So it looks like a guy who shows Frustration on a 1st date is more attractive than a guy who is nervous and shy

[IntBrowser]

1 hour ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

It’s again too either/or black and white. Shyness is situational and being socially timid is some situations does not mean that you overall have no opportunities or have low confidence. One of my exes was shy sometimes and it was super cute. He was very confident in other areas he was good at  but really shy. I’ve only dated one guy I’d say lacked self-confidence majorly in himself and you’d never see that from the outside. He was super gregarious and everything was an outward facade to impress people. THAT was annoying.  I know it sounds cliche, but it’s better to be yourself. Maybe you aren’t a huge conversationalist. Maybe you are more shy by nature. Just don’t be rude/arrogant bc you think it’s what women want. That sounds awful 

I always figured shyness was letting a woman know "he must be inexperienced and not used to being with a woman"

[Versacehottie]

BTW, we are also talking about two different women and a ton of factors will go into who likes you and who doesn't--so you can't just boil it down to this one part of the date and presume the same results if you had done the same thing on the first date.  They are two different women--naturally are going to have differences in who they like and what attracts them to you.

[Brooke02]

The woman who you think liked you simply ignored a red flag.  Your snapping at the waitress would be a major turn off for me.

[Trail Blazer]

Something tells me that science isn't your fortè.  Observing a relationship between two variables cannot be positively correlated on the basis of such small sample size. 

However, even if your sample size increased and you did observe a positive correlation between two variables, there are many other factors which contribute to the cause-and-effect scenario which you've neglected to observe. 

Put simply; correlation doesn't imply causation. 

Just because drownings increase and decrease relative to the sales of ice cream does not imply that the increase in the sale of ice cream was because of more drownings.  Nor does it imply that the increase of drownings is because the sale of ice cream increased.

Just like the two ladies in your dating scenario.  Meek and mild behavior alone isn't necessarily the reason why she was unattracted to you, nor was exhibiting rude behavior (which you've erroneously conflated as being masculine) not necessarily the reason she was more attracted to you.

In the case of drownings and ice cream sales having a positive and negative correlation, their relationship is merely spurious.  Proper scientific conclusions would allow for confounding or common response variables, i.e. both increase in a linear way when warm weather is introduced.

So, in your case, it is most probably something else about you that is the confounding variable which you're neglecting to apply.  It could have been that one girl found your blue eyes attractive (just an example - I know not the color of your eyes) whereas the other girl is only attracted to guys with brown eyes.

Therefore your behavior towards the table staff with one woman and your meek behavior towards another and the differing outcomes of those two dates would most logically suggest that it was merely coincidental.

 

[SumGuy]

On 3/5/2021 at 11:42 AM, IntBrowser said:

 Im saying that it looks like me being irritated vs being nervous and shy came off as more attractive.

I'm saying being calm, cool and collected and solving the problem with a bit of humor/making the server and your date comfortable is more attractive.  You set up a false dichotomy there, and I really hope your two modes are not irritated or nervous.

Also lesson learned on credit cards, some places don't take VISA, other not American Express, etc. etc. some only take cash.  Next time bring cash, be prepared, it is good for all debts public and private.

[Miss Spider]

1 hour ago, Trail Blazer said:

Something tells me that science isn't your fortè.  Observing a relationship between two variables cannot be positively correlated on the basis of such small sample size. 

However, even if your sample size increased and you did observe a positive correlation between two variables, there are many other factors which contribute to the cause-and-effect scenario which you've neglected to observe. 

Put simply; correlation doesn't imply causation. 

Just because drownings increase and decrease relative to the sales of ice cream does not imply that the increase in the sale of ice cream was because of more drownings.  Nor does it imply that the increase of drownings is because the sale of ice cream increased.

Just like the two ladies in your dating scenario.  Meek and mild behavior alone isn't necessarily the reason why she was unattracted to you, nor was exhibiting rude behavior (which you've erroneously conflated as being masculine) not necessarily the reason she was more attracted to you.

In the case of drownings and ice cream sales having a positive and negative correlation, their relationship is merely spurious.  Proper scientific conclusions would allow for confounding or common response variables, i.e. both increase in a linear way when warm weather is introduced.

So, in your case, it is most probably something else about you that is the confounding variable which you're neglecting to apply.  It could have been that one girl found your blue eyes attractive (just an example - I know not the color of your eyes) whereas the other girl is only attracted to guys with brown eyes.

Therefore your behavior towards the table staff with one woman and your meek behavior towards another and the differing outcomes of those two dates would most logically suggest that it was merely coincidental.

 

This is very scientific  

[Trail Blazer]

On 3/6/2021 at 2:28 AM, smackie9 said:

Learn from the experience. During covid a lot of how people operate their businesses has changed. Before you go to a new restaurant,  go online to do a quick check on their website/yelp or whatever. They always post what cards are accepted, some are cash only. Me I like to check, read the reviews, look at the photos of the food, decor,... check out the hours too, some places have reduced the hours of operation.

Tip: Always bring cash as a backup. I myself have been faced a couple of times, when the machine is down. 

Whilst this is true, at least in my area at leave I have noticed businesses encouraging more electronic payment methods, including contactless payment, to be adopted over cash for hygenic reasons.

Sure, your advice is definitely sound, and no, I do not condone the OP's behavior in the slightest.  However, I do find it surprising when retailers in metro areas only accept Visa or Mastercard.

[Mrin]

On 3/5/2021 at 8:12 AM, IntBrowser said:

I wasn't really yelling at the server, it was more towards the situation and the place she works for because what if I had no other way to pay for the date?  I just couldnt understand how a major credit card wasnt accepted at a major restaurant 

Discover... Lol. They're still around?

[Wiseman2]

12 hours ago, Mrin said:

Discover... Lol. They're still around?

Most places don't even take it.

Sounds like a coincidence. The other one just wasn't interested.

Being rude wasn't the secret sauce in attracting her.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Wiseman2

[smackie9]

On 3/6/2021 at 2:19 PM, Trail Blazer said:

Whilst this is true, at least in my area at leave I have noticed businesses encouraging more electronic payment methods, including contactless payment, to be adopted over cash for hygenic reasons.

Sure, your advice is definitely sound, and no, I do not condone the OP's behavior in the slightest.  However, I do find it surprising when retailers in metro areas only accept Visa or Mastercard.

Yes I have always asked if cash is accepted because of hygienic reasons....the retailers are not rejecting it tho and gladly take it.