The Indoctrination, if you will, of the Groove Theory

After much research, analysis, debate, and a good bit of luck, it is my pleasure to present to you the mathematical theory of relationships (the groove theory, if you will).

E=G(M/S+P) where E=effective style, G=groove, M=mac factor, S=speech, and P=personality

Put into words, your effective style is equal to your groove times the quotient of your mac factor divided by the sum of your speech and personality.

I shall have to admit, the work is not my own. I ran across it the other day while cleaning out boxes of high school memories. During the summer of 1997 I went on a three-week retreat that literally began the process of changing me from the shy geeky introverted type I was back then to the less shy, less introverted, but still geeky type I am today. It was one of those summer academy things where they shack you up with 20 people you’ve never met on a floor of a dormitory full of 280 other people you don’t know and tell you “Have fun, broaden your horizons, but don’t get into trouble.”

And, honestly, nobody got into serious “we have to kick you out of the academy” trouble. But, fortunately for my less-than-socially-apt self, I lucked out and got in the house of guys that thought getting to know all the girls was the best way to broaden the horizons. Thus, “The Indoctrination, if you will, of the Groove Theory” not only represents our greatest feat as a band of brothers, but also the countless hours of trial and error courting the lovely ladies of “The House of the Wandering Penguins.” And, wouldn’t ya know it, the theory came to us one evening while we were sipping carbonated beverage listening to White Town’s “Your Woman.”

It made perfect sense at the time (both the song and the theory); not so much sense now, unfortunately. As M.C. Bennett told me later, “The groove theory simply cannot be explained. It just is.” I feel obliged to define the terms and explain the theory anyway, but do allow me some leeway to adjust the definitions should further research on my part turn up more accurate information.

Simply put, a person’s effective style is how good he or she looks to the opposite sex after an encounter. Are you potential arm candy, or just another waste of space? To find out, you start with the groove. The groove is the environmental variable of the equation. Is the situation favorable for hooking up, or are you more likely to get slapped in the face? Everyone hopes for a positive groove or a favorable environment to make a connection, but mathematically it is still possible to effectively style in hard times. The mac factor is your optimal ability to be a player. Its not about whether you execute or not, its about your potential. Some people got the mac, some people don’t. Speech and personality are the action/event variables. Speech takes into account the overall positiveness or negativeness of the conversation and adds it to the combination of the two personalities. If the convo was good, and the personalities, then the sum will be positive; likewise bad convo and a personality clash result in a negative sum. Obviously, a really high convo/personality sum makes for a large denominator, and thus the mac factor has to be that much higher to result in a significant quotient. This takes into account the other variables at play (i.e. doubt on the part of the other person, an overtly favorable environment, sheer odds that everybody gets lucky once in a while, etc.)

I know by now you’re dying to ask, “So, Dingdong, what’s it all mean?” Truth be told, other than the obvious, I don’t remember yet. The obvious is that tons of factors go into making a connection with somebody. Is the time right? Is the place right? Do you say what needs to be said? Are you naturally drawn to people like him/her? Above and beyond that, there are varying levels and degrees of connection. If there weren’t varying levels and degrees of connection, 1) there’d be no fighting among roommates over who gets to date the hot chick/dude, because the first person to connect would win and 2) there’d be no big decision over who to date, who you like better, etc, because it would be a 100% connection or a 100% repulsion.

The only thing I still hesitate to say the groove theory covers is the recurring encounter. While the groove does improve with recurring exposure (no Shay, I don’t mean nudity), the speech/personality sum also improves, and unless your mac factor grows proportionally, your effective style may diminish over time. This is inconsistent with tons of prior research that supports the notion that people become more attractive and attracted to each other over time. The important thing, though, is that the unthinkable has once again been achieved. At least on paper (and now a computer screen), it is possible to use logic and reason to explain the highly illogic and unreasonable.

Go ahead and put my Nobel Prize on the mantel next to the little league trophy and the die-cast race cars.