For another hour I turned my guy card in...

I just finished watching "Science of Love" on NBC. The premise? A bachelor goes on dates with two women - one he picks himself from 50 potential matches compiled from a database of over 2 million via an Internet dating service; and the other scientifically chosen for him by a team of scientists after submitting him to a full battery of psychological and physiological tests, analyzing the results and choosing from a database of over 5 million women. The question: Can science make a better match for someone than they can for themselves?

Now this is a an interesting concept, but it was only partially executed correctly. I dug that the scientific tests were very comprehensive, including handwriting analysis, polygraph tests, biometric feedback, personality tests, and even iris analysis. I liked the girl they chose, and the girl the bachelor chose for himself was also a great find. But the flaw was in the execution of the dates: With the girl he chose, the bachelor setup and planned the whole date, while the other one was completely planned by science (along with a bunch of semi-necessary facts thrown in). Based on that, he had to make a decision (I won't give away the ending). But while on the "scientific" date, everything was psychologically and physiologically planned to illicit certain responses, so how much of a fair measure is it? I say he should have gone on TWO dates with each woman, one "engineered" and one of his planning. Then his decision would have more equal weight. I believe this would have given the show a much more scientific result, because in the end it still would come down to either his instincts or science.

And also, I would really like a follow up... did the decision "stick?"

I will now re-attach my balls and go to bed.