The Groove Theory, revisited

You know, I really despise the whole notion of horoscopes and psycho-non-sense. It’s not necessarily because it’s wicked or of the devil, anybody can write bluntly vague but true statements like these whether possessed by evil forces, aliens, or an addiction to soda pop. My problem is that somebody’s getting paid a ton of money to write crap like my horoscope I read yesterday:

"Romantic relationships require genuine enthusiasm to be successful, and you can only put genuine enthusiasm into someone you really dig."

That’s so brilliantly obvious that I lost 10 IQ points and had to beat myself with a hammer as punishment. Seriously, that’s like saying “Work is hard so do something you enjoy for a living.” In a utopian society, we’d like to think that we’re smarter-than-the-average-bear enough to avoid investing time, effort, and energy into something that is completely pointless. Even writing the oh-so-unintelligent horoscopes still puts food on the table, so it has positives (the paycheck being the only one I can think of). But occasionally you’ve got to give in and do something that goes against the ultimate plan, hoping only that the time invested in pointless activity makes you mentally stronger to withstand the urge to give in to mediocrity again in the future.

It’s amazing to me how completely odd and random the human decision-making process is at times. Guys tend to ignore the obvious dangers of emotional pain and heartache in an effort to meet our inner physical need of reproduction, and gals ignore obvious logical hindrances of situations because of an emotional warm fuzzy feeling that hints at comfort and security. I’ve got an idea that would totally fix the problem, but as of yet, God hasn’t set up a website where we can go and download a daily agenda of things He wants us to do and people He wants us to see. As somebody once said, “If you’re forced to rest, a laurel’s as good a place to do it as any.” So, until the download-your-agenda website thing gets set up, we’re stuck pondering life’s difficulties in the public sphere and coming up with hypothetical answers to unsolvable problems.

Reviewing the notes from the academy, I think the sole purpose behind the development of the groove theory was the hypothetical answer to an unsolvable problem. While somewhat ambiguous and, dare I say obvious, the groove theory represents an honest attempt at making the decision to pursue or not to pursue more objective and empirical instead of a subjective gut call. Thus, you get a better idea of whether the pursuit of social happiness will be worth “genuine enthusiasm” or whether it will land you in the clutches of mediocrity (i.e. ending up with a lemon instead of a pineapple).

Even if you’ve landed in the vicious cycle of limbo, the groove theory offers hope of making the limbo rock (heh, punny). By taking the principles of the groove theory and putting them into practice, you should be able to figure out if the costs of time, effort, and energy in limbo are worth the potential benefits of a relationship with “someone you really dig.” You should be able to figure out how to put yourself in situations that market your strengths and downplay your weaknesses (because let’s face it, apples get pineapples because of their ability to market themselves) if your desire is to move out of limbo. While the whole notion of pickup lines is scorned and abandoned, the principle of them is highly applicable: the majority of the socially successful have a set routine that nets more profits than losses. Find your groove, embrace your groove, play your groove.

I want to be a horoscope interpreter. Equally as pointless, equally as profitable.

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.