

[Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer]

Ah, JLP, this one is for the record books. Your best entry yet!

As for personal stories... well, there is a Mrs. Bad Astronomer, so the story has a happy ending. But there are some very rocky chapters. Remind me some day to regale you with how I blew my first chance to date Mrs. BA when, at a party, I lectured her on nephroid equations and their utility in modeling a shell of optically thin gas in a symmetric planetary nebula...

[Jennifer Ouellette]

That's a corrollary to #1: Don't be a Didactic Know-It-All. :) I've seen many a scientist try this tactic in an attempt to impress a potential partner. I've never seen it work.... But I'm glad Mrs. BA gave you a second chance. Just because someone might be a bit socially inept at the first meeting, doesn't mean he or she isn't a wonderful person who would make an outstanding partner, given half a chance. Perhaps we can view this aspect as a means of weeding out the shallow and non-perceptive.

[N. Peter Armitage]

>Most women of my era consider Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack's character in the
>film) to be the archetypal Romantic Ideal; we still get teary remembering
>that scene where he holds up the boombox outside his true love's bedroom
>window, playing Peter Gabriel's "In Your Eyes" in order to win her back.
>*sniff*

Really? But didn't you find him a little weak-kneed when confronted with that hell bent paper boy who wanted "his two dollars!"? I always was dispointed he didn't show a little more gumption under pressure. He seemed a little spineless to me.

Loved Duckie though. And didn't Molly R.'s preternatural beauty just carry that flic? Shame we don't see much of her nowadays.

(am I getting these John Hughes-era movies confused here? The 80's were a blur)

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Spineless? Lloyd? The amateur kickboxer who got his nose broken during a practice session and barely flinched? No, he was Tough, Yet Sensitive. :) He COULD have beaten up the paper boy but chose to exercise restraint. See how handy rationalization is? That's the power of the Romantic Archetype.

And yes, you're confusing "Say Anything" (not a John Hughes movie) with "Pretty in Pink." Kudos, though, for admiring Molly Ringwald's unusual beauty, which was very much against the prevailing tastes of the time (i.e., she wasn't petite, blonde, bubbly and cute -- the Britney Effect).

[Jamie Bowden]

Just out of curiousity, do you have any Quebecois relatives living in the DC area? Guy I take Tae kwon Do with has your last name.

Oh, and I'll repeat my latest sentiment over on Chad's space:

I want my two dolloars!

[Blake Stacey]

Guy I know (yes, another physics geek from MIT) lost a girl because he gave her a cactus instead of roses. I thought it was a wonderful idea: the plant will live forever, every summer it grows beautiful and exotic flowers, you only have to water it once a season, etc. She didn't feel the same way.

Can we get points for **Grosse Pointe Blank** instead of **Say Anything**?

[Jennifer Ouellette]

I don't have any immediate relatives in the area, but we Quebecois (former, in my family's case) are slowly taking over the country. :)

I think a cactus is a nice alternative to roses, so it doesn't speak well of the girl that she rejected Blake's friend because of it. And yes, I hereby declare that guys can substitute "Grosse Pointe Blank" for "Say Anything." I had no idea y'all had been so traumatized by lloyd Dobler. For a home run, make it a Cusack double feature: "Say Anything" followed by "GPB." Steer clear of "Being John Malkovich," though -- brilliantly edgy and disturbing, but definitely a mood killer.

[beajerry]

"Flirt harder, I'm a physicist."

That is the BEST!!!

[Quasar9]

Love you avatars
Love your post, witty & enchanting
Must get closer to your bumper sticker
"Flirt harder - I'm Physical" lol!
Have a great day.

[Blake Stacey]

I take solace in thy assurance, Jennifer Ouellette, of the merit of "Grosse Pointe Blank". Now my heart can know that its judgment is vindicated. . . . (-:

[Matt]

Hmm... an "ask and you shall recieve" moment for me, huh? Annette at the beach anyway.

So Jennifer, you're telling me I can use this "internet" thing to find images of pretty girls? Interesting, I'll have to try that.

[bc]

Dare I mention "High Fidelity"?

Granted, a better book than a movie, but a pretty good John Cusack movie all the same.

Steer clear of "Must Love Dogs" though.
No noticeable chemical reaction between Diane Lane and JC. Somebody shoulda thrown a catalyst in there, like Donne, Shakespeare's love sonnets, or a trip to Madrid (ha!).

bc

[Matt]

"Somebody shoulda thrown a catalyst in there, like Donne, Shakespeare's love sonnets,"

Donne was a perfect reference for Cocktail Party Physics' forums. Can you imagine Cusack breaking out with:

"It suck'd me first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea our two bloods mingled be."

If that doesn't bring out the romantic in a dog lover I don't know what would. Of course he spends the rest of the poem telling her that killing the flea will kill him, so a flea collar is a big no-no at that point.

[FH]

Re 1: Reading body language is good, but I dispute your example. Seriously, why would one want a date that can not even appreciate it when base logical fallacies in his/her opinion are pointed out? Way to tiresome longterm.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

For FH's sake, I hope the above comment is tongue-in-cheek. :) C'mon, be honest: is it really all that pleasant to have one's "logical fallacies" pointed out to one while making polite chit-chat at a party? Especially when alcohol is involved and one is perhaps not thinking entirely clearly? It's a bit unfair to therefore conclude that this person will ALWAYS be illogical, in the absence of further evidence to the contrary. Without reproducibility, the person's illogic might simply be an anomaly in the data. Many scientists have a weakness for didacticism and a deep-seated need to correct the mistakes of others. This is not always welcome, and they need to recognize this. Nobody likes a Didactic Know-It-All, per my corrollary to #1. How and when you choose to point out "base logical fallacies" in a romantic prospect can make all the difference. Why not bite your tongue until the actual first or second date, if base logic is such a sticking point? And if your Dream Date is someone who is simply aching to be edified by your far superior knowledge, who will thank you profusely for every minor correction you deign to present, who will be your loyal intellectual lapdog -- um, good luck with that. :)

[Blake Stacey]

"Loyal intellectual lapdog" sounds a little, um, kinky. Let's not go into that. . . .

What if your tastes in poetry run more toward Dorothy Parker than John Donne? Like "Unfortunate Coincidence":

"By the time you swear you're his,
Shivering and sighing,
And he vows his passion is
Infinite, undying,
Lady, make a note of this ---
One of you is lying."

[Jennifer Ouellette]

I think Donne and Dorothy Parker would have got on famously. Donne would "Sweare/No where/ Lives a woman true and fayre":

"If thou find'st one, let me know,
Such a pilgrimage were sweet;
Yet do not, I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet;
Though she were true when you met her,
And last till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three."

I think poor Johnny Boy got burned at some point. :)

[N. Peter Armitage]

>Seriously, why would one want a date that can not even appreciate it when
>base logical fallacies in his/her opinion are pointed out? Way to tiresome
>longterm.

What about spelling/grammar 'fallacies'? Do we appreciate when those are pointed out? Or R those way 2 tiresum 2?

[Blake Stacey]

It's really amazing how much progress we humans have made in the romantic arena, just in the past few centuries. Just the other day, a young woman of my acquaintance pointed out a new and unforseen consequence of being on the receiving end of a break-up --- or more precisely, due to the e-mails she received because of it, and a novel way of raising revenue using what was artificial intelligence ten years ago.

This is why you should never trust your emotional issues to me: they just become verse.

PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE

"The sun's gone dark, and the moon won't shine.
He said he loved me but he needed space,
So now I'm swimming in a box of wine,
And GMail ads for self-help books
Are bursting in my face. . . ."

Why, with all the ever-accelerating advances in modern romance, I can't escape the feeling we're on the path to Singularity.

[Matt2746]

Did someone mention 'schlub'? At the risk of being both impertinent (it won't always happen--promise) as well as a little too self-revealing (neither will that), I would like to mention:

1. "'Me-all' live in a (proverbial) yellow 'schlubmarine'." (Sorry, Beatles.)

2. While the woman to Frankie's right may be pondering self-organized criticality in sandpiles, she does appear to be giving it 'the finger' (albeit half-heartedly).

3. Given that light from a star was found to be 'bent' by the sun's gravity on its way to the earth, would what would then seem to be the more 'direct' path be shorter?

[Nashville Bill]

Hey -- must say how much I enjoy the blog -- came here from a link on Daily Kos, and I now check it regularly. Though life steered me away from science as a profession, I'm still an avid "fan," if that makes any sense.

But on the "Bait and Switch" topic (and I concur, a highly entertaining post) -- as a shiny brand-spankin' new reader, I thought Jean-Luc was the Significant Male Other of our fine authoress ... only to deduce that in fact it's the lovely avatar that begins each post. Or was I right to start with? D'oh!

Bear with me -- I'm new. :)

(And like the others, I want my two dollars!)

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Jen-Luc Piquant is (a) female (It's JEN, not JEAN), and (b) an alter ego of the authoress, not a male significant other. But I can see that it would be a bit confusing. She started out as a joke and took on a life and personality of her own, and the "voice" in the posts often fluctuates between me, Jen-Luc, and the royal "We" whenever our multiple personality disorder kicks in.

I seem to owe a lot of people two dollars. But unlike Lloyd, I'll fight to keep it. I won't fight fair either. :)

[Nashville Bill]

Thank you -- and my apologies again for my confusion. The nod toward Star Trek's great Gallic Captain led me down a mental path I shouldn't have followed. :)

And thank you for doing this blog -- I greatly enjoy it. I've often recalled the hours I spent as a pre-teen reading old used paperbacks -- out of print even then, I think -- of Issac Asimov's science essays on a wide variety of subjects. They were accessible, entertaining, and stirred a lifelong interest in science -- making science accessible is not easy, and you do it well. My appreciation to all of your multiple personalities.

[Jessica]

I feel duty-bound to point out that the reference to "I want my two dollars" is from Better Off Dead, another classic 80s teen flick. And, I don't care if the movie is crap or not, if John Cusack (*sigh*) is in it I'll happily pay $9.50 to see it. I knew a woman in grad school who was writing her American Studies masters thesis on the "Lloyd Dobler Effect" (also the name of a band in the DC area), that women of a certain age will always be searching for a Lloyd Dobler (I can't believe they'll give you a degree for something like that). Anyway, I know some who are forever devoted to Jake Ryan, but I'm a Lloyd girl.... *sigh*

And J.O., love the blog, babe. And Jen-Luc, you're lucky the hot weather broke, or I was going to climb into cyber-space and rip that kicky beret right off your cyber-coif. I was over-heating just looking at you.