There are advantages to being an epidemiologist. For instance, the ability to detect subtle patterns, identify outliers, track trends over time, and forecast outcomes with unnerving accuracy.
However, those same skills become a curse the moment they’re intermixed with dating.
Most women are taught to trust their feelings. Epidemiologists are trained to trust the data. I do both and when you merge the two in modern dating? Whew. Suddenly, things other women brush off as “not a big deal” become blinking red indicators in your internal data dashboard.
Here are a few examples of what it’s like inside my head when dating:
The Touch Timeline Metric
Did you know that men who are genuinely serious tread carefully when it comes to touching you? They’re nervous, thoughtful, slow, measured. Why?
They fear messing it up.
Which is why one of the clearest red flags is how quickly a man tries to touch you (e.g., your leg, your waist, your lower back) or how abruptly he escalates emotional intimacy he has not earned.
Rapid emotional acceleration (also known as “love bombing”) is not a demonstration of passion. It is strategy.
Yes, always.
In fact, I recently had to ‘nope’ out of moving forward with a man who on Day 2 was talking about how epic our love story will be; who would be the big vs. little spoon while cuddling; whether I made enough money for him to stay at home with the kids; and what baby names I did (or did not like). Day 2…
And be careful. The phrase, “I’m joking” is not a magic eraser. It’s used to avoid accountability and to “test the waters.” Anything said by anyone while they’re “joking” are only things they don’t have to courage to say to you outright.
Love bombing works the same way viruses work: overwhelm the host before the immune system catches up. Future-faking, overly romantic hypotheticals, and intense declarations within days are core parts of this behavior. It creates premature emotional attachment, making you more susceptible to excusing behavior in the future that he is already aware is a problem.
He is not confused. He is not swept away.
He is grooming you for tolerance.
Follow-Up Question Deficiency
Another diagnostic tool: does he ask follow-up questions about your interests?
Not just “Oh, cool,” but “Tell me more about that” or “How interesting! Have you ever…?”
If 90% of your conversations revolve around his life, his job, his ideas, his stress, his hobbies, and you receive nothing, but shallow nods in return, you are not dating a potential partner. Let’s be clear. You’re providing unpaid emotional labor.
Men who are genuinely interested seek depth.
They gather information.
They store it.
They reference it.
They seek to impress (and even get giddy at the prospect).
Men who aren’t?
They treat conversations like a mirror and they talk until they like what they see.
When He Expects You to Manage His Feelings
A particularly dangerous red flag is when a man expects you to regulate his emotions.
You express discomfort, concern, or hurt about something he said, and instead of listening, he dismisses it because “that’s not how I meant it.”
Translation:
Your feelings are inconvenient, and I will not alter my behavior to address them.
If you state a clear reaction to a statement or action and the other person can’t acknowledge it, that is an indication that moving forward, the expectation is for you to take on emotional management in place of emotional accountability.
This is how women get trapped in relationships where they end up mothering, buffering, and explaining, while receiving nothing reciprocal in return. You can spot these types from a mile away. They’re the ones constantly telling their friends at social functions, “Oh, he didn’t mean it like that” or “you’ve got to understand his quirky sense of humor…::awkward laugh::” No, Vicky. He’s a J.A.
Exhibit A:
The Hot-and-Cold Cycle
Ah, the dopamine trap.
He texts you intensely and affectionately one day… and then disappears or turns vague the next. This inconsistency triggers the same neurological response as gambling.
A variable reward system.
It destabilizes you just enough that you start waiting for your phone to buzz, hoping this time he’s warm again. Women often mistake this for anxiety or excitement.
Epidemiologists, no matter the field, are paid to identify, analyze, and decode patterns. I couldn’t stop scanning for patterns if I tried at this point. And I can reassure you, this type of back and forth, wishy-washy engagement is a form of behavior shaping to get you to mistake anxiety for attachment. Why? So you’ll keep accepting less than you deserve and give your partner a “deal” aka the most out of you for the least amount of effort on his part.
Cut your losses.
The Name Frequency Indicator
One of the earliest and most revealing metrics is how often a man uses your actual name.
If he rarely or never uses it (i.e., if he leans on “hey” and “good morning” as his only greetings), he’s subconsciously signaling low investment. Men who are truly interested, zero in quickly. Even before deciding to pursue, they lock onto details: your voice, your humor, and especially, your name.
If he can’t be bothered to type or say it, he is not studying to pursue you.
And if he is not studying to pursue you, he is not that interested.
Women often dismiss this data as insignificant; an epidemiologist would not. Communication patterns matter. Consistency matters. Missing data points matter.
Non-usage of your name is often a soft indicator of a rotation, and not the healthy “dating with intention” kind. I’m talking about the “he’s talking to six other people and waiting to see who makes his life the easiest” kind. Or he’s lazy and trust….you don’t want that either.
Why This Matters
Your instincts are not overreactions.
They are data.
Your observations are not paranoia.
They are expertise.
You are allowed to gather information.
You are allowed to interpret it.
You are allowed to walk away.
Dating is not a job interview where only you must prove your worth.
You should have standards, expectations, and deal-breakers that matter to you.
And if your brain notices patterns that don’t align with genuine interest, sincerity, or long-term viability?
You don’t need to wait for “more evidence.”
You already have enough.
You are an epidemiologist too.
Hone your intuition. Identify the patterns.
Make sure your observations are precise, honest, and fair.
However, understand that patterns are real (and reliable).
Use them.
Because the same skills that make Epis excellent in their field will protect you in your dating life.
Lence in Layers 
2 responses to “Why Being an Epidemiologist Makes Dating… Complicated (In the Best Way)”
Hey Valencia,
I came across this piece after visiting your page, and I’m glad I took the time to read it. Your perspective is sharp, and I can see how your field shapes the way you interpret patterns in dating. It’s interesting, because what you’ve laid out makes sense from a scientific standpoint — the structure, the indicators, the thresholds, the predictive reasoning.
At the same time, I found myself thinking about how the human side of connection doesn’t always behave in ways that data can neatly capture. People are inconsistent, not always out of intention or strategy, but because we’re human. That nuance — the part that lives outside of formulas — is what made your article stand out to me. It made me want to understand more about how you balance that analytical lens with the unpredictability that naturally comes with relating to another person.
I’m not disagreeing with your logic at all; your points are solid. I’m more so reflecting on how the strength of your framework also creates an interesting tension with the softer, less measurable aspects of human interaction. Your perspective definitely made me think, and I appreciate you putting it out there.
I’m curious — how do you navigate that space where the data points end and the human unpredictability begins?
LikeLike
Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I really appreciate you taking the time to sit with the piece.
You’re right that people aren’t neat datasets. Human connection will always have variables, contradictions, and moments that don’t fit any model. I don’t expect dating to behave cleanly, and I don’t treat people like case numbers.
For me, the analytical side and the human side work in tandem.
My intuition tells me how something feels while my training and experience helps me understand why it feels that way. The unpredictability doesn’t cancel out the patterns. It only adds context.
And while there will always be exceptions, most behaviors reveal a direction over time. That’s the space where I balance both lenses (i.e., staying open to connection, but also paying attention when someone’s actions consistently trend toward confusion, avoidance, or low investment).
Your comment genuinely added to the conversation. Thank you for asking the kind of question that make me think too.
LikeLike