[Warning: There is a kind of personal 'coming out' ;-)] 
 But my strategy was to minimize the chance of making a type-one error--wasting time on an unsuitable choice. Inevitably, that increased the risk of a type-two error--rejecting a suitable person. But this was an acceptable risk as I was dealing with a very large population 
 What I loved in this book the most was a perspective of a scientific mind. I have had a great time reading how Don saw everyday life activities and social interactions. His perspective on one hand was very refreshing and sometimes surprising, on the other hand it was often quite very similar to mine. I can't tell, that I am typical scientist. I ("only") love science, I like to watch scientific documents and to read last scientific discoveries. And I work for them (specifying for psychologists, academics like Rosie and Gene). If someone asked I would say I have more scientific soul/mind than unscientific. 
 Besides, my social needs and skills are below average, so I understood Don (although, fortunately for me, they are only below average, not so bad like Don's). 
 I don't think that Don was exactly like Sheldon Cooper (for those who don't now him, he is a main character in tv-series The Big Bang Theory, which I, of course, love ;-)). They are very alike, but I think Don had more social skills than Sheldon. 
 Basically, it was a romantic comedy. Funny and with happy ending. Nonetheless, when one describes human who isn't like most of people, one puts some difficult questions. E.g.: How much do we need other people to live? What makes us humans? How do we treat people who are very different from us? What is love? 
 Personally, I was struck by the question, whether we search the partner we could accept (love) or the partner who might accept (love) us. What do you think? I want to believe in the first one, but I have many doubts... 
 The idea, the story, the characters could have win five stars from me. There was all you need in engaging, amusing romance plus rather original hero and deeper level for consider/thinking through. But reading it I had the feeling that an author wasn't fully consistent and fair with a reader. For example: Don was very precise in describing what he did, without omitting details that "normal" narrator would omit. Then, in another scene, he didn't tell us very important thing right away, just because it was better for the story (to keep us in tension, ignorance, uncertainty). It happened only a few times, but still. And because the hero and the whole scientific atmosphere were particularly close to my heart I am more sensitive to errors. So, I can't give it five stars. 
 P.S. It is so good material for a movie, that I am not surprised, that Sony Pictures optioned film rights to this novel. I have found only who will probably play Rosie - Jennifer Lawrence (I think it isn't a bad choice).