---
title: 'Science of Attraction, Compatibility & Romance | Dr. Paul Eastwick'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=CV0GtUlJ6NM'
video_id: 'CV0GtUlJ6NM'
date: 2026-06-30
duration_sec: 10215
---

# Science of Attraction, Compatibility & Romance | Dr. Paul Eastwick

> Source: [Science of Attraction, Compatibility & Romance | Dr. Paul Eastwick](https://youtube.com/watch?v=CV0GtUlJ6NM)

## Summary



## Transcript

When you look at who gets the right
swipes and who receives messages on the
apps, it's the most popular people. I
mean, folks have claimed that it's one
of the most unequal markets in the
world, but regular acquaintance is not
nearly so dramatic. I don't think the
influence of attractiveness ever goes
away, right? There's always going to be
an unlevel playing field to some extent,
but the more that people spend time
together getting to know each other, it
reduces some of those market forces that
give the desirable people all the
advantages.
Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast,
where we discuss science and
science-based tools for everyday life.
I'm Andrew Huberman and I'm a professor
of neurobiology and opthalmology at
Stanford School of Medicine. My guest
today is Dr. Paul Eastwick, a professor
of psychology at the University of
California, Davis. Today we discuss the
science of attraction, mate selection,
and relationships. And I promise you
what you are going to hear will surprise
you. Paul's research has discovered that
much of what you've heard about how
people select partners, date, form
relationships, even break up or
repartner is simply wrong. At least when
you look at the actual data. For
example, his data show that both men and
women when given a choice select
partners that are younger than them.
Yes, you heard that right. It's not just
men. Men and women equally select
partners that are younger than them
given the choice. His data also
challenged the idea that financial
status is more important to women when
looking for male partners. Turns out
that when men are looking for female
partners, on average, financial status
is as important as it is when women are
looking for men. And somewhat less
surprising, his work shows that indeed
dating apps select for qualities that
are not the ones that research shows
builds lasting partnerships. But he also
offers solutions to those that are using
dating apps to try and find a partner.
Today's discussion is not just about
finding a partner. It's also about what
solidifies and maintains healthy
relationships over time. Again, what the
data say about that. Things like
physical intimacy being among the very
strongest predictors of relationship
stability. As well as both partners
feeling that no matter who else might be
attractive to them, that their partner
has unique qualities that no one else
can match. So whether you are in a
relationship or not, looking for a
relationship or not, today's discussion
gets into social bonding of all sorts
and repeatedly throughout today's
episode both as it relates to single
people looking for a partner, people who
are already partnered, we talk about the
importance of activities that are done
with other people, could be other
couples or other single people, etc. And
that this is critical for those wanting
to meet a partner and it turns out to be
critical for maintaining a healthy
long-term relationship. We'll talk about
what the data say about that. Super
interesting. So today is not just about
the real data of how people rate
attractiveness, find partners, and the
glue that keeps people happily together.
It's about the real life data and the
actions that anyone can take that help
you build and sustain excellent romantic
and other types of relationships. Before
we begin, I'd like to emphasize that
this podcast is separate from my
teaching and research roles at Stanford.
It is however part of my desire and
effort to bring zero cost to consumer
information about science and science
related tools to the general public. In
keeping with that theme, today's episode
does include sponsors. And now for my
discussion with Dr. Paul Eastwick. Dr.
Paul Eastwick, welcome.
>> Thank you so much for having me. A lot
of theories out there, a lot of
speculation about attraction, dating,
romance, and relationships, which are
separable things. Of course, we'll talk
about all of them. But one of the
semi-dominant themes in the public
narrative and indeed on many podcasts is
is kind of anchoring to evolutionary
theory which to put it really coarsely
sort of a market-based theory. You know
people even say I married up or uh you
know and people but quantitative
measures on people they're a six they're
a seven they're a 10 in this but a four
in that. You know, as a neuroscientist,
I hear that and I immediately go to, and
again, this is just purely theoretical.
>> Oh, this sounds very limbic. This is
very much of like the hypothalamus. This
is very much like the kind of thing that
you might expect under conditions of
like um low food availability,
>> low mate availability, a lot of weapons
and a few and very few laws, you know,
to to regulate violence or something.
Meaning men will will harm each other in
order to get access to mates. women will
um be deceptive. This is the whole idea.
And you step back and you go, well,
that's not the world we live in now. We
have a forebrain. We can make choices.
We can be strategic in the direction of
benevolence. We can think about
kindness. And so to me, it seems we need
a revision or at least a better
understanding of what's actually true in
2026 and forward. So, if you would, what
are your thoughts about what is not true
based on the data
>> and perhaps what is true about this
quote unquote evolutionary model of
dating relationships and so on. The
marketplace ideas, I think they
definitely have their place and it deres
from a a sensible evolutionary
perspective like what you're describing.
I think it describes well what happens
in initial attraction settings when
people are really meeting for the first
time. There's this class demo that I do
in my undergraduate classes. A lot of
people use this demo and what you do is
you have a bunch of your students put a
number on their foreheads and they sort
of hold it up so that they can't see it
but other people can. and you tell the
students your goal is to pair up with
the highest value person that you can
and you don't know what your number is,
but I'm going to count to five and then
I want you all to stroll around the room
and try to make mating offers to folks.
And what you see is that the people who
have been randomly assigned a low
number, they start to panic because what
happens is that nobody will talk to
them.
>> And this is random. uh you know
otherwise it would be very unethical and
also who would decide but
>> but people don't like it. I mean if you
get a low number
>> it's not an enjoyable experience
>> and I think there is a parallel to what
people are experiencing as they're
growing up or maybe even if they're a
little older and they're going to a
party and they haven't met anybody
there. So this is an analogy
for how people internalize and you know
act upon something that we call mate
value and it's it's like what you
describe. It's supposedly linked to
traits that reflect your core
desiraability like maybe your physical
attractiveness but it could be other
related traits too. It could be things
like the size of your bank account or
your status.
What we tend to see is that when people
are meeting for the first time, this is
um a reasonable faximile of how people
behave.
But interesting things tend to happen
when people get to know each other over
a little bit more time. What then tends
to happen is that that agreement that is
required for that study to work. That
study only works because you can read
the numbers on people's foreheads. But
if I were to blur that number, we
wouldn't see as much pairing up. It
wouldn't be as sad and as difficult for
the people with low numbers. And in real
life, that's kind of what tends to
happen. We stop agreeing about who the
eights are and who the fives are. And
people might on average say that you're
a six, but if I've gotten to know you
over time, it means there's a chance I
think you're a nine. There's also a
chance I think you're a three. And so
that increase in idiosyncrasy and
variability, I think, is a really
fortunate thing. And it's the thing
that's going to allow a lot of partners
to find each other uh even if they're
not consensually the most desirable
people. Consensually meaning in the eyes
of others.
>> Right. Right. Right. Right. So even if
on average people think uh you're kind
of middling with enough time people are
more likely to find okay but okay you
all think I'm a five but she thinks I'm
a 10. And then what you're kind of
crossing your fingers for are these
moments where and I think she's a 10
too. And it's this uh level of sort of
disagreement or the emergence of what we
might comp call compatibility that I
think is it's been missing from the
evolutionary narratives, but I think it
plays a core part in explaining how
couples get together as well. Wow. Um so
many things come to mind. Uh the first
thing that comes to mind is the
question, you know, who and what are
others looking at? Yeah, it seems like
one of the more I want to use the word
immature, but let's say less evolved,
not in the evolutionary biology context,
but kind of like life maturation sense,
like less evolved aspects of self is
when
>> we are not thinking about what we
actually like and don't like,
>> but we're paying a lot of attention to
what other people like and dislike as a
barometer of what we should do or not
do. Now, of course, that can be very
informative in healthy ways, but when it
really comes down to it, it's a
potentially very toxic aspect of human
nature, right? So, what I what I hear
you saying is that at some point there's
this kind of um dating, romance, and
relational maturity that people come to
where they're really able to sense what
they actually like and they're able to
put the blinders up to how other people
are necessarily behaving. like are does
everyone like this person? Do they not
like this person? And the the words that
come to mind, two words are junior high,
>> like the junior high school dance for a
number of reasons is kind of the first
time, you know, most kids are starting
to hit puberty or somewhere in puberty
at that phase. And so there's a lot of
recognition of others and
>> kind of like who is cool, who's not
cool, who's getting attention, who's not
getting attention seems to surface first
in junior high.
>> Yeah.
>> And admittedly, we're all pretty
immature in junior high. Yeah. Exactly.
So, has this been looked at in in a
structured way? For instance, are there
adults who are um good
>> at ignoring what you you know what the
consensus is? And are are they able to
find mates and and set up relationships
more readily than people who are paying
a lot of attention to what other people
like and don't like? Yes, I'm I am sure
that there's considerable individual
variability in how people react to
what's going on around them. Sometimes
you see this phenomenon called mate
choice copying. But what that
essentially means is that you know you
kind of look to see who's attracted to
somebody in my uh you know is everybody
attracted to this person? Well, there
must be some signal there. I'll sort of
follow that.
I totally agree. It it's a very junior
high way of thinking about this whole
process. But I think a lot of what is
happening is that if people are spending
time together and I I often go back to
thinking about what is it like when
we're hanging out in mixed gender groups
if you're heterosexual.
So we're spending time together and
maybe for whatever reason I happen to
spend more time with this person. we
find something interesting to chat
about. I see her reacting in situations
that other people don't get to see. And
so the particular time that I spend with
her ends up being the material that I
use that causes my opinion to diverge
from everybody else's. So everybody else
might be like, "She's not all that
great." And I think, "But you weren't
there when we were hanging out talking
about, you know, some family challenges
that I had. I'm trying to put myself
back in like what were the things we
would have been frustrated about in high
school. But you know talking about like
problems at school or problems with
other friends like she was supportive
and listened to me and then I was
supportive and I listened to her and
that reciprocity through a unique
experience with another person. A lot of
times this is where initial attraction
comes from. It sounds a little squishy.
It doesn't sound like the sexy form of
attraction that we often think about,
but what we see in our work is a lot of
times this is how it happens. It it
takes a little while, but attraction can
form when two people spend that time
together sort of pulling unique things
out of each other. I'd like to take a
quick break to acknowledge one of our
sponsors, David. David makes protein
bars unlike any other. Their newest bar,
the Bronze Bar, has 20 gram of protein,
only 150 calories, and zero gram of
sugar. I have to say, these are the best
tasting protein bars I've ever had, and
I've tried a lot of protein bars over
the years. These new David bars have a
marshmallow base and they're covered in
chocolate coating and they're absolutely
incredible. I of course eat regular
whole foods. I eat meat, chicken, fish,
eggs, fruits, vegetables, etc. But I
also make it a point to eat one or two
David bars per day as a snack, which
makes it easy to hit my protein goal of
1 gram of protein per pound of body
weight. And that allows me to take in
the protein I need without consuming
excess calories. I love all the David
Bronze Bar flavors, including cookie
dough, caramel chocolate, double
chocolate, peanut butter chocolate. They
all actually taste like candy bars.
Again, they're amazing. But again, they
have no sugar and they have 20 gram of
protein with just 150 calories. If you'd
like to try David, you can go to
davidprotein.com/huberman.
Right now, David is offering a deal
where if you buy four cartons, you get
the fifth carton for free. You can also
find David on Amazon or in stores such
as Target, Walmart, and Kroger. Again,
to get the fifth carton for free, go to
davidproin.com/huberman.
Today's episode is also brought to us by
Lingo. Lingo is an everyday wearable
that tracks your glucose 247. Glucose
drives a lot of key processes that
support energy, body composition, and
long-term health. When glucose is
constantly spiking and crashing, that's
where we can start to see metabolic
dysfunction. And over time, that can
even progress to pre-diabetes. Right
now, about 115 million adults in the US
have pre-diabetes. Most don't know it,
and a higher percentage of men have it
than women do. Often, there aren't clear
symptoms of pre-diabetes early on, so
people don't tend to look into it. But
the fact is that metabolic health is
shaping how your body functions every
day, whether you feel it or not.
Tracking your glucose with Lingo can
help you see how food, activity, and
stress impact your glucose throughout
the day. I personally have used Lingo,
and it's been an invaluable tool for
improving my metabolic health. If you
would like to try Lingo, Hubberman Lab
listeners in the US and UK can save 10%
on a 4-week plan. Just visit
hellolingo.com/huberman
for more information. Terms and
conditions apply. Again, that's
hellingo.com/huberman.
>> It's interesting. I'm thinking about um
movies.
>> Yeah.
>> And um admittedly, I haven't seen that
many romantic comedies, but there's some
very there's some pretty awesome I've
seen a few of them. Uh but there's some
awesome movies about this issue.
>> Yeah.
>> And I'll offer some examples that will
date myself, but
>> that seem to fall into at least three
bins.
>> One is
you're awesome. I'm awesome. Let's get
together. All right. Nowadays, I think
regardless of music taste, I think the
kind of uh like royally celebrated
couple is not a royal couple.
Incidentally, I would say it's like the
Taylor Swift
>> Kelsey couple. People like people are
like they're both winners. They're both
super attractive. They're both super
successful. And you know whether you
like the Chiefs or you don't, whether or
not you like her music or you don't,
you're like, you're like they're like
badass winners pairing up
>> and it's very hard to say anything
except like, wow, they totally quote
unquote belong together, right? There's
a sort of So there's that pairing and
you can find that in movies and uh all
the like ' 80s like um uh John Hughes
movies centered around this like um and
then broke that model. We'll go back to
that. The other one would be Yeah. the
breaking of that model. the like the
it's this is very 80s but the kind of
like the athlete you know pairs up with
the nerd right okay now we nowadays we
have athlete nerds and so it doesn't
work quite as well
>> and then the third model is the like
well you're screwed up and I'm screwed
up but we're really good people
>> like you get true romance
>> the movie True Romance which is an
amazing movie right you know she was a
>> you know not by her own choice
apparently like she she's like I've been
a prostitute for three call girl for
three days and he's
Well, I you know, someone paid for you
to be on this date with me. They fall in
love. They leave their
>> professions, right? And they go and they
go on this sort of semi-rime spree um
that really uh demonstrates their
immense love and devotion to one
another. And the whole notion is like
you're so cool. They both think the
other person is super cool, don't care
about their past, and kind of enjoy the
fact that they're both kind of from
>> uh hard scrabble backgrounds. So then
there's that. And what's so different
about that kind of model compared to
like today where I hear because I so I
don't have a lot to offer about personal
experience on apps many years ago but
it's been a while is this notion that
like everyone you hear this everyone's
competing for the same small number of
people.
>> So it seems like even those those three
cliche models that are presented in a
number of movies they exist. It's like
since when did is everyone thinking that
they're supposed to pair up with the
same small number of people? This is
like ridiculous. That's like saying
everyone's supposed to like the same
>> top three songs even though you might
not even like that genre of music.
That's that's um insanity.
>> Yeah, the apps absolutely pull for this.
So when you look at who gets the right
swipes and who receives messages on the
apps, it's the most popular people. I
mean, folks have claimed that it's one
of the most unequal markets in the
world. I mean, it's basically a
kleptocracy. The extent to which Yeah,
kleptocracy, right? The extent to which
it's skewed, right? That there's like,
you know, the rich, quote unquote, who
have all the, you know, who who get all
the all the the right swipes at the top.
But regular acquaintance is not nearly
so dramatic. So, you know, one example
that I like to use is that if our job
was just to evaluate whether somebody
standing in front of us was hot or not,
and it was somebody that we like
interacted with briefly
and we're making just simple binary
judgments, you and I are going to agree
about like 2/3 of the time. So that's
that's better than 50/50, but it's far
from 100%. I I think actually that would
surprise a lot of people. There's a
reasonable amount of disagreement there.
That's already starting to set the stage
for us not necessarily pursuing the most
appealing person because if there's
disagreement, that means there's a
chance that, well, you're going to go
for this person, I'm going to go for
that person, and it it levels out the
playing field somewhat. I don't think
the influence of attractiveness ever
goes away, right? There's always going
to be an unlevel playing field to some
extent, but the more that people spend
time together getting to know each
other, it reduces some of those, you
know, uh th those market forces that
give the desirable people all the
advantages.
>> Yeah. The reason junior high school
seemed so dreadful in my memory. I mean,
I had a good time in junior high school,
but it it was largely, at least for me,
the fact that people in my peer group,
cuz it was a pretty broad age range,
were were still um among the guys were
hitting puberty at different rates.
>> Yeah.
>> So, like a game of soccer that at one
time was pretty even with respect to who
could play well, like suddenly you're
playing against what felt like a grown
man. There's actually a kid in our town
who I don't want to give up his name who
I think he went on to I don't ever think
he became a professional soccer player,
but he was just
>> he was like fully developed by the
eighth grade. He was like facial hair
and he was fast and he had like legs
like tree trunks and he could move and I
mean it was just
>> completely dangerous to have him out on
the field with the rest of us, right?
And he was
>> respected, adored, admired like and it
was very context dependent. This was the
other thing I was going to say. I think
you and I are both scientists. So,
coming up, you spent a lot of time in
labs.
>> Yeah.
>> I never forget there was a romance in a
neighboring lab um that none of us
understood. Like none of us understood.
>> That's funny.
>> And I remember asking my friend who was
in this pairing and he said the
attraction for him, although she was
also attractive, but the the the hook
was her prowess at aloquotting. So
there's a thing you do with antibodies
and labs where they come in and you have
to put them into the little things so
that you know you freeze out a little
bit and apparent
>> really hard.
>> Yeah. You get good at it. But apparently
like he walked in one day and she had a
bunch of these little tubes stuffed
between her fingers and she was just
aloquotting really quickly while talking
and from that moment he was just like
smitten.
>> That's beautiful.
>> And I'll say they both never heard an
example this good. I was like her
aloquatting process like it or prowess
and I thought to myself like is this
like tapping into something? They they
actually have children. He's his
professor. They have children together.
They seem very happy. I think anyone
would say they're both attractive
people. But their pairing seemed like
>> not predictable by any other external
metrics. And the fact that something so
specific was the hook.
>> Yeah.
>> And that opened up into what turned out
to be a long-standing marriage with kids
is kind of wild. It is.
>> But is this uncommon? Because what you
described before is kind of like this,
like there's something unique that makes
it feel like there's a special
attraction that indicates something that
opens up to a special discussion and
then there's this
>> kind of um intimacy, right, that they
share
>> around aloquading that was spawned by
aloquading. I don't recommend folks run
out and learn how to aloquat in order to
like this is not a strategy. Um but
that's the thing.
>> Thematically it might be, but um so what
are your thoughts on something like
that? Okay, this is an incredible
example and I think if if we're talking
about couples, I think most people would
find this idea intuitive that if you
know I ask somebody what is what is it
that you love about your wife or what is
it that you love about your husband? You
know, you're going to get a bunch of if
you get them talking for long enough,
you'll get some idiosyncratic details.
You'll get some stories. I mean, maybe
if they're really forthcoming, they'll
give you the in jokes and they'll
explain the moments that made them feel
something special for this person.
I think what I'm suggesting is that
those moments, the the the creation of a
narrative with another person, it goes
back earlier than we think. And that a
lot of times what we're doing when we're
trying to figure out if we're into
somebody, yes, we look at how they look
visually and we we take in all that
information and it matters a lot. But
we're also talking with them, forming
little stories. If you have a little bit
of good banter, that means when I see
you at the party next week, I'm going to
want to sit next to you and see if we
can recreate that moment. And that's
often where attraction is coming from. I
think that's why the apps are so hard
because it turns it into an interview
where you're trying to impress other
people with your traits. And again,
traits are important, but it's like it
it's not the life of the thing. The life
of the thing is the little stories and
moments that two people are sharing and
and that's I think something that that
people can be doing more with.
>> I'd like to divide this process that we
call dating, romance, relationships,
etc. into some pieces that may or may
not be the right way to segment it. So,
so please um change any of what I'm
about to, you know, toss out. We're
talking about impressions.
>> Yeah.
>> That either seed or don't see desire for
more time. So, interest
>> and then that I'll just broadly separate
with compatibility over time.
>> Yeah.
>> So, let's spend some time on impressions
that lead to desire. Which ones are
meaningful? Which ones aren't? Which
ones can be a bit misleading? I think
most people are probably more intuitive
about those if they're really honest,
like what they find, who they find
attractive,
>> who they'd be willing to admit they find
attractive if you remove all the other
social inputs.
>> Yeah.
>> And so on. But the compatibility over
time piece is the one that is really
hard. If you just look at the statistics
on marriage, let alone the statistics
on, you know, other relationships.
>> It's not a bleak picture, but the
numbers don't play out into if people
get together and make the commitment.
Most of the time it works out. It
unfortunately doesn't seem to be that
way or maybe who knows fortunately but
so impressions leading to desire given
that many of the people listening to
this will they'll be thinking about
their own history with their current
partner or are seeking a partner or
maybe not. What do the data say about
what people are picking up on as really
valid cues that drive real desire as
opposed to the
>> the BS about like, well, everyone else
thought they were great or the great on
paper kind of thing. The early phases
especially are just naturally filled
with a lot of uncertainty. And I think
this is a bummer for a lot of people
because it can feel like you're really
into somebody or like they're really
into me and then it turns on a dime. So
part of that is about like searching for
signals trying to resolve the
uncertainty. And the problem is that
it's not like, oh, if I get sufficient
evidence that you're smart, that's going
to do it. Or if I get sufficient
evidence that you're really good at
aloquotting, that's going to do it. What
people are, I think, trying to do is
they're trying to figure out like, do I
feel enough of something for you that I
want to continue this that I want to
keep going? Yes. And but I don't want to
act like cuz sometimes when people think
about the spark, what they think is,
"Oh, it's got to be there right away and
I've already got to be feeling 100 for
this person, right? I got to be at the
top of the scale." That actually isn't
what happens on average. Typically, if
you if you look at what most
relationships look like and you look
back at the beginning, the the typical
first impression is middling. That's how
we feel at first. Middling. Just kind of
I don't know, middle of the sky. That
seemed all right. You know, it was fine.
And then we interacted again.
>> Not bad, not over the top.
>> Not bad. Not Not over the top. And as we
spend a little more time together, oh,
like actually I find him pretty funny or
I think he's really smart or um you
know, I really like how good a listener
he was. And I think what people are
often trying to do is get enough moments
that fit enough of these different trait
categories that they think, well, you
know, whatever other people say about
this person, like with me, he seems like
a pretty sensitive guy. with me, he
seems pretty witty. With me, you know,
like I actually think he's really hot
when he does XYZ. And so if you
accumulate enough of those, then you
find yourself, you know, it's like you
keep coming back. So that's how I think
about it is this like slow accumulation
of information.
Sometimes people will encounter things
like like the ick where there's one
moment and then they tip over the edge
the other way into feeling like I can't
be with this person.
>> Is that typically women who feel that
about men? I mean do men describe that?
>> I think yeah men have those experiences
too. It is pretty underresarched. And
one of the reasons why is because this
whole phase I'm talking about is
remarkably hard to study because we as
researchers we're very good at how do
you feel about somebody if you're
looking at a picture or if you've hung
out for like four minutes. I mean that's
what a lot of the initial attraction
paradigms look like. I like those
paradigms. I study those paradigms
myself. And then it's very easy to
recruit couples and then see what
happens to them. what explains why their
relationships stay together and why they
fall apart. But this period and it's
it's my favorite thing to think about
and it's also one of the most mysterious
is Yeah, but what happened from like
minute 10 to you know day 30 where now
you were really determined to be in a
relationship with this person and and
that's a typical amount of time. it it
usually doesn't happen instantaneously
that people know right away, hey, no,
this is it. I want to be with this
person. It's that slow accumulation. And
when we look at it, it's it's almost
like you've got a window of uncertainty
and it's slowly collapsing to a stable
impression that people have of this
person as they gather a little bit more
information and a little bit more
information. And what you just hope for
is that as two people you're collapsing
to a fairly stable impression that is
both very positive of each other. And I
think a large part that's how people get
together
>> and hopefully accurate too.
>> Yeah. So the accuracy part is
interesting because I mean you know I'm
a psychologist. I'm a social
psychologist and so social psychologists
are big into well your perception is
your reality and boy do you see a lot of
evidence especially in relationships
that people are biased when it comes to
their romantic relationships
>> in what sense
>> it can happen in ways like you know
everybody kind of agrees that your
partner's a jerk but you genuinely don't
think they're a jerk and when they're
with you they don't seem like a jerk so
any kind measure I would take your
perception of, you know, your partner
versus everybody else's perception. You
would seem to be horribly positively
biased
for your partner.
The question is whether you're wrong and
I land on the side of I mean from your
perspective you're not
to argue that it would be better to
listen to the consensus that your
partner is a jerk kind it's sort of like
um you're arguing for like a sleeper
effect like there's wisdom in what other
people know that you don't see.
The evidence for that is actually not
not great. It's it I'm it it could be
and I'm sure it happens sometimes, but
what usually happens in relationships is
that people's own impressions and
perceptions tend to be the major driver.
Now, that can go in the other way, too,
because we might all agree this person
would be the most amazing partner to be
with, and yet you've now gotten to the
point in this relationship where you
don't see it anymore, and you can't
unsee the negative things you've seen.
And so, that relationship can be very
hard to salvage. The statement has been
made by someone I know and trust about
all things in life, all things in life,
not just relationships, but certainly
including them, that
If people just treated
their taste in people, in music, in art,
in experiences the same way they treated
their taste in food, everyone would be a
lot better off.
>> Meaning,
if one has the impression that they
really like something, they really like
this person, then just go for it. I
mean, unless there's some sort of danger
they're not aware of, right?
>> Okay. Okay. And which and we'll talk
about consensus, communicating danger,
separate separate issue, but it crosses
into this online dating thing based on a
lot of conversations I've had with young
men and women. But music, you hear it,
you either like it or you don't. We
don't tend to have a hard time defending
our stance on those things. But when it
comes to relationships, it's almost like
we're many people are walking around
with a little or a lot of that junior
high narrative in their in their mind.
>> Not necessarily be with somebody that
they can't stand because everyone else
thinks they're great. I think that's
pretty rare. Probably happens, but it's
pretty rare. But at these early stages
that you study, that they're navigating
that process in a way where they're not
in tune with their own taste. they're
integrating all this other information
in a way that's not helpful. It's not
protecting them. In fact, it's it's just
clouding the signal. It's noise,
>> right? In the signal to noise model,
like it's noise. It's just pure noise.
>> And as a consequence,
>> people are wasting their time and other
people's time.
>> Yeah.
>> And I don't believe everyone's trying to
waste each other's time. It just seems
that we're conditioned to do this. Yeah.
And I will say it does take a pretty
strong
person to say, "Listen, I know that's
what you see. I know that's what they
say, but like this person's great. Like
they're right for me." And when people
do that in general, people tend to back
off.
>> And of course, there's
>> Shakespeare about this, right? But that
tends to be cultural pressure of like,
"No, you two can't be together or the
parents don't want her or one set of
parents." I mean some of the greatest
romances have been born out of that fu
to the to the elders to the community
but this is a little different. Yes. You
know, it's a tricky thing to navigate
because I I think one of the best
situations to end up in is where you're
in a relationship and let's say it's a
new relationship and your friends around
you basically think, you know, we're
happy for you and we're going to
celebrate you and, you know, we're going
to celebrate this relationship. We
support you. We just wouldn't be
terribly interested in this person
ourselves. That's the ideal, right?
Where it's not exceptionally
competitive. You're not worried about
your friends trying to poach your
partner away, but at the same time,
they're supportive of the relationship
because that support from friends and
family, it is important. Like, it
certainly shapes how people feel.
there's a way to navigate that that
doesn't make it a you know like I'm glad
you I'm glad you like my girlfriend but
like don't like her too much please. You
want to kind of try to find that balance
there. And that's a tricky thing. I mean
I think this is a lot of what people are
trying to navigate in adolescence.
They're trying to figure out like how
can I be part of a friend group and have
a romantic relationship and navigate the
complexities that come with that. I
mean, I vividly remember these like
junior high, early high school
experiences
of dating somebody, but also your
friends are into this person. And
actually, it was a relationship where my
girlfriend at the time broke up with me,
starts dating my best friend. We're all
friends now. It's all fine now. And it's
like at this moment that I discover
evolutionary psychology, that I discover
this narrative. And it just felt like
such a double-edged sword cuz how
wonderful is it to think about how
people have been navigating these
challenges, ex-girlfriends breaking up
with you for your best friend. This has
been happening for tens of thousands of
years. Like I'm not alone. I'm not the
first person to experience this. And
then to also read at the same time, oh
my god, this reflects something true
about my deep underlying value. This is
kind of scary. So those two things
together, weirdly, were what got me
hooked on this. The the feeling like
evolutionary psychology is fascinating
and really bleak at the same time.
>> Yeah, I agree. Uh I was going to say
brutal. I'm sorry you had to go through
that. Although I'm glad you're all
friends. I think it happens. It's all
good. probably not to everyone, but I I
can remember similar experiences where
you're just like, "Oh man, what a gut
punch." And part of the maturational
process is um
>> realizing like, okay, they might be
better suited and they'll be someone for
me. And
>> honestly, they were better suited for
each other.
>> All right. All right. I have a question
about the science or how to study these
sorts of things. So, if I set aside my
science hat and I say, "All right,
>> you can study this stuff, but wait,
>> if we're talking about a a kind of
unique hook, like let's just assume the
person the people are within the range
of attractiveness. Again, I hate this
quantitative thing, but they think the
other person's attractive, they're they
they're dating because they want to find
someone, right? They're not resistant to
commitment. They're looking for for a
partner. And the number of histories
that people are bringing to that is
infinite or near infinite. So let's say
the hook is listen one person had a hard
past based on um an abusive household.
The other person is really gentle. They
had a great past and and the person
feels very safe in that. Right? We
always think about the trauma bond,
right? Which is an unfortunate thing
that does seem to happen. But it could
also be both people had difficult pasts.
you know, parents with addiction issues
or mental health issues and they can
relate. Okay, that's one example. The
other is uh we both value X, we both
value Y. And so the the unique glue,
>> yeah,
>> is near infinite, right? So the question
I have and this isn't a challenge, it's
just a genuine um curiosity is how do
you study this process then? Because
what are the universals of what is it
what people define as some kind of um
like lock and key that they didn't know
they were looking for that that lock and
key combination and then they go oh this
feels unique and the reason I asked this
is because I want to frame the the
science but also I want to know to what
extent being aware of what's critical to
oneself is important in this process.
>> Does that make sense? There's a lot of
words there, but basically like how well
one knows themselves can often help lead
to better choices in in partner choice.
>> And so people go know like gosh, I I
really really would like someone that I
could feel understood around this or
feel really safe around this or make
them feel really safe around that. With
any relationship, it's almost like you
have to hold these two seemingly
contradictory truths at the same time.
One is that
>> no two people in the history of the
world have experienced what we're
experiencing right now. And yet there
are broad general principles that we can
point to that can explain some of the
dynamics of every romantic relationship
that has ever existed. So when it comes
to broad principles, I love the
attachment framework. I mean, what's
fascinating about attachment is that
this is just as evolutionary as all the
other evolutionary theories you've heard
about online. It's just a different
evolutionary theory. But this
perspective suggests that we are
creatures that form bonds with each
other. We essentially crave closeness,
intimacy, support. We thrive when we get
it. We're more likely to recover. We
sleep better. We get all of these
benefits from close attached
relationships.
But for some people or at some points in
their lives, we can struggle to have
those kinds of relationships sometimes
because we become too anxious about
them. We need them a little too much. We
become uncomfortable in our own skin or
we tip the other way. We become very
avoidant. We become overly independent.
We become convinced that we really don't
need anybody else.
These are broad attachment dynamics that
people will go through their whole lives
having to navigate. A lot of people have
probably heard about like the you can
have an anxious attachment style or an
avoidant attachment style and all of
that is true. But one thing we know
today from studying more couples and
getting better at studying couples over
longer periods of time is you realize
that boy people's attachment
orientations really can change. So
somebody can come into a relationship
with an avoidant trauma-filled past, but
with enough time with the right kind of
person, again sharing their unique bond,
which maybe science will never crack,
but they know all about it.
That person will start to become less
and less avoidant with time. They'll
become more secure. They'll get more of
those physiological benefits out of the
relationship. they'll get more of the
support related benefits out of the
relationship and that can in effect turn
somebody into a more secure person. So
the these are the attachment lessons
that I often point to and I think
they're they're useful for at least
helping me remember that tension between
like yeah anxiety and avoidance. Two
very broad processes that are always
happening behind the scenes and yet the
way it unfolds for any one particular
couple. It's always going to be this
weird unique combination of stories and
in jokes and little moments that
scaffold up to hopefully, you know, help
somebody become more secure eventually.
I'd like to take a quick break and
acknowledge our sponsor, AG1. AG1 is a
vitamin mineral probiotic drink that
also includes prebiotics and adaptogens.
I discovered AG1 way back in 2012, long
before I ever had a podcast, and I've
been taking it every day since. The
reason I started taking AG1 and the
reason I still take it every day is
because AG1 is, to my knowledge, the
highest quality and most comprehensive
of the foundational nutritional
supplements on the market. AG1 is
designed to support things like gut
health, immune health, and overall
energy. And it does so by helping to
fill any gaps that you might have in
your daily nutrition. I get asked pretty
much all the time, "If I could only take
one supplement, what should that
supplement be?" And my answer is always
AG1. It has just been so helpful for
supporting all aspects of physical
health, mental health, and performance.
If you would like to try AG1, you can go
to drink AG1.com/huberman
to get a special offer. For a limited
time, AG1 is giving away a free bottle
of their new Omega-3 co-enzyme Q10
product. Omega-3 and co-enzyme Q10 are
known to support cardiovascular health,
cellular health, and energy, generally,
brain health, and much more. I
personally take them both every day.
Again, go to drinkaga1.com/huberman
to get a free bottle of the new Omega-3
co-enzyme Q10 with your first AG1
subscription.
Seems to me that barring um again like
an emotional or physical safety issue,
>> the less that couples are talking to
other people besides a trained
>> therapist, if they choose to do that,
maybe not even doing that about their
relationship, probably the more
protected their relationship is. So
that's interesting.
>> The the darts of uh envious people.
>> Um
>> the unhelpful positive comments from
people, right? Because there could be
instances where a relationship is really
flagging and and
>> someone doesn't disclose that and they
they don't really understand what's
going on and were they not to share that
then, you know, everyone's getting all
this positive input and they think,
well, I think this is just how it's
supposed to go.
>> So there's the suffering and silence
piece. Y
>> we want to I I don't think that's good.
But there's the kind of um going out for
external assessment piece. And as I say
this, I you know it's it's funny because
we the year at UC Davis and I did my PhD
there. I was just remembering like when
you pick projects in graduate school,
you get some consensus about what's a
good project. But so much of becoming a
good scientist is kind of learning to
put up the middle finger and just keep
going as the the sort of pressure test
of doing science is people going, "Well,
that's is that really that interesting?"
And you don't really know how much to
pay attention to it. And it kind of pays
to be a little bit bulldogish and just
go, "Yeah, I don't know like and just
ignore it and just keep going." I can
say this is also true in any kind of
creative endeavor or public facing life.
Like it doesn't make good adaptive sense
to pay too much attention but nobody
wants to be the person that like steps
in it or does something really stupid.
But in relationships when if something
feels good
>> maybe
>> we shouldn't be going out and getting
you know putting our finger in the wind
to get input. So it's fascinating
because I mentioned earlier that right
the the extent to which you feel at
least like the people around you have
your relationships back that's a useful
thing but I think that probably isn't
happening through a process of
yeah like pseudotherapy I want to talk
to my friends about my relationship or
at least to the extent that that is
happening I bet you're right that has
some real risks. I think probably the
good version of this process or the one
that I would advocate for comes from
research looking at like couple friends
or like double date nights. So, I'm not
asking you for input on my relationship,
but in effect, I'm asking you and maybe
your partner to experience our
relationship in real time by hanging out
together, the four of us. And so that
can often feel like validation without
explicitly asking for it. And I think
that can often be a very good thing. And
there's research showing that, you know,
generally couples who feel like they
have couple friends and are embedded in
networks like that that that generally
tends to go well on average. Um so yeah,
I would think about it that way. It's
like you can feel that you have the
support of the people around you without
directly asking
for their assessment of your
relationship because the reality is
other people don't know. And this is
hard as a judge because when I encounter
couples and I have friends who are in
relationships, it is so tempting to look
at that relationship and think like,
well, man, like she shouldn't have done
that or I don't know if if I were her, I
wouldn't stand for this. But I'm not in
that relationship. So unless you are a
therapist and they're coming to you for
therapy, I find it useful to try to
resist that impulse because a
relationship is this vast deep store of
information that two people have and
often we're not privy to what's really
going on there.
>> I'm going back to junior high school
again and I can remember at this one
game I hope this isn't dramatic.
>> No, no, it's not. Not at all. But we had
this uh all girls school in our in our
town, Castilea School, which was a
boarding school. And so their dances
were the best because they'd invite
people from other schools, but all the
>> guys were really excited to go, right?
Cuz the numbers were really like worked
out really well in our favorite women
and and and boys and girls in our
school, right? Would go to these dances.
But that means you just have like an
outsized pool of so everyone got someone
to dance with at some point. This is
what mattered in the seventh grade,
right? But there were these people I had
to say there were these individuals who
were not going through the admittedly
like tense challenge of
>> first dance, first slow dance. This was
before phones and it was tense then too.
>> And they weren't doing any of that. What
were they doing? They were running
around telling people about who was
doing what and who was doing that. And I
remember thinking at the time, I mean,
I'm no psychologist then or now, but
thinking like they're avoiding the whole
thing. Yeah, this is like going to a
soccer game and instead of playing
soccer, they're like critiquing people
from the sidelines cuz it's a lot easier
to do that than to actually get out
there and risk and risk miss, you know,
like being the goalie that lets the the
winning shot through. And I remember
thinking like these people are really uh
really corrosive.
>> Um, one or two in particular, I don't
know what ever became of them.
Hopefully, they're doing well in their
lives. They got over this. But
>> those people exist throughout life.
>> Yeah.
>> Meaning they're rarely the people that
are happy in their own relationship
life. Now, I have to say it's probably a
Y chromosome link disorder, but I assume
that my friends who are in male friends
who are in relationship.
If they're still in the relationship
that it's going great.
>> That's funny.
>> There's not a lot of feedback. Like
there's not a whole lot of feedback
exchange. That said, if something were
really like really off, I assume that
they would bring it up, but probably not
to me. like there's I do think that
there's probably a sex difference here
and these things are changing now, but I
think that there's not a lot of sitting
around talking about how well or poorly
the relationship is going. And so like,
you know, you ask about somebody's
spouse like, "How are they doing?" And
they go, "Yeah, great." Like we did this
this weekend. There's not a whole lot
of, "Yeah, we we had this one moment of
exchange that was kind of sticky. Can I
get your input on it?" Like that's not
happening. That's just not happening. At
least not in my life. I'm glad you
brought up these gender differences
because I think you're hitting on one
that at least again as a relationships
researcher I would sit here and say I
think this is the big one. And the big
one is that women generally are better
at cultivating social support from all
corners of their lives, not just their
romantic partner. Whereas for men, it's
largely their romantic partner. That's
where they're getting most of their
support, intimacy needs met. Probably
the person who at least for a while is
mostly in their corner. And this is why
you see across the full range of the arc
of a relationship that men are always a
little bit more eager than women.
>> Eager in what sense?
>> Eager in in all the ways. I want to be
in this relationship in the first place.
I'm more likely to say I love you first.
I'm more I'm more likely to want to be
exclusive. I'm more likely to want to
take things to the next level.
>> Men are more willing to do that.
>> Men's counter current to all this stuff
about men being non-committal.
>> Yeah. Right. So like I don't uh I don't
this is what there's like new review
papers on this that are really
compelling and it's like kind of the
same effect size across the board which
is how we talk about you know how big is
the sex difference? You know, it's it's
mediumsiz, but it's just right there all
the way through through breaking up. Who
who wants who's more likely to want to
break up? It's women who are more likely
to want to break up. Men are more likely
to be thinking about their exes.
>> And the the not while they're in a
relationship.
>> Right. Right. Right. Not while they're
in a relationship. Right. Now it's over.
>> That's the meme. You know, I went
online. The meme is like, who's he
thinking about? Who's Okay. Yeah.
Exactly. The reason put forward for
this, and I find it very compelling, is
that
That's because men just don't quite have
their social lives put together in the
same way that women do. Meaning they
don't have a lot of male friends or
here. By the way, I want to put up a
disclaimer at the beginning. I should
have said this to make the conversation
more fluid. We're framing everything in
the context of heterosexual pairings,
but I I think it's fair to assume that
this would also extend to homosexual
pairings.
>> I think it would
>> in in many ways. But
>> men have friends. Yeah,
>> I realize activity based friendships
are, you know, kind of the the dominant
theme.
>> Men not getting having connection in
other things.
>> You know, is it could it be that the
like the connection that I feel to my
male friends and co-workers is is very
deep.
>> They're important to me. They're like
family to me by now. We spend so much
time together.
>> So, it feels connected.
>> It's just but it's a very different kind
of um I don't ever think of the word
intimacy. I think of trust.
>> Yeah.
>> And I'm not trying to just, you know,
like be, you know, put up a wall to my
whatever feminine traits I happen to
harbor, you know, like I I I'm I'm cool
with that. I'm good with the idea that I
have emotions and that I have needs and
stuff, but I but I think it it just
makes good intuitive sense to me that if
I have something that I'm really that I
want input on that's of a more like has
a more of an emotional undercurrent that
I would bring that to my romantic
partner. So, here's the question I would
pose and I would be clear. I'm not a
therapist. I'm a scientist. But I would
I would ask you this.
If something went wrong, do you feel
like you have a sense that there are
other people in your life and not your
partner but other people that you could
go to if you needed to?
>> Definitely.
>> See, that is the essence of social
support. It's actually not literally do
you take people up on it. It's do you
kind of have a vague sense that people
are around and that's the part that
matters. That's the part that gives us
the health and well-being benefits. It's
like a bank account you never have to
dip into. It just gives you the sense to
dip into it.
>> Yeah. Right. Right. There you go.
>> Luckily, it's a vast account. I try not
to make too many withdrawals on it.
>> Yeah.
>> So, just the feeling that it's there is
really the core component. And I think
there are a lot of men, not you and not
me, but a lot of men out there that
don't feel like they have that social
support bank account,
>> like a close male friend or female
friend or female friendly platonic or
family for that matter. I mean, you
know, who's who's more likely to like
lose touch with siblings? I I I'm
willing to bet that that's more likely
to be men, too. So, I think this is part
of like the modern challenge of
masculinity that that that worries me
that I point to like I want to help men
at least have that sense. I think they
can cultivate it through all the
activity- based things that you describe
and like I did that myself throughout my
20s and 30s. Like I could not count the
number of kickball and softball teams
that I participated in. And I did that
not because I wanted support. I don't
think I ever got emotional and cried in
front of any of those guys, but I knew
they were there and that if I ever had
to go to that, I I could. You I'm
talking about memes and internet themes
and I have to be careful doing that
because I don't want to put too much
weight on the uh the direction of those
things and what they really mean. And
the science is what I'm interested in.
But, you know, I think um most guys
would probably say that that scene in
that movie, The Town, where uh Ben
Affleck walks in and says, you know,
listen,
yep, we got to do something. People are
going to get hurt. We got to do this.
And you know, like, and you can't talk
to anybody. And his friend's only
response is who's driving.
>> Yeah.
>> Is is kind of like the essence of what a
lot of men want and kind of idealize
male friendship as. Like, are we got to
go bury a body or create one? And
there's it's just that it's the loyalty.
It's the trust. A lot's encapsulated in
that. It's a bad quote unquote badass
scene, right? But they're about to do
something real bad. I recommend that,
right? That's not the friend test you
want. I know people have used that as
the friend test and they paid dearly for
it. Right. But the point is that friends
who aren't going to ask too many
questions that they can hold in the
center of their um mind without any long
preamble that your friend needs
something and you'll do whatever it is
that they need because you love them.
>> I think that that's what's the deeper
layer of it.
I'm realizing there I have this like
sense that there's a a big contradiction
not in the scientific literature but in
the public perception
>> which is this I feel like one common
narrative these days is
>> look men failed they just failed like
they didn't step up right they weren't
committal you know we have to take care
of them they live much longer in a
relationship we die much earlier
>> that's one narrative that you hear a lot
about. It's a scary narrative, right?
>> Because you also hear the narrative,
yeah, like women are just uh very
extractive. They'll trade up. You know
how unfortunately your friend dated your
uh then they you they broke up. She
broke up with you first.
>> Right. Right. But, you know, a lot of
the things that come into play like the
Coldplay concert affair that got went
viral was about this woman and you know,
and a lot of it was pointed at her, him
too, but you know, it was like
>> a lot was made of this thing that does
happen.
>> Yeah.
>> That there's this notion like, well, who
would actually pair up with their, you
know, their female friend? A woman
pairing up with a female friend's
husband or brother. There's a lot of
that. And you never know how much of
this is being these narratives are being
fed. So, I feel like now we're at this
point that seems to be resolving a
little bit, but we've been at this point
where there are these two camps and I
saw something on um Twitter X some time
ago and it just like stopped me in my
tracks which said the way you destroy a
society is to get the men and the women
to hate each other and maybe I would
just underwrite distrust each other.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. And so
>> we need to move through this. I'm not
actually asking you to solve it but what
do the data say? For instance, if we
were to look at dating apps and I ask,
do you think that the dynamics on dating
apps, the algorithms, which are clearly
designed to make the company's money?
>> Yeah.
>> Do you think those are more femaledriven
algorithms or maledriven algorithms? Not
meaning who runs the companies. We know
the answer to that
>> for the most part. The question is, do
you think that the apps are trying to
optimize for more women to come to them
or for more men to come to them and stay
there? Because the theory is always kind
of launch in the opposite direction. And
if that wasn't clear, um I'm just
wondering who's who's got the power. My
understanding now again, the dating apps
are hard to decipher because like these
companies don't share data with us. I've
worked with some matchmaking companies
data. They're more interested in
generally in collaborating with
scientists because they've they got to
make people on dates happy. They don't
work on engagement, they work on happy
dates right?
>> So, they're more interested in talking
to scientists.
>> But I think when your goal is getting
users and getting engagement,
>> what you're probably trying to do is
bring more women in because my
understanding is that there's more men
on the apps. Yeah, I think so. I what I
don't know and I don't know if anybody
knows other than the people at these
companies is like okay but how many of
those apps are in use and how many
people you know regular users I'm not
sure. So you got to bring more women in
but again engagement is the goal right I
mean that's what the apps want you
spending time on it and then they want
you to get the fancier features. So is
that going to be more geared toward men?
It it might be, but I'm kind of
speculating here. I expect that when
you're trying to create an app for
heterosexual men and women, you're going
to have to somehow marry those two
challenges. And look, one of the bigger
gender differences that we see in the
whole realm of sex and relationships is
in swiping behavior. the fact that women
will swipe yes on like 5% of the men
they see, but men swipe yes at about
50/50. But that fits the kind of
evolutionary quote unquote narrative
like men being less selective, wanting
to spread their
>> their DNA, this kind of thing. I mean,
>> to my mind, that whole thing around like
men want to spread their DNA. Okay. Like
I believe in in evolutionary biology,
sure, but there's a lot of modern
features that make like accountability
for offspring and things like it's not
like men can run around just having kids
with anyone and and afford all of that,
right? It's I mean, you know, we were
talking earlier the sort of like two
models. There's like the there's like
the Genghask Khan ideal within this
evolutionary
>> biology model and then there's, you
know, kind of like where are we now? I
mean, I don't think anyone
with the exception of some very wealthy
people who who have kids with lots and
lots of people and clearly can afford
it,
>> I don't think anyone's thinking they're
going to go out and just have kids with
as many people as they possibly can,
>> right?
>> And so what what's so interesting about
these gendered dynamics is that from my
perspective, they tend to get the
largest the biggest gulf between men and
women in the situations that are the
weirdest. So, for example, we this is
and this is a real study. You recruit
confederates. So, that means it's
somebody who's working for the
experimentter. And then uh they go
around campus and they ask people, "I've
noticed you around and I find you very
attractive. Would you like to go to bed
with me?" And when you do this, you find
that men are about 20 times more likely
to say yes to that request than women.
Very few women say yes to this request,
but a reasonable number of men do. All
right. But the thing about that
experiment, and that experiment is very
valuable, and it's very influential, and
I love at least that it was real, that
people were actually out in the world
doing something, even if it's a little
wild and uh probably a little scary,
especially for the women. But if you do
this one little tweak and you say,
"Yeah, okay, but how about like the last
time that happened to you in real life,
like in a context where you knew people
and then you look at the gender
difference, it's not 20 times more, it's
two times more."
>> What do you mean?
>> It's like the last time somebody you
know, like among a group of friends like
ask like, "Hey, do you want to go hook
up?" How much more likely then are men
to say yes than women? And men are still
more likely, but they're only twice as
likely rather than 20 times as likely.
>> So, this is not my belief, but the
cynical um incel types on the internet
or the just cynical guys will say will
say, "Oh, that's because women are
sleeping around more than they used to
when the first experiment was done." I
don't believe that's true. But I can
tell you that would be their reflexive
response. Like like there's so there's
this ammo there these arrows that each
side holds. one side holds the
>> guys aren't stepping up. They're not
they're not managing their own lives,
let alone making themselves somebody who
would be attractive as a a partner who
could listen and do and take help take
care of somebody because the notion of
taking care is something we can talk
about. the guys are saying, "Well,
they're just all extractive, you know,
that and there's deceptiveness there,
and they'll trade up in a at a moment's
notice, you know, and and so
>> I mean, I don't want to feed the flames
of distrust, but the data you just
provided, what do they what is the
conclusion? Like, so that's the result,
but but in that paper, what's the the
authors, you know, we the authors
therefore conclude that?" So I would I
would conclude this
>> that approaching strangers
is especially in a romantic or sexual
context is very very tricky, very
challenging and it is a weird modern
skill because we actually evolved in
environments where you didn't actually
meet that many strangers. So if some
people are adept at that, God bless. But
for most of us, we had to get to know
people over time. We needed that long
process to make a good impression on
somebody because most of us are like not
all that hot and not so appealing that
people fall for us the moment we see
them. And so that is what I would tell
these hypothetical incels is I think
part of the problem is that you're
locked into a way of thinking about sex
and romance that it's about a pickup
line or it's about an initial
impression. I think women are more
interested in casual sex when it's
somebody that they like kind of know and
have been friendly with for a while and
have had like some good banter with. And
if you surround yourself with people,
not just women, but also men, and you
meet friends of friends, you're going to
find more opportunities that way. So,
it's like a shift in the mindset that we
have about how it is we meet people and
how it is we get to know them. and that
hitting on strangers is like low yield,
very difficult. Spending time with
friends, it's time consuming, although
it's enjoyable in and of itself. It's a
timeconsuming approach, but it's
ultimately going to be better for more
people. Uh, you know, on on average, at
least in light of the apps, social
media, this divide, I I'm very grateful
that you're bringing up this notion of
spending time in small groups. Yeah,
probably around certain activities.
Could be pickle ball, could be a
barbecue, could be I mean that's how
people used to meet. You know, sometimes
there's work adjacency. I mean, I think
that one of the reasons the coal play
thing went so viral is that the woman
was head of HR. So there were a number
of things that were ethical violations
independent of like they tried to kind
of rescue it like but they were in love
and there were marriages were failing
and people were like there are
violations down the line on this right
you know in laboratories
>> many people cuddled up in laboratories
you know my adviserss were always like
really adamant that no one should do
that I listen interesting oh yeah
>> so they try to lock it down I mean in
graduate school I I worked alone in the
lab but my graduate adviser actually uh
suggested I not even date within our
graduate program this is peerto-peer I
was a graduate student and for the most
part I I obeyed but I was so focused on
work and and I guess it happened with
like you'd go to meetings you meet other
graduate students so it was really
peerto-peer
>> in my post-doal laboratory my adviser
was like vocal to everyone like no
dating in the lab and of course there
are certain married couples nowadays
with kids
>> several of them in fact that met in the
lab just by proximity interest and who
knows aloequading prowess who knows
>> somebody out there an incredible aloquat
that never got to attract somebody to my
knowledge this by the way folks again
this is not a way to attract a mate
unless you're a molecular biologist
perhaps but I think that there's real
value in this in this because unlike our
earlier discussion where other people's
input
>> um be can be kind of toxic to the
process of understanding and really
getting in touch with one's sense of
taste I like this person I don't this
feels safe it doesn't feel safe and I'm
not using by the way the safe language
to be politically correct like some
people feel emotionally unsafe because
it's just like like if there were a
stressful circumstance, they would
dissolve into a puddle of their own
tears. That's a different version of it,
right? I think we all kind of like flit
to the the extremes. But that's that's
another aspect.
>> But this is a context in which you can
get a read of how someone behaves, their
values, their reflexive levels of
kindness or lack thereof with other
people.
>> Yeah.
>> You get a lot of data.
>> Yeah.
>> In a in a setting that
>> you're hopefully enjoying yourself in
any way. That seems very very valuable.
>> So we're talking 80s movies and 90s
movies already. So I'm gonna throw out
Say Anything.
>> Oh yeah.
>> Do you remember Say Anything?
Absolutely. So the John Cusack lead
character um asks out the Ioni Sky
character, but where they go on their
first date is absolutely fascinating.
They go to a party. So, they are clearly
going together, but they don't spend the
whole party like attached to each other
and they're not interviewing each other
like they met on an app. They're
actually kind of watching each other as
they float through these various groups.
And sometimes they're talking to other
folks about the fact that they're kind
of on a date right now and how is it's
going, but they're also talking to each
other. And it's kind of a beautiful
depiction of this old kind of lost art
of you're dating, but you're also with
other people seeing how uh they behave.
And and one of the moments where I sky
sort of you can see are starting to fall
for John Cusack is when he's actually
looking out for some of the other folks
there like you know taking their keys
away so they don't drive. And I I think
that that idea of like watching how we
behave around other people can be very
powerful.
>> So one of his unique qualities was that
he's protective of other people and
responsible and he put other people's
safety ahead of his own desire to go out
and drink that night or something.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I forgot that scene.
>> I'm I I That's a perfect segue to what I
was going to say next, but I'm brought
to this mildly traumatic experience in
high school where I didn't go any go to
any high school dances early in high
school. I was like really in the
skateboard community, just really
focused on that. And then uh it was my
junior year of high school.
>> Um the now woman, then young woman,
girl, whatever, uh asked me that. It was
the Satie Hawkins dance where the the
girls asked the boys. This was very
oldfashioned, right? Like I've heard
this. It already assumes, right, that
the guy that the guys always ask the
girls, which was pretty much the
standard.
>> We go and um she was a year older and
extremely beautiful, super kind. It
ended up being a very long-term
relationship. But I remember going and
she had something back then where her
hands would get really cold.
>> She had this thing where it was a cold
night. And so she went into the
bathroom. She said, "I'd have to like
warm my hands." She was in there a
really long time. And I'm standing out
there and people are coming up to me and
they're like, "What are you doing here?"
Like, "Why are you at a dance?" And I
said, "So and so invited me." And no one
believed me. They was like, "There's no
chance." And I have to say, it was the
most mortifying thing. And I kept
waiting for this moment where she would
come out of the bathroom and like
vindicate me. And they all kept like
dissipating before she came back. She
eventually came back. And I just
remember thinking like, oh man, like
nobody even and I thinking like I'm
either completely outclassed, like
completely outclassed or like this is
one of the best opportunities that ever
landed uh in my lap and I'm going to I'm
going to pursue this with everything
I've got. So I went with the second
thing and anyway, we uh
>> this is John Cusack enter.
>> It was it was brutal. Like I had to sit
there and like you know and like no one
believed me. They actually thought like
I just like snuck in or something like
that. Anyway,
the John Cusack example is a really good
one because his character in that movie
is a little awkward along certain
dimensions. He's certainly not as um
quote unquote ambitious in the typical
sense, although he wants to be a great
kickboxer. Kickboxing sport of the
future, right? It's a great scene
between him and and her dad where he's
explaining what he's going to do in life
and and not in any kind of uh fluent way
>> and her family clearly has other plans
for her. But it gets to this thing that
I had written down because I want to ask
about next which is this notion of
texting in particular. So not even apps
but let's just say it's migrated off app
or people meet they exchange number and
there's some texting right and this
notion of of the kind of unique um
advantage at least early on
>> that I think can be somewhat misleading
of people who are hyperverbal. Oh,
interesting.
>> And in particular among men. And so
here's what um I think years ago when I
was on the job market for academic
science, a really fantastic
neurobiologist who actually read uh ran
um let's just say a very famous school
in Boston's brain science center. Um
they never admit the name of their
school anyway. um said to me, he said,
"You know, the worst part about the job
search process in uh neuroscience is
that it selects for hyperverbal people
where people can present their data,
excite people about it, present their
vision." And he said, "And there's so
many amazing scientists that just don't
know how to communicate their data
>> and we're selecting for someone who can
also teach, who can also do these
things." And I realize he's absolutely
right, you know, and some people can
overcome this, but some of the best
scientists in the world, speaking isn't
their forte.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, in the realm of text
communication, there's a kind of a bias
toward can somebody like a good listener
in a face to face interaction like a guy
can just sit there, listen,
>> not interrupt, nod, maybe reflect,
>> maybe reflect, tell me more. Well, that
must have been interesting, hard,
whatever, you know, and can convey a lot
of of genuine ability to uh to
communicate and bond
>> over text, just listening
>> doesn't work. In fact, if it's just
like, wow, that must have been hard to
like a paragraph this long, like it
starts to fall flat. And this is where I
think
>> some people might be screaming, no, no,
no, that's what I want. you know, but
there's a strong selection process now
for people who can communicate quickly
with their thumbs, be witty in writing.
>> And so the hyperverbal thing has moved
to text.
>> Yeah,
>> that's a challenge. And I do think even
though some men are very hyperverbal,
there is a sex difference here that we
are well aware of.
>> So do you think that that's skewing
things? because the ability to to kind
of keep to get and keep somebody's
interest early on is strongly dependent
on these days on texting,
>> right? I think this is a really good
point. You know, I was reminded of some
work, this is early work in the like
online interaction space that suggested
that actually anxious people get a lot
out of being able to communicate with a
keyboard or with texting because they
don't get so overwhelmed. So, this is
probably going to be somebody who also
on a first date would be having a bit of
a tough time. So, it might be that
actually texting for them has at least
the advantage of reducing some of the
anxiety because they can take a minute
to think about what they want to say
before they have to actually come out
with it. But I also think you're right
that the ability to be witty over text
um as opposed to the kind of like
nonverbal listening that you're
describing that is going to be a special
advantage for some people today. So it c
it could very well be skewing things in
the way that you describe. There's not
great data on this either. I mean I
mentioned earlier we don't have great
data on like the arc of the
relationship.
But some of the the people that have
tackled this question uh this is great
researcher named Mimi Binberg at at Ohio
State. And what she does is she gets
couples who are together and then says,
"Uh, let me uh let me see your texts."
And then gets the whole text thread go
with their permission all the way back
to when they first started texting. And
what you see are some cool things like
essentially their styles of
communicating start to like cohhere,
right? It's like a pattern of mutual
influence where they they get the
similar cadence and they start using
similar words and other things as
they're talking to each other. Now, of
course, those are the successful cases.
So, what would it look like if we had
the unsuccessful cases? And I think
you're right. We would see that the
people who can't match or can't be witty
early on that those are the the text
threads that never become couples. Um,
so we just have to figure out how to
recruit those folks to to be in our
studies. Give us the last 10 threads of
of uh, you know, dates that never went
anywhere.
>> I'd like to take a quick break and
acknowledge one of our sponsors,
Element. Element is an electrolyte drink
that has everything you need and nothing
you don't. That means the electrolytes,
sodium, magnesium, and potassium, all in
the correct ratios, but no sugar. Proper
hydration is critical for brain and body
function. Even a slight degree of
dehydration can diminish your cognitive
and physical performance. It's also
important that you get adequate
electrolytes. The electrolytes, sodium,
magnesium, and potassium are vital for
the functioning of all cells in your
body, especially your neurons or your
nerve cells. Drinking element makes it
very easy to ensure that you're getting
adequate hydration and adequate
electrolytes. My days tend to start
really fast, meaning I have to jump
right into work or right into exercise.
So, to make sure that I'm hydrated and I
have sufficient electrolytes, when I
first wake up in the morning, I drink 16
to 32 ounces of water with an element
packet dissolved in it. I also drink
Element dissolved in water during any
kind of physical exercise that I'm
doing, especially on hot days when I'm
sweating a lot and losing water and
electrolytes. Element has a bunch of
great tasting flavors. In fact, I love
them all. I love the watermelon, the
raspberry, the citrus, and I really love
the lemonade flavor. So, if you'd like
to try Element, you can go to
drinkelement.com/huberman
to claim a free element sample pack with
any purchase. Again, that's
drinkelement.com/huberman
to claim a free sample pack. Yeah, we're
sort of veering towards compatibility
when I say um you know, if I were to,
you know, ask a close family member, you
know, like what's great about the
relationship you're in, uh this is a
woman, and she'll be referring to her
male partner in this case. She'll
generally talk about the things that he
does and the things that he is able to
do in support that may or may not even
require the ability to speak. Now, he's
not aphasic, you know, um but you know,
it's
>> it's more about like
>> what he does. And when we've had
conversations on this podcast in the
past about kind of relationship glue and
things like that, it's like it's like,
oh, that they always like, you know,
>> one person always seems to like make the
bed by the time I'm back from the
bathroom in the morning and you're like,
"No, my turn." And they they or the
other person always sets out the coffee
or some it's these the little thing
phenomenon. Rarely is it like sometimes
it's a note but rarely is it like
>> yeah I love the way you know he strings
together uh you know sentences or
something like I love the way that I
love the way that um you know she
describes this thing you know so
>> it's often about actions at least in the
in the observing the qualities of the
positive qualities of the male partner
and that's very kind of
>> stereotypical
>> but I think that it just it's it's a
kind of window in my mind into the
difference between the quote unquote
exploration and courting process,
although the courting process, what
people do arguably matters more than
what they say,
>> and the kind of long-term thing,
>> the the consistency of of the stability
of the relationship over time.
>> So, I wish that, you know, it's it's a
shame that these apps don't select for
uh action. The only way to do that would
would be something where you would say,
"Okay, if you're going to sign up for
this app, you know, we're going to ask
you to go on at least three dates with,
you know, anybody that you match with,
and we want to see you dating in these
very different circumstances where the
point isn't always to just talk at each
other. That also you like you got to do
things together." I wish there were
dates that were like assemble this IKEA
furniture.
>> Don't people still go for like a hike or
go to a show?
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's that that's good,
too, cuz at least it's it's talking and
interacting, but a different kind of
talking and interacting. I want I want
like physical challenges. Get out of
this escape room, stuff like that.
Anyway, I'm not actually handle.
>> Yeah, right. You're right. Yeah. So, you
got to be witty, but also not panic.
>> Do you suggest that? Is it is it like a
first date?
>> I don't know. Maybe third date.
>> Okay.
>> Third date sounds good for escape. I
want to be clear. I've never I've only
done the the escape room board games.
>> You're just throwing people under the
bus just to see what happens. Get to
that date. Yeah. No, no, I'm just
kidding. But like you know events that
sporting events I mean things that are
um uh that are exciting that you're
doing together but also facilitate
interaction I think can be really good.
It is very very hard though to simulate
the patterns of what would it be like to
be in a long-term relationship with this
person and the 4,000 daily
responsibilities that come with that.
And I think even when we are really
crazy about somebody early on, we try to
forecast what that's going to be like as
best we can, but we really don't know.
And I think the like the beautiful thing
but also the challenge that a lot of
relationships have is you know what you
do is you know like you just described
like okay it becomes my job to set out
the coffee and it becomes your job to
mow the lawn and we create this very
elaborate structure that guides not just
our day-to-day lives and the crap we
have to do but it also guides how we
communicate when we communicate what we
communicate about. If we create a
business together,
that can create a relationship that
starts to feel like more transactional,
that's maybe less warm, has less
opportunity for connection
as opposed to creating a relationship
that builds, you know, time for fun
activities together, for fun
experiences, or again, I recognize like
people are stressed and often working
multiple jobs, but at least when we are
interacting, are we able to interact
about the fun, silly things that brought
us together in the first place. Um, I
think it's it's very challenging to do
these things. When people go to couples
therapy and the couples therapy is
effective, it's usually because
therapists are able to help couples
essentially like rewind all the bad
patterns they've created and go back to
when things were good. uh rediscover
what it was that they really appreciated
about each other and like recreate their
relationship from there in a new way.
But yes, many of these things are
they're just deeply deeply hard to
forecast.
>> Yeah. And there's always the natural
desire to want to know if one's time and
energy is well spent. I mean it's really
in some sense the most um important
investment is time and energy of I mean
and uh it's kind of all we have it's all
we have and that's very evolutionary in
its core. You talked before about this
kind of crystal ball question or um
probing for particular disclosures that
people are willing or not willing to
make as a
>> as a perhaps better indication of
whether somebody is interesting or
appropriate. Yeah.
>> For you. I realize however that the
notion that there's a like a question or
a set of questions that would say green
light
>> is that's not true. That just can't be
true. There's probably some answers that
are red light. Everyone, you know, knows
red light. Hopefully, they're paying
attention to that, but they it's the
yellow it's the yellow but it's the
yellow lights and not knowing what
questions to ask to see if there's a
sort of green light path forward. Tell
me what those questions are. Like,
phrased differently. If two people are
on a date and they have only a few
minutes, it's kind of a speed dating
type situation and they need to make a
good assessment as to whether or not
they genuinely would like to spend more
time with the person again.
uh what what are the questions they
should ask?
>> All right. So, I like the questions that
are a little bit more offbeat. You know,
what people tend to do on speed dates is
they they want to find common ground
quickly. You know, if it's college
students, maybe we're going to talk
about their major. Uh do we share a
major? No. Uh like pivot. Uh where are
you from? And they'll try to find
something that they can bond over
and that can work very well. But I think
the core of what we want in an initial
interaction with somebody is to take
away something that feels like it was at
least a little different than all the
other interactions that we have. And so
sometimes what that means is going a
touch deeper than people are comfortable
with. Now in in 4 minutes it's tricky if
you have a little bit longer like a
regular evening length date. I really
like the 36 questions test. Like this is
the sometimes it's called the fast
friends procedure, but these are
questions like, you know, what's one
thing that you've never told somebody
that you've always wanted to tell them
and what's stopping you? Or
>> people answer that.
>> Yeah. I mean, after if you've been
hanging out with somebody for 60 to 90
minutes, that is a pretty good way to
elicit real depth and give like both
people a chance to do some reciprocal
self-disclosure cuz that's what people
want. That's what people connect over is
like I've like I feel like I've just
heard you. Maybe it's true, maybe it's
not, but I feel like you've just told me
something that you haven't told most
people and maybe you haven't told
anybody. I vividly remember falling for
somebody when that moment happened. It's
like I really you are telling me this. I
I don't I don't think you've ever told
anybody this before and it is such a
rush. I I think like I don't know, man.
The internet, it's like convince us all
we care about is like sex and hotness.
There is nothing like the rush of having
somebody tell you something that they've
never told anybody else. And again, this
is like the stuff that gets
relationships researchers excited
because this is what we see in our data.
Responsiveness, closeness, like building
trust and all of that stuff. Now again,
four minutes is really hard. Four
minutes you just got to get a little
nugget of something that you want to
build off later. And maybe that is your
hometown and maybe it is like, "Isn't
this a weird experience that we're only
going to get to chat for 4 minutes, but
whenever there are roots to go for a
little bit more disclosure, I usually
advise that that people go for it. It it
it will pay off on average, even if it
can feel kind of awkward in the moment."
Do you think there's uh more excitement
if one gets the sense that the other
person is um taking a bit of a risk in
disclosing it? Not like I've been dying
to tell somebody this and there's never
been opportunity. Thanks for giving me
the opportunity and
>> you know I whatever. I always, you know,
wanted to come back in my second life as
a guppy or something. I I don't know.
I'm picking a trivial example on purpose
cuz it's not true. Much better tropical
fish. Big tropical fish enthusiast. much
better freshwater discus. Much better
fresh owned by me cuz it would be have a
really good life. Um take really good
care of my freshwater discus. But in all
seriousness, does that mean that people
are walking around harboring, especially
single people are harboring
parts of themselves that they're craving
intimacy, you know, that that's of the
exchange things that they've never told
anyone that they wish they could tell
someone, feel safe enough to tell them.
Is that what you're talking about? you
know, creating a real moment of intimacy
early on. That's not physical intimacy.
It's
>> I don't even know if it's emotional
intimacy. It's like it's like human
connection, right? It's like I'm a
person that's had particular experiences
and you're a person that's that's had
particular experiences and we have these
like narratives and stories about
ourselves.
>> Again, the science historically has been
so focused on traits and I get it. Like
I and I understand the evolutionary
focus on traits, but man, humans are
stories, right? We're narratives and we
want other people to be privy to that
narrative and then maybe eventually be a
part of it. So I think that that is
often what can be very powerful. Now for
people who are single and they like want
to be in a relationship, I do think that
it can be that sense that they're
lacking. A lot of people are single and
are very very happy with their single
lives. And I also understand that a lot
of people if they're single and they're
dating.
Look, there's a lot of reasons to be
cautious. Forming a relationship is a
low base rate event. It doesn't happen
all that often.
>> And it's time costly. It can be
financially costly. It's energetically
costly. Exactly. It's very
energetically.
>> Exactly. Like we don't go around forming
relationships with everybody. But I I
also happen to think that like once the
ball gets rolling, the pull can be very
strong. And part of that pull is this
this desire to have somebody kind of see
me, get me, understand me. I might be
talking about securely attached people
on average, right? There's always going
to be that avoidance pull too, like
people need to self-protect to some
extent, but the sort of desire to open
up and have somebody like really get
you, it's it's so core to the
relationship science worldview and and I
think it says a lot about like who we
are as a species and like how we form
mating relationships.
You've said in um so many words uh
before uh that men and women essentially
want the same things.
>> Yeah. I think that's going to hit some
people square in the face and they're
going to say that is so not true. Men
just want blank. Women just want blank.
>> I I'm like on this campaign lately to
try and defang
>> the trolls. Yeah.
>> That seem to have like it's like it we
were in high school. Let's leave junior
high school. Let's go to high school.
And there were like a bunch of like
really awful people. Let's evenly
distribute it between the sexes. Let's
just do that for fairness sake. Yeah.
>> And they're like constantly pointing out
how
>> these people are always bad and
extractive and these people are always,
you know, uh, cold and avoidant and like
and and if those narratives were just
constantly like posted on the walls and
like and talked about in the uh over
lunch and whispered in the hallways, it
would be very poisonous to the whole
environment. And that's kind of what the
internet is. and then the traditional
news, but also some podcasts, not this
podcast, but will kind of amplify these
narratives because they feel juicy. They
feel uh and they get clicks.
>> And I think we all have an innate desire
to avoid danger. So, we like know where
where this stuff is. But when you step
back, you go, right? Like most people
are pretty well-meaning. Most people are
looking for good partnership. Nobody's
perfect, but uh where people make
mistakes. Most people are like looking
to at least modify their behavior over
time. Like it's all reasonably
benevolent, but then there are these
like
>> kind of nasty characters out there
>> and we give them so much credit and we
give them so much power
>> and they just plain suck.
>> Yeah.
>> So
>> men and women want the same things.
Let's shut them up for a second and ask
what the data say. This was one of the
first things I studied when I started
looking at attraction like almost 20
years ago now. And in part because I
found the gender differences
fascinating. It was very clear for
decades and decades that if you ask men
and women about the qualities they want
in a partner that you'll see these
differences show up pretty routinely and
they are differences that then in the
hands of nefarious characters online get
spun out into exactly the narrative that
you're describing. But the basic data on
what men and women say they want, it's
there. Men will say they care about
attractiveness in a partner more than
women. And women will say they care
about earning potential in a partner
more than men. Now, I'm phrasing that in
a particular way. And I'm I'm saying
what people say they want because I'm
critiquing the experimental paradigms
that were used. It usually had people
rating a bunch of traits on scales. And
as a psychologist, I have no problem
with that. I'm very interested in
people's subjective experiences and I
use scales all the time. But we wondered
that's different than or it might be
different than what happens when you're
meeting people face to face and you're
reacting to a set of people who might be
very attractive or of middling
attractiveness or not very attractive at
all. And that to me seems closer to
capturing what people actually want.
Like if you meet 10 women, how much does
their attractiveness drive your desire
to date them? How much does
attractiveness affect whether you want a
second date with them or not? So, we ran
speed dating studies to try to capture
exactly this phenomenon. I'll make it
about earning prospects because it's
really the same the same thing. So, we
have these men and they go speed dating
and some of these women are very
ambitious. They're going to be lawyers
and doctors. Others are a little bit
less ambitious. And what you'd see is
that the men tended to like the women a
little bit more to the extent that they
were ambitious. It wasn't a huge driver
of their liking, but it was definitely
there and it was definitely positive.
But then when we flipped it and we
looked at what the women were drawn to,
not what they said, but what they were
drawn to, they also tended to like the
ambitious men a little bit. And the
magnitude of that preference was
identical. And it's been 20 years of
this where we've looked at ongoing
relationships. We've looked at um you
know 40 something countries throughout
the world. That narrative uh plays out
every time. There's no gender
differences in the extent to which these
traits appeal to men and women when
they're evaluating like real people
they've actually met. Online is
different. What people say they want is
different. but real people that you've
at least met face to face seems to
dramatically reduce the power of the
gender differences and the appeal of
these traits.
>> Fascinating and runs countercurrent to I
think what many people including I have
heard out there.
>> Yeah. But but I think the like I think
the key lesson here is like
>> believe your subjective experience when
you're interacting with somebody and
you're getting to know them. And maybe
that subjective experience is like,
"She's hot, but I am not feeling this."
And maybe that subjective experience is
like, you know, I know that maybe to
some people he looks like he doesn't
have his life together, but I really see
a spark there.
If you trust that experience, I think
that's likely to go better.
And we don't have an experience to go on
like that when it's online. When it's
online, it's very easy to put people in
boxes, put people in groups, and then
make the groups fight each other. And I
too am very distressed about all the
heteropessimism.
>> Yeah. Right. That's It's not my term,
but it's one of my favorite terms.
>> Do you know who coined it?
>> I know the year is like 2019, but I
forget the author. Yeah, look it up.
>> Great term. Heteropet. Right. It's like
men and women can't get along. How could
they get along? They've got different
interests and different priorities.
Look, in the close relationships realm,
it's not true. And that's the realm I
know. Men and women, they want the same
things out of their relationships. Yes,
there are gender differences and like
the thresholds for sex and especially
early on that can be that can be really
messy. Um, but overall I see a lot of
similarity and a lot of potential for
these the bonds that men and women form
to do great things for people and women
and women and men and men and any
gendered combination that you want to
come up with. Um, I think we're pair
bonding creatures. We get a lot of joy
and a lot of fulfillment out of that.
And I want to see men and women find a
way to make it work again.
springboarding off of the heteropesses.
Yeah. term, which is great because it
encapsulates so much even though what it
encapsulates is definitely not great.
Yeah. The term I'm about to use is gonna
sound um
>> like it means something uh it doesn't.
But is there any research on
homopessimism, which is not the same as
homophobia? Homopim meaning I'm not
aware because I happen to be
heterosexual, but I have homosexual
friends, men and women. I'm not hearing
them talk a lot about how dating culture
is much worse
>> now.
>> I hear this too.
>> But
>> then again, uh sample size isn't that
great here.
>> So I don't know because a lot of the
same things apply in terms of like apps.
Uh sure cultures vary. Yeah.
>> But there are some constants in this
picture. Um so in any research yours or
others research about um homosexual
dating and couples is there pessimism
guys saying well guys these days and
women saying in uh yeah lesbian women
let's just you know for lack of a better
term um saying
>> women these days
>> I don't think that's out there nearly to
the same extent. I think some of the
like interesting components that you see
out there is look the apps I think did
they did a lot of good in the world for
people who you know just felt like their
social networks had no options in them
but especially for people who might have
been living in places that were
genuinely unsafe for gays and lesbians
and might have helped them to find
romantic partners. So like um I always
want to be the first one to give the
apps credit for that for providing those
kinds of opportunities.
Classically speaking, what you tend to
see is that, you know, I've talked a
little bit about the the time frame as
people form relationships in the first
place. And that sometimes we get locked
into this idea that it's like, oh, it's
going to happen in an instant and and
now you're together. But the reality is
it's often an elongated process. That
process has tended historically to be
even longer for folks who are gays and
lesbians forming same gender
relationships. And I think part of that
is something that you you might even
call like a bigotry tax because if you
lived in a place where it was like
vaguely dangerous to admit your same-sex
attractions, you got to be really
careful before you start disclosing how
you feel about somebody because
rejection doesn't just mean rejection.
Rejection is maybe actually carries
other threats and stigma and all of
these other things with it.
>> Loss of jobs. Exactly. We've seen
examples of that like it's sort of again
it plays on stereotypes but um I'm I'm
going to assume some of it is true. Uh
like in in Mad Men, right? There's a
disclosure and then it doesn't go well.
>> Right. Right.
>> Yeah. It doesn't go well.
>> I love the movie Call Me By Your Name.
>> I don't think I've seen it.
>> Yeah. It's it's it's about 10 years old.
It's it's Luca Guadanino and and he's a
fabulous director, but it's about two
men who get together over the course of
a summer. young men who find it's it's
one of Timothy Shalamé's earlier movies
>> and one of the things they come to
regret is that like we didn't disclose
our feelings sooner but it's it the
movie was taking place in the 1980s so
you had to be really careful with
whether you were going to be upfront
about how you were feeling about
somebody. wasn't uh in a place where you
can't be fully confident that you're
[100:00] have a sense of safety, it could be
[100:02] really dangerous. So that's an important
[100:03] difference that we see and I think the
[100:04] apps were really good at helping people
[100:08] to uh to come together in that sense. I
[100:11] have a question about um financial
[100:14] stability and level.
[100:16] >> Yeah,
[100:17] >> you mentioned there aren't real big
[100:19] gender differences there. Earlier we
[100:21] were saying scientists are always uh
[100:23] doing the opposite of improv. Instead of
[100:24] yes and they always say yeah but you
[100:27] know what yeah but what about it's it's
[100:30] a it's in our training
[100:31] >> income level on its own or amount of
[100:34] money that somebody has in my mind is
[100:37] somewhat informative.
[100:39] >> What's more informative is having the
[100:42] additional data point of where they
[100:44] started out. Oh, interesting.
[100:45] >> Because people with money who um didn't
[100:49] have to work very hard to get it,
[100:51] >> it's a different picture. Now, some
[100:53] people might say like, "Who cares?" And
[100:55] I will make the argument that some
[100:56] people some people who had to make a
[100:58] work very hard to make their money
[101:00] >> often times are still in the working
[101:02] hard mode. The the the the twist in the
[101:05] in the high level of income thing like
[101:08] that. The additional question that's
[101:09] useful is how much free time do you
[101:10] have?
[101:11] >> Yeah. A lot of the people I know who
[101:13] have a lot of money, they don't have a
[101:14] lot of free time. So, if people pair up
[101:17] with them thinking that they're going to
[101:18] feel very financially secure and have a
[101:20] lot of stuff, that might be true.
[101:22] >> But, um, how often they're going to see
[101:24] their partner or the the co-parent of
[101:27] their kids is an important question. And
[101:28] this extends both ways. like so many of
[101:31] these attributes that in the abstract
[101:33] sound really good to us, but then when
[101:35] you actually put it in a person that
[101:37] also has all these other attributes and
[101:39] things going on, you realize like, wait
[101:40] a minute, their cutthroat ambition
[101:42] actually wasn't that great, right?
[101:44] Because it means that they're never
[101:46] around. I think for this reason
[101:49] it can be very challenging especially if
[101:51] you're looking at long-term
[101:52] relationships to take things like like a
[101:55] person's um income level and use that to
[101:58] forecast like for example how their
[102:01] partner is going to feel about them. I
[102:02] mean, we've done some of this work,
[102:04] indeed some of the work looking at
[102:05] gender differences and like the reality
[102:07] is like a person's objective income, it
[102:11] has very very small effects on how their
[102:14] partners feel about them. The bigger
[102:17] effects are things like, you know, if
[102:19] now we scaffold up and look at like
[102:22] socioeconomic status. So, do you have
[102:23] the resources to get by as a couple?
[102:26] That can be very challenging for people.
[102:29] I've seen numerous examples of uh
[102:32] couples where the man loses his work
[102:35] >> and if he's not able to get stable work
[102:38] again reasonably soon.
[102:40] >> Yeah.
[102:40] >> In most of the
[102:41] >> this isn't a peer-reviewed study. Most
[102:43] of the examples I can think of um the
[102:46] couple eventually dissolved
[102:48] >> and it wasn't necessarily for a lack of
[102:52] enough resources. Families were able to
[102:54] help etc. Um and of course we could talk
[102:56] about depression. We could talk about
[102:59] some other thing that might have
[103:00] happened or many things that happened,
[103:01] but is there a sex difference there? The
[103:04] part that I find the most intuitive
[103:06] about these examples is that when a man
[103:09] loses his job like that, and I love that
[103:12] there are other resources around, so we
[103:14] know that that's not the exact problem.
[103:16] My guess is that the challenges are
[103:20] coming more from his like genuine
[103:23] troubling like loss of identity, loss of
[103:26] self. what am I going to do with myself?
[103:28] And less maybe not zero, but less about
[103:32] his uh partner thinking, oh, now he's no
[103:36] longer a provider. And that's just
[103:39] generally my bias from what I see in the
[103:42] science, which is when tragedies befall
[103:44] us, they affect our perceptions
[103:47] especially strongly. So this guy is
[103:49] going to feel this pretty hard that he's
[103:52] lost his job.
[103:54] Stepping back and looking at the broader
[103:56] picture of the data, it used to be true
[104:00] that marriages were more fragile when
[104:03] the woman earned more than the man in
[104:06] the marriage. But this stopped being
[104:08] true in the '9s. So that gender
[104:11] difference doesn't exist anymore. And I
[104:14] think it's it's easy to surmise. I don't
[104:17] know if the sociologists who studied
[104:19] this have drawn exactly this conclusion,
[104:20] but it's easy to posit that what's
[104:22] happening there is that people in
[104:25] general have gotten more comfortable
[104:27] with the gender imbalanced
[104:28] relationships. And in the '9s, we were
[104:30] still getting used to this idea.
[104:33] Um today
[104:35] even if the average couple, the man
[104:37] earns more than the woman, you do see
[104:39] that because there is a gender
[104:40] difference in the in income levels on
[104:42] average. But in education, it's flipped
[104:45] now, right? women, at least in younger
[104:48] couples, the woman is more likely to be
[104:50] educated than the man.
[104:51] >> More educated or or educated period.
[104:53] >> More educated than the man in the
[104:55] relationship, right? So, so women are
[104:57] earning more of the, you know, uh,
[104:59] higher degrees. So, if there's a
[105:02] mismatch, probably the woman has more
[105:04] education than the guy.
[105:07] That's not a risk factor
[105:10] relative to if they were the same level,
[105:13] relative to if, you know, he were
[105:15] higher. It just doesn't really seem to
[105:18] be doing anything. I know we can like
[105:20] get really nervous about like what does
[105:21] it mean for men's desiraability if
[105:24] they're not ambitious. Like I get that
[105:27] if men are not out there like making
[105:29] things of themselves, I'm not worried
[105:31] about the women getting a better
[105:33] education than them. I think it's
[105:36] important for men to have a sense of
[105:37] purpose. I think trade schools can be
[105:40] awesome, but the mismatches in the level
[105:43] of education and in the level of income,
[105:46] those don't spell a problem. We just got
[105:48] to get like men feeling good about
[105:50] themselves again.
[105:51] >> And the data say they're not.
[105:53] >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's what you
[105:55] see. I mean, the data that concern me
[105:57] the most are that men and I think
[105:59] especially low SCEs men, they're the
[106:02] ones that feel like their social
[106:04] networks are gone. They don't know where
[106:06] to go to get any kind of companionship.
[106:09] So, if they're really feeling that acute
[106:12] sense of loneliness, of lack of
[106:14] belonging, you know, among like real
[106:16] people in their lives, um that's the
[106:20] thing I worry about because then that's
[106:21] going to affect your sense of self.
[106:22] that's going to affect, you know, all of
[106:24] your ambitions and in really bad cases
[106:28] might, you know, push people to some of
[106:29] those nastier corners of the internet.
[106:32] I'd like to take a quick break and
[106:33] acknowledge our sponsor, Function.
[106:36] Function provides over 160 advanced lab
[106:39] tests to give you a clear snapshot of
[106:40] your bodily health. This snapshot gives
[106:43] you insights into your heart health,
[106:44] your hormone health, autoimmune
[106:46] function, nutrient levels, and much
[106:48] more. They've also recently added access
[106:50] to advanced MRI and CT scans. Function
[106:53] not only provides testing of over 160
[106:56] biomarkers key to your physical and
[106:57] mental health. It also analyzes these
[107:00] results and provides recommendations for
[107:02] improving your health from top doctors.
[107:04] For example, in a recent test with
[107:06] function, I learned that some of my
[107:07] blood lipids were slightly out of range.
[107:10] As a result, I decided to start
[107:11] supplementing with nattokinise, which
[107:13] can naturally help reduce LDL
[107:15] cholesterol. And it did. In a follow-up
[107:17] test, I could confirm that this strategy
[107:19] worked. My blood lipids are now back
[107:21] exactly where I want them. Comprehensive
[107:23] lab testing of the sort that function
[107:25] offers is just so important for health.
[107:27] I mean, how else are you going to know
[107:28] what's going on under the hood? And
[107:30] while I've been doing blood work for
[107:31] years, it used to be timeconuming,
[107:33] complicated, and expensive. In fact, I
[107:35] used to spend thousands of dollars per
[107:37] year trying to get this kind of data.
[107:39] And the data, frankly, were not all that
[107:41] good. But now with Function, it's
[107:43] extremely easy and affordable. A
[107:45] function membership is only a dollar a
[107:47] day, $365 a year. And if you think about
[107:49] the information it provides and the
[107:51] health challenges it helps you avoid and
[107:53] the proactive things that it can do for
[107:55] you to enhance your health, I truly look
[107:57] at it as a savings. To learn more, visit
[108:00] functionhealth.com/huberman
[108:02] and use the code hubman for a $50 credit
[108:05] towards your membership. Again, that's
[108:07] functionhealth.com/huberman.
[108:10] in the kind of classic pure
[108:12] stereotypical narrative, you know, men
[108:14] who were slightly older
[108:17] had more resources.
[108:19] >> Yeah.
[108:20] >> This isn't always true.
[108:22] >> But there's this what apparently based
[108:24] on your work is a uh myth that women
[108:28] desire older men. Uh men desire younger
[108:31] women.
[108:32] >> Yeah.
[108:32] >> Your work points to the possibility that
[108:35] there is no gender differences in
[108:37] attraction to younger partners.
[108:38] >> Yeah. And look, let me say that this is
[108:40] I think one of the more tenant
[108:42] >> and it's a big and it's a big sample
[108:43] size 4000.
[108:45] >> I'm like so and uh I'll weave a quick
[108:48] anecdote. There's this guy at the gym
[108:51] that I sometimes go to.
[108:53] >> He's probably in his like 70s or
[108:54] something and he's in
[108:55] >> what great shape. He's retired. He made
[108:58] money. He's enjoying life. He's got
[109:00] grandkids. He's like he just seems like
[109:02] I don't know him that well, but it seems
[109:03] like he's really got it together and
[109:04] he's really loving life. And I always
[109:06] say, uh, what brings you here every day?
[109:09] You know, I figured it would be like,
[109:10] why it just feels so good. And he just
[109:12] always says the same thing. He always
[109:13] just says, I don't want to lose my wife
[109:15] to a younger guy. And I always laugh and
[109:17] I go,
[109:18] >> then like I know a lot about the contour
[109:20] of his life. And maybe there's something
[109:22] he's not disclosing, but you know,
[109:24] anyone would say like this guy's just
[109:26] totally got it made. He's in and he's,
[109:28] you know, I again I don't know the
[109:29] details of his life and I shouldn't, but
[109:32] I know enough about it that, you know,
[109:34] he's checked off all the boxes three or
[109:36] four times and then had the wisdom in my
[109:38] opinion to not just keep working like a
[109:40] maniac and just spend time with his kids
[109:43] and grandkids and his wife. But he
[109:45] always answers the exact same way. How's
[109:46] it going? He goes, "Pretty good. Just
[109:47] don't want to lose my wife to younger
[109:49] guys. So, I'm here again today."
[109:50] >> Let me tell you about this study. And
[109:51] look, again, I'm a scientist and
[109:53] sometimes the data I'm like, "Huh? You
[109:56] don't say. I didn't see this one coming.
[109:59] I mentioned this earlier. So, we
[110:00] partnered up with folks who do
[110:03] matchmaking. So, these are people who
[110:06] are paying for a service
[110:09] because they want to be in a long-term
[110:11] relationship.
[110:12] And so, they will set people on dates
[110:15] and they've got a whole pool that
[110:16] they're working with. And within that
[110:18] pool, the men who are searching for
[110:20] dates are older than the women by about
[110:23] four years on average. Okay? So that's
[110:26] that's what they've got to work with.
[110:28] And they set people up on these dates.
[110:30] And so most of the time the woman is
[110:33] going to be younger than the man, but
[110:34] there's a range. Sometimes the woman is
[110:36] much younger than the guy. And sometimes
[110:38] the woman is the same age as the guy.
[110:40] And sometimes the woman's even a little
[110:41] older than the guy. All right? So what
[110:45] you'd expect to see is that if men are
[110:48] looking for younger women and women are
[110:50] looking for older men, then when we look
[110:53] at how the age of the partner affects
[110:56] whether you want to go on a second date
[110:57] with this person,
[111:00] it should be the younger folks appeal to
[111:02] the men more and the older folks appeal
[111:04] to the women more. But that wasn't what
[111:06] we saw. We saw that the younger folks
[111:07] appeal to the men more. And by the way,
[111:09] it's not a huge effect. It's not like
[111:12] the gross stereotype that's out there.
[111:14] Men are a little bit more interested in
[111:16] the women to the extent that they're
[111:17] younger, but it's not gigantic. Women
[111:19] are doing the same thing. They're a
[111:21] little bit more interested in the
[111:23] younger guys. They don't say that on
[111:26] paper. In fact, sometimes they're like,
[111:28] "Don't set me up with the younger guys."
[111:29] And then they do and they say, "Huh,
[111:31] that was interesting. I enjoyed that. I
[111:33] enjoyed that date. I would like to see
[111:35] him again."
[111:36] >> Are the stated reasons um similar in any
[111:39] way? For instance, are both groups
[111:40] saying less less baggage? That would be
[111:42] kind of a cliche answer, but we could
[111:44] place that on either side.
[111:45] >> I don't know. And I would love to know.
[111:48] I think sometimes when women are when
[111:50] they downrate like whether they care
[111:54] about attractiveness or something. I I
[111:57] think sometimes they are like kidding
[111:59] themselves a little bit that they
[112:01] actually do appreciate a younger guy
[112:04] who's maybe is fit and in shape or they
[112:06] don't fully appreciate how exciting it
[112:08] would feel to be sitting across the
[112:11] table from a guy like that. I mean, this
[112:12] is my best uh my best guess. And what's
[112:15] so fascinating about this data set is
[112:18] that look, they're trying to create
[112:19] these couples, but you know, you only
[112:22] create a couple a fraction of the time.
[112:24] Much of the time the people don't really
[112:26] hit it off, but in the couples that get
[112:29] created, the guy was four years older
[112:31] than the woman. And in the couples that
[112:32] don't get created, the guy is four years
[112:34] older than the woman cuz that was what
[112:36] they had in the sample to begin with. So
[112:39] we look around and you see that age
[112:42] difference. That age difference is real.
[112:44] And I'm sure it means something
[112:46] important. And data like this just make
[112:49] me think something else is going on
[112:51] here. Whatever is creating this age
[112:55] difference, it's at least it's not, you
[112:56] know, a age difference in in how people
[112:58] sort, it's not happening on date one.
[113:02] It's not happening at the initial
[113:03] attraction phase. Maybe it's happening
[113:06] earlier who puts themselves in the pool.
[113:08] Maybe it's happening later. I don't
[113:10] know. She's going to date this younger
[113:12] guy like once or twice, but then she's
[113:14] going to be done with him and she'll,
[113:15] you know, settle down with somebody
[113:17] who's a little older.
[113:18] >> She said she's done with him.
[113:19] >> Yeah. Right. Exactly. Right. But Right.
[113:21] But it could go the other way, too.
[113:22] >> Well, what I've heard before, uh, cuz
[113:24] I'm 50, I have some, uh, female friends
[113:26] who are dating, and they'll say that
[113:29] they do date younger guys, but then the
[113:31] deal breaker is if the guy says he wants
[113:35] >> kids. Kids, that's tough.
[113:36] >> And then
[113:38] >> the So the agreement is to move on based
[113:41] on that. Often this is a common
[113:43] reasonably common thing. Yeah. Actually
[113:45] hear about this more and more these
[113:47] days.
[113:47] >> Yeah. And I think um one thing that that
[113:51] online dating affords is if you've got
[113:54] something like that that's exceptionally
[113:56] important to you, there are
[113:58] opportunities to filter on it. Um we
[114:01] haven't talked about this too much yet,
[114:02] but but you can get into a whole line of
[114:06] research and studies on, you know, oh,
[114:08] if people are filtering for things in
[114:10] the abstract, does that match what's
[114:12] ultimately going to appeal to them when
[114:13] they meet face to face? We find that
[114:15] generally speaking, these things tend to
[114:17] be pretty uncorrelated. So what people
[114:19] think they want doesn't match up with
[114:22] what they actually end up liking once
[114:24] they meet somebody face to face. But you
[114:27] can argue that sometimes that's not a
[114:29] good thing. If somebody really wants
[114:30] kids, shouldn't it be within their power
[114:34] to craft a pool of partners who also
[114:37] want kids to give them that opportunity?
[114:39] Like that seems like a reasonable
[114:42] humanistic thing to do. And so to the
[114:44] extent that the apps are able to do that
[114:46] or these services are able to do that, I
[114:48] think that's uh that's ultimately a good
[114:50] thing. I think
[114:51] >> click like want kids or not.
[114:53] >> Yeah, I think I think often I think I I
[114:55] think you can I in in some apps that
[114:58] might be like a special feature you have
[114:59] to pay for things. These things get
[115:01] complicated.
[115:02] >> Who knows if the news is accurate uh
[115:04] because it's not real data. It's sort of
[115:05] whatever the news decides to shine a
[115:08] light on. this idea that um more young
[115:10] people are going to church with which is
[115:12] a values plural uh indicator like
[115:15] >> you know people can most churches are
[115:18] open to whoever shows up but the
[115:20] assumption is that people are there uh
[115:22] for certain reasons that they're either
[115:24] trying to build on or or have certain
[115:27] values
[115:28] >> that are sort of family children uh
[115:33] >> values morals adjacent if not central
[115:36] right I think people know what I'm
[115:37] saying I mean sure bad people can show
[115:38] up at church, but but the idea is that
[115:40] somebody's taking the time uh to get
[115:43] dressed up on a Sunday morning and go
[115:45] and listen to someone else speak and a
[115:47] lot of people are meeting that way now.
[115:49] Are there any data that that's a
[115:50] response to the kind of like wild west
[115:53] of
[115:54] >> um of online dating and you know social
[115:58] media and and just the general culture
[116:00] of like everybody it's kind of the the
[116:02] culture of everybody. I mean even in
[116:04] high school there were subgroups. Some
[116:06] people moved between subgroups, but
[116:08] it's, you know, it the the vastness of
[116:11] the internet and social media,
[116:14] >> even if you state your preferences about
[116:16] what you do and don't want to see on
[116:18] social media is like it's a flood. I
[116:20] mean, I see people and things on there
[116:21] from way back when that like they're not
[116:23] bad people. I have no interest in what
[116:25] they're doing now. And then occasionally
[116:26] I see people I'm like, "Oh, no way." And
[116:28] reconnect. So, but it's a it's a fire
[116:30] hose.
[116:30] >> Yeah. And you need some way to reduce it
[116:33] to something manageable. I mean, again,
[116:35] we we evolved in an environment where we
[116:38] knew like 50 other people, you know,
[116:40] that's like your group. You you probably
[116:41] knew more than that. Maybe you know,
[116:43] like 150, some nearby groups, but that's
[116:46] all ages and all genders and everything
[116:48] else. It's a small number of potential
[116:51] partners for you, but you had reasons to
[116:55] interact, structures that were going to
[116:57] put you in contact with each other. And
[116:59] to the extent that church is fulfilling
[117:01] a function like that, I think that's
[117:03] great. And in fact, I think that's
[117:05] exactly what's missing. And if church
[117:06] isn't your thing, there's like a million
[117:09] other things that people can do in any
[117:11] kind of modern urban context that are
[117:14] going to be helpful along those lines. I
[117:16] mean, you can join any kind of inter
[117:18] mural sports team. I mean,
[117:20] >> improv class.
[117:21] >> Exactly. Yeah. So, I think the improv
[117:24] classes are amazing because not only is
[117:27] it a chance to interact in a group over
[117:30] a a period of time where you don't get
[117:33] to opt out if you don't love somebody
[117:35] right away, but also you're like
[117:37] practicing being vulnerable and in, you
[117:41] know, being responsive and things like
[117:42] that. So, I think these things are all
[117:44] wonderful. Are people doing it because
[117:47] they're trying to limit the pools to the
[117:49] folks that they think will fit what
[117:52] they're looking for? I'll bet you some
[117:54] people are doing that. I'll bet that,
[117:57] you know, if somebody's like, I really
[117:59] want to be with somebody else who's
[118:00] active, so I'm going to join a running
[118:02] club. Or, yeah, I want to be with
[118:04] somebody who shares my value, so I'm
[118:05] going to join church. I think that's
[118:07] great. If I'm like being buzzill
[118:10] scientist,
[118:12] I'd probably sit here and be like, it
[118:14] probably actually doesn't matter. Like,
[118:16] join the church, join the running club,
[118:18] join all these things. Like, you're
[118:20] probably know more or less likely to
[118:22] find somebody that you're going to click
[118:24] with.
[118:25] >> It's more about getting yourself in a
[118:26] small group environment.
[118:27] >> Exactly. Exactly. But I'll be the first
[118:29] to say like when it comes to like the
[118:31] base rates of these things, like if your
[118:34] if your goal was, you know, in 90 days I
[118:37] want to be in a relationship, what are
[118:39] the things I should do that give me the
[118:41] best likelihood? I'm embarrassed to say
[118:43] my field can't answer that question. I
[118:45] can't tell you, you know, use two apps
[118:48] and use these two apps and go to church.
[118:50] Don't join kickball cuz they're a mess.
[118:52] I was a kickball player, so I'm allowed
[118:54] to say that. Uh but you should join the
[118:56] running club. We can't answer questions
[118:59] like that. So, in the absence of that
[119:02] kind of specificity, my answer is always
[119:04] just be around people on repeated
[119:07] occasions.
[119:08] >> I'm not trying to provide push back
[119:09] here. I'm not qualified to do it. I'm
[119:11] going to I'm from a totally different
[119:12] field. But I feel like there's certain
[119:15] small group smallish group environments
[119:17] like church. But there there could be
[119:18] other examples like for instance like a
[119:20] hiking club or rock climbing or
[119:22] something like that where
[119:24] >> there's kind of a um this shouldn't be
[119:26] the reason uh people do it and the only
[119:28] reason people do it but let's say um
[119:30] people pair up as a consequence of time
[119:32] there
[119:33] >> that the culture of that thing provides
[119:36] additional opportunities to uh grow the
[119:39] relationship with peers right because
[119:41] there certain things like you join an
[119:42] improv class great like big my sister's
[119:44] really into drama and theater still does
[119:46] theater classes for her own her own
[119:48] enrichment. But like but if you meet
[119:49] someone there, it's not like the the the
[119:51] culture around it um sort of cultivates
[119:53] the evolution of the relationship. Like
[119:55] whereas in like church like you might
[119:57] even get married in that church in the
[119:59] context of a of a hiking club, like you
[120:01] might be out with the other couples that
[120:03] you meet or or single people that you
[120:05] meet for many years. Like you can sort
[120:07] of it's it's a community that that can
[120:09] grow over time. certain things here I'm
[120:11] showing my ignorance around improv
[120:13] classes but certain things like a
[120:15] pottery class or pickle ball or
[120:16] something like
[120:17] >> it doesn't just at face value present a
[120:21] sort of trajectory of like
[120:22] >> that's right
[120:23] >> I'm sounding really nerdy here but kind
[120:24] of like a a set of maturational stages
[120:27] that it that you can continue to like be
[120:29] in the relationship there does that make
[120:32] sense really stumbling for the words
[120:33] here no totally this by the way is a
[120:35] great reason to not meet people at work
[120:39] >> not meet people at work. I'm not trying
[120:40] to like throw a cold blanket on people
[120:42] who decide to meet people at work, but
[120:44] often times often times that the
[120:46] relationship doesn't necessarily
[120:48] flourish in the context of the work
[120:50] environment. It's not like the work
[120:51] environment makes the relationship grow.
[120:53] I've seen more things split over time if
[120:55] both people work there. Often times they
[120:56] have to move to separate buildings,
[120:58] >> right?
[120:58] >> Um just for a variety of reasons, but
[121:01] it's not like the culture encourages it.
[121:03] Whereas there are certain things that
[121:04] are a bit more since you were talking
[121:07] for a moment there like an evolutionary
[121:08] biologist like we evolved in small
[121:09] villages and small groups where
[121:11] >> you know you had peers and elders that
[121:13] that provide this positive reinforcement
[121:15] on relationship. You know it's kind of
[121:17] an interesting thing like no matter how
[121:19] evolved we are or progressive we are.
[121:23] >> I don't know many women that ask men to
[121:24] marry them
[121:25] >> in 2026. I'm sure they're out there, but
[121:28] it's still the
[121:30] >> tacid assumption that men are going to
[121:32] do the asking.
[121:33] >> Yeah.
[121:34] >> Just saying.
[121:35] >> Okay. So, how progressive are we really?
[121:37] Right. It's also true that when people
[121:40] get married, most of the time they stand
[121:42] up in front of other people and state
[121:44] their vows. This is not like, you know,
[121:47] uh, you know, under the bed sheets, I
[121:49] promise. I promise I This is like a
[121:50] public disclosure. These days it ends up
[121:53] on Instagram,
[121:54] >> you know. So, you know, there's clearly
[121:57] a feedback that comes from being part of
[122:00] a larger structure that reinforces
[122:03] relationships over time.
[122:05] >> Yeah. And it can be a big
[122:06] >> You promised, you didn't just promise to
[122:07] me, you promised to the whole world,
[122:09] >> right?
[122:10] >> And that can be an important source of
[122:11] support, too, because then it's that at
[122:14] least the subjective sense like these
[122:16] people have our backs, right? if we run
[122:19] into hard times,
[122:21] >> there's a community that's going to be
[122:23] there and support us.
[122:25] >> And then I think you're right on the
[122:27] initial attraction side, having a sense
[122:30] that we're part of this larger
[122:33] collective that there's something about
[122:35] that that that feels good and provides
[122:37] structure that like that can help keep
[122:40] moving things forward. And you're right
[122:42] that the workplace context is
[122:44] particularly tricky because many
[122:46] workplaces don't want to encourage that
[122:50] kind of thing. And it's going to often
[122:51] happen anyway. And probably the smartest
[122:54] workplaces are the ones that allow for
[122:55] the possibility that peers are going to
[122:57] get together and have structures in
[122:59] place that that will be able to keep the
[123:02] personal life appropriately personal and
[123:04] then you know deal with the fallout if
[123:05] the if the fallout happens. One place I
[123:08] trained might have been UC Davis. All
[123:10] the junior faculty of which there were
[123:12] many of them when I first joined there
[123:13] were a large fraction of couples in the
[123:17] department or who had spouses in other
[123:19] departments
[123:21] >> I think more than 80% of those couples
[123:23] ended up divorced now wow
[123:25] >> now we can't there are a lot of
[123:27] variables there fortunately most of them
[123:28] are on good terms um I can't say they
[123:31] ended up with other people in the
[123:32] department that didn't happen
[123:34] >> but you know I watched and was like whoa
[123:37] like this is interesting uh you know
[123:39] this didn't I want to say didn't end
[123:41] well cuz I think they're all happy now
[123:43] but there does seem to be some
[123:45] additional stress uh of that. So I mean
[123:48] this gets to a question you've actually
[123:49] studied which is this notion of um
[123:52] >> similarity.
[123:53] >> So maybe we should talk more about that
[123:54] because it's more data driven uh
[123:56] question which is perceived similarity
[123:59] matters more than actual similarity.
[124:02] What is perceived similarity? So
[124:04] perceived similarity is this general
[124:07] sense like we have a lot in common.
[124:09] There are a million things that we could
[124:11] talk about. We share the same values and
[124:15] attitudes and preferences about things
[124:17] in general. But notice the way I'm
[124:20] describing it. I'm not tethering it to
[124:22] any particular attitude or value or
[124:25] preference or anything else because it's
[124:27] so free floating. I as the perceiver get
[124:31] to attach it to whatever I want and that
[124:36] uh affords people to have a certain
[124:39] amount of motivated reasoning so that
[124:41] when they like somebody a lot they will
[124:44] find the similarities there. They will
[124:48] really come to think that what really
[124:50] matters is that we love Japanese cinema
[124:53] and that we you know that we share the
[124:56] same politics. Whereas for another
[124:57] couple, uh, you know what, we have
[124:59] different politics, but that doesn't
[125:01] really matter to us.
[125:02] >> Does anyone say that nowadays?
[125:03] >> No, people still do. I mean, look, we
[125:05] what you see in the political matching
[125:07] data is that the odds that people ofo,
[125:11] you know, diametrically opposed
[125:13] preferences, the odds they're going to
[125:14] get together in the first place are
[125:15] very, very low. But among the mismatches
[125:19] that do exist, it actually doesn't
[125:21] predict satisfaction all that much. And
[125:23] I think this is why because you just
[125:25] compartmentalize it. If we match, it's
[125:27] important. If we don't match, oh, who
[125:30] cares? Does anybody care about that?
[125:31] Right? So much motivated reasoning. So,
[125:35] this is why if what I wanted to do was
[125:39] take two people who had never met and
[125:41] assess everything I could about them and
[125:43] then figure out whether they were going
[125:45] to be a match or not, ba based on
[125:47] whether they were similar, I really was
[125:50] probably going to be no better than a
[125:51] coin flip at figuring out whether or not
[125:54] they were going to click. That's actual
[125:56] similarity. I take things that are true
[125:58] about you without the ability for you to
[126:01] engage in motivated reasoning and I say,
[126:03] "Okay, you're an 83% match on all the
[126:07] things I could assess. You two should
[126:09] like each other." When we've done
[126:10] studies like that, you you basically get
[126:13] a coin flip every time. Well, this is
[126:15] why the apps seem totally useless
[126:17] because if you were just pair up, well,
[126:19] you want this and you want this, I want
[126:20] that, too, and I want that, too. You're
[126:22] telling me that it's as good as chance.
[126:24] It's as good as chance. And look, if
[126:26] there's evidence for similarity on
[126:28] anything, it could be in the realm of
[126:31] like demographics,
[126:33] socioeconomic status kinds of things. I
[126:36] I've seen like unpublished data, but
[126:39] promising, but even then, those effects
[126:41] are so small. So, I'm, you know, we're
[126:43] going from a 50/50 coin flip to like
[126:46] 5347. These are small effects across the
[126:49] board because we get all of this
[126:52] motivational latitude. When we really
[126:54] like somebody, we find the things we
[126:56] have in common. We focus on those. We
[126:59] convince ourselves those are the most
[127:00] important things in the world. And the
[127:02] thing is, who am I to criticize them
[127:03] because the people in the happiest
[127:05] relationships, that's what they're
[127:06] doing. They're exhibiting those kinds of
[127:09] biases. And it's like stupid human
[127:12] tricks, but it like kind of works.
[127:14] >> You want to hear something really scary?
[127:16] >> Yeah. Uh, you probably know this
[127:17] already, but I was shocked. Uh, let's
[127:19] just say someone I know who would know
[127:22] um told me that the biggest dating app
[127:27] in the world by an enormous margin is
[127:30] >> it's not Tinder,
[127:31] >> Instagram.
[127:33] >> Oh,
[127:34] >> and this was actually very much in
[127:37] parallel
[127:38] >> to the the algorithm favoring
[127:42] communication by direct message. People
[127:45] will say like social media isn't social
[127:47] anymore. It's not about like seeing what
[127:48] people are doing. The real dynamics, the
[127:52] real time spent, and you'll notice how
[127:55] you get rewarded and what gets served up
[127:57] in the algorithm. Rewarded meaning like
[127:59] what what posts do better than others.
[128:02] >> If there's a strong correlate to
[128:04] communication about that through direct
[128:06] message, it's a dating app that's kind
[128:09] of cloaked for many people as a social
[128:12] media app. But of course, I use it to
[128:13] teach neuroscience, right? And and other
[128:15] things. And this will be on Instagram.
[128:17] So, I mean, I'm a big fan of of
[128:19] Instagram and other social media
[128:20] platforms for teaching and learning. And
[128:21] I say that sincerely, but the majority
[128:24] of the time spent now is not scrolling.
[128:28] It's it's getting to communications that
[128:32] move to real world and then feed back
[128:35] >> Yeah.
[128:35] >> to social media. So, I found that um
[128:37] interesting. So, I'm imagining a
[128:39] question uh because you study questions
[128:42] people ask them on dates. And we used to
[128:43] be able to say,
[128:44] >> if you were on a deserted island,
[128:47] >> who would you want to be there with?
[128:48] Like, who's the one person that you
[128:49] could stand being with or perhaps even
[128:51] really enjoy being with, assuming you
[128:54] have all the resources?
[128:55] >> Now, I think the question should be,
[128:57] >> who's the one person that would get you
[128:59] to not engage with anyone else in in the
[129:02] world? In other words, set down what you
[129:04] called, and I've never heard this
[129:06] before, the derivation of alternatives.
[129:09] >> This is an interesting term. So, in some
[129:11] ways, like committed partnership is
[129:14] about setting aside the idea that there
[129:16] might be somebody better for us.
[129:18] >> And I would argue, again, I have strong
[129:22] positive feelings towards Instagram. Um,
[129:25] I really do. Uh, it's a a fun and great
[129:28] platform when used in, you know,
[129:29] moderation. Yeah. But it's the opposite
[129:32] of the deserted island. And a former
[129:34] guest on this podcast who happens to be
[129:35] a divorce lawyer, um, James Ston, has
[129:38] talked about the fact that many, many,
[129:39] many of the divorces that he um,
[129:42] >> litigates, no, that he that he's
[129:45] involved in. Yeah. That he helps resolve
[129:47] uh, win for his clients started with uh,
[129:51] a
[129:52] >> innocuous communication on his starts
[129:55] with a like. starts with a like, starts
[129:57] with a conversation, starts with a ends
[129:59] up in the corner of a grievance or a or
[130:01] a a commonality that's sensed and then
[130:04] the derivation of alternatives emerges
[130:07] and eventually the relationship
[130:08] dissolves.
[130:09] >> We think about how people handle
[130:10] alternative partners. If you're in a
[130:12] purportedly monogous relationship, this
[130:14] is a challenge that relationships are
[130:16] going to face and
[130:19] I sort of see these like twin streams
[130:21] happening at the same time. So
[130:25] what you see in general is that for
[130:28] people who are in relationships and
[130:30] especially if they are happy in that
[130:32] relationship,
[130:34] any alternative partner that you can
[130:36] throw at them,
[130:38] they will tend to think that that
[130:40] alternative partner is pretty weak
[130:43] sauce. They think that person is less
[130:46] desirable than any other metric you
[130:48] might want to come up with for how
[130:50] desirable that person actually is.
[130:52] That's what we mean by deriggation of
[130:53] alternatives. It's like they're coming
[130:55] in up here, but because I'm partnered
[130:58] with you and I'm happy with you, I see
[130:59] them as less desirable than they
[131:01] actually are. Side note, that's why this
[131:04] one of the reasons why the marketplace
[131:06] metaphor starts to break down because
[131:09] people actually start to become bad
[131:11] barometers of what is quote unquote
[131:13] good. You stop seeing this alternative's
[131:16] actual value because you're so happy
[131:18] with the person that you have. Okay. So,
[131:21] this is a good thing and this is a real
[131:23] defense mechanism that people have.
[131:25] >> Is it a defense mechanism or I mean, but
[131:28] it's protective of healthy monogous
[131:31] relationship.
[131:31] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean it in the
[131:33] best Yeah. You know what? That's so
[131:35] funny because in our jargon we say
[131:37] defense mechanism. I mean that in the
[131:39] best possible mechanism.
[131:40] >> Yeah. Protective mechanism. Right. Yeah.
[131:42] You're defending the relationship.
[131:43] That's so funny. I'd like forgotten.
[131:45] >> We've had a few too many uh
[131:46] psychologist. Right. Of course. that has
[131:49] a negative connotation for some people,
[131:50] not for me. Okay? So, it's a protective
[131:52] mechanism, but at the same time, people
[131:55] also do this thing that you might call
[131:58] like playing with fire, but it's more
[132:00] like, you know, playing with what really
[132:02] seems to be a harmless book of matches.
[132:05] And I just I'm just messaging these
[132:07] people. Well, what's the big deal? This
[132:08] isn't going to go anywhere. Uh I'm just,
[132:11] you know, we're we're we're chatting a
[132:14] little bit. This isn't going to go
[132:15] anywhere. And things escalate. Sorry to
[132:17] interrupt, but um and you know, one of
[132:20] uh
[132:21] >> our former guests on this podcast who's
[132:22] immensely popular in the dating
[132:25] relationships and romance sphere is
[132:26] Esther Prell, and I don't want to put
[132:28] words in her mouth, but I think the
[132:30] perception about some of her messaging,
[132:32] whether accurate or not, is that there
[132:35] can be some value to, you know, in in
[132:37] her first book, I think, and I haven't
[132:39] read it, but um the the excerpt that was
[132:42] uh relayed to me was this notion like,
[132:44] oh, like someone isn't feeling as much
[132:46] chemistry in a relationship. So, like
[132:47] the woman, this wouldn't happen nowadays
[132:49] most likely, but goes to a bar and like
[132:51] flirts a bit and then like some some
[132:53] sense of of um sexual confidence is
[132:56] restored and then her husband is then
[132:58] attracted to her differently again. And
[133:00] you know, I've heard the more crude
[133:01] phrase, doesn't matter where you get
[133:02] your appetite as long as you eat at
[133:04] home. This is more of the 1950s60s
[133:06] variety. By the way, none of these
[133:08] statements come from me, although my
[133:10] mouth is saying them. These are things
[133:11] that you hear out there, right?
[133:13] >> Yeah.
[133:14] directly uh in opposition to what you're
[133:17] saying, which is not to say that what
[133:19] you're saying is wrong. I just think
[133:21] that there was a there was about a 20 or
[133:23] 30 year period there where people kind
[133:26] of assumed that monogamy could thrive.
[133:28] >> Yeah.
[133:29] >> Despite the inputs and monogamy could
[133:32] thrive perhaps even better if people
[133:34] acknowledge this aspect of self that is
[133:37] still attracted other people. They talk
[133:38] about it. what you're talking about is
[133:40] really a more of a protective cloak
[133:42] around the commitment. I do sense people
[133:45] are veering back toward that what you're
[133:48] describing. You know how I think about
[133:49] it is is the protective cloak
[133:52] um that that's sort of there as a
[133:54] baseline but then signals will get
[133:57] through some sometimes sometimes cuz
[133:59] you're messing around on Instagram but
[134:01] sometimes because you went to the bar
[134:03] with your friends and there was this
[134:05] cute guy who was chatting you up and the
[134:08] evidence there too I interpret I think
[134:11] the way a stair would interpret it and
[134:13] and what you see in the data also
[134:16] suggests something like a protect ive
[134:18] mechanism again it's playing with fire
[134:21] but if you look in studies where they
[134:23] ask people have a sexual fantasy about
[134:26] your partner now how much sexual desire
[134:28] do you feel for your partner it has gone
[134:30] up great that's pretty straightforward
[134:33] now please have a sexual fantasy about I
[134:36] don't know whoever's in second place
[134:39] that's not your partner
[134:41] then you start having sexual feelings
[134:43] for that person and you start having
[134:46] sexual feelings for your partner at the
[134:47] same time. So, it's exactly the metaphor
[134:50] that you're describing that when we feel
[134:53] a sense of attraction, it can rebound
[134:55] onto our partner. And by the way, it
[134:57] doesn't happen in the reverse. Okay. So,
[134:59] the partner, your current partner,
[135:02] again, for most people in happy
[135:03] relationships, holds a special position,
[135:06] you might say, where even when there is
[135:09] a little bit of a threat, and I've
[135:10] noticed somebody, it it rebounds
[135:13] somewhat. I don't advise that people go
[135:15] out and do this. You're saying it
[135:18] rebounds like it's a it's a fuel for the
[135:20] relationship the way that Esther and
[135:22] other people have talked about that's a
[135:23] real thing.
[135:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. I mean it
[135:26] recent studies I can point to one or
[135:28] two. They're all like within the last
[135:29] few years.
[135:30] >> This is going to be very uncomfortable
[135:32] for some people to hear that their
[135:34] partner may come home immensely
[135:36] attracted to them because they had some
[135:37] sort of interaction during the day of
[135:39] either being attracted to someone or
[135:42] receiving signals of attractiveness.
[135:43] Right. Where I am a thousand% with with
[135:46] Estair is that the danger, the problem
[135:49] is not that your partner was sexually
[135:51] attracted to somebody else. The problem
[135:54] is usually in the escalation. It's yeah,
[135:57] but now are they like repeatedly hanging
[135:59] out with them and having like a
[136:00] conversations that they feel secretive
[136:02] about or that you know if if it's you
[136:04] that you feel secretive about? Those are
[136:07] the warning signs because then what will
[136:09] start to happen is that the protective
[136:11] layer that people typically put around
[136:12] their partners, it will start to erode
[136:15] and that's when people are at a greater
[136:17] risk of infidelity. It's usually a
[136:20] process like that. The simple fact that
[136:23] we can be attracted to other people that
[136:25] is not a problem for the average
[136:27] relationship. It's the repeated follow
[136:30] through on that attraction that becomes
[136:32] a problem. And that's something that
[136:33] evolved in recent years that there used
[136:35] to be far more transient interactions
[136:38] that would never resurface again. You
[136:40] sit next to someone on a plane, you'd
[136:41] have a conversation. Uh there might be
[136:43] attraction, there might not be, but you
[136:45] develop some degree of intimacy. Some
[136:46] people would disclose a lot on planes
[136:49] and then you never hear or talk to them
[136:51] again. Nowadays, there's almost always
[136:53] an opportunity for people to follow up
[136:55] and connect with people. That's what
[136:57] James Ston is referring to. Yeah. when
[136:59] he talks about social media being a um
[137:02] an uh borrowing other person's language
[137:05] here an attack vector, you know, on a
[137:08] relationship and maybe that is a good
[137:09] reason for people who are in committed
[137:11] relationships to just get off of social
[137:13] media period. But it's also a context
[137:15] where people spend quote unquote spend
[137:18] time with people for other reasons.
[137:20] >> Yeah, it's tricky. Uh if if I I don't
[137:24] recommend using that sort of process to
[137:26] bolster your relationship. I guess if
[137:28] you're going to do it, you know, try to
[137:29] do it by watching somebody. Um, yeah.
[137:32] Who's uh Yeah. figure out if you're a
[137:36] man who's with a woman, just ask her
[137:38] like what actor does she have the hots
[137:40] for and like be kind enough to watch a
[137:42] movie featuring him. Like maybe that's
[137:44] that's a way to make this work.
[137:46] >> Or the reverse. Yeah, sure.
[137:48] >> Some of the um what appear to be the
[137:50] strongest and happiest couples that I
[137:52] know, I know very little about their
[137:54] dynamics period.
[137:56] >> Yeah. which is kind of an interesting
[137:57] thing in its own right, but some of the
[137:59] people that are in that set seem to have
[138:02] a pretty uh relaxed
[138:04] >> rapport around, oh yeah, uh so and so
[138:08] referring to their spouse really likes
[138:09] that actor or actress. Like it's like
[138:11] it's just kind of a thing that they
[138:12] understand, but it's over there,
[138:14] >> right? It's it's at a distance. Yeah.
[138:17] It's not um it's not like a looming
[138:19] threat.
[138:20] >> It's very different if it's about
[138:21] somebody that you both like know and
[138:23] spend time with. It's much more
[138:26] threatening in those cases. And and I
[138:28] think that also is part of why that
[138:30] deraggation process happens is because
[138:33] that threat feels very uncomfortable.
[138:36] Like even if it's your attraction, like
[138:39] you kind of want to downplay it because
[138:42] the thought of what would it mean if I'm
[138:45] like with the wrong person or like what
[138:47] would happen if this thing spiraled out
[138:49] of control, it it's upsetting for most
[138:51] people. I mean, we take all this time to
[138:54] build a relationship up to be this thing
[138:58] that we really value that's a central
[139:00] part of our lives. The thought that like
[139:03] it could disappear at a moment's notice
[139:05] because of of a a mistake that we would
[139:07] make, it it can be threatening to most
[139:10] people. E even if we're imagining
[139:12] ourselves
[139:13] engaging in the actions that would bring
[139:15] things to an end.
[139:17] I heard a really scary story that may or
[139:20] may not be informative.
[139:22] >> I think it is and maybe you can help me
[139:25] understand it. Anytime someone starts a
[139:26] story with I have a friend, it gets a a
[139:29] little weird, but based on an
[139:31] observation I had a long time ago
[139:33] >> where I was going to a gym and I had a
[139:37] tr truly just platonic friendship with
[139:39] this woman. uh she would go to the gym
[139:40] too. Back then, not a lot of women
[139:42] worked out in gyms if I'm honest. Like
[139:43] like it was like not a lot of women
[139:45] lifted weights. It was like something
[139:46] that was kind of reserved for guys or
[139:47] for female bodybuilders, but she wasn't
[139:49] a bodybuilder, but she she liked lifting
[139:51] weights and super fit. She's a super
[139:53] accomplished athlete now.
[139:55] >> She um one day when we were leaving, she
[139:58] was like really upset. I was like,
[140:00] "What's up?" And she's like, "All these
[140:03] guys kept coming up to me." And I'm
[140:04] like, "Well, that's happening all the
[140:06] time." you know, she's like, "No, they
[140:08] were all really unattractive."
[140:11] And I said, "Okay, well, you're good at
[140:14] dealing with you." Like, she was very
[140:15] skilled. She's very beautiful then and
[140:17] now, and so very skilled at like saying,
[140:20] "Thanks, but no thanks."
[140:22] >> And then she said something that was
[140:23] absolutely like shocking to me that I've
[140:26] shared with other female friends and
[140:28] some men and they always go, "No way."
[140:30] And she said, "I feel like I have to go
[140:34] like flirt with a really attractive guy
[140:36] now."
[140:37] >> Wow.
[140:37] >> And it was clear that despite being
[140:40] incredibly attractive, incredibly
[140:41] accomplished
[140:43] and s athlete,
[140:45] >> was questioning her own value, this is
[140:49] very evo evolutionary biology, because
[140:51] the guys that were approaching her were
[140:53] in her mind very quote unquote low
[140:56] value, unattractive. Ah,
[140:57] >> it it like got to her, you know. Of
[140:59] course, my interpretation was, "Okay,
[141:01] guys, the next time a really attractive
[141:03] woman walks up to you and seems like
[141:05] she's chatting you up,
[141:06] >> you don't know that it's actually about
[141:08] you, you know, you know, like just know
[141:10] that it may not be about you." Like,
[141:12] like note to self. And what's wild is
[141:15] that years later I observed and talked
[141:19] to someone in a basically same dynamic,
[141:22] >> but she's married and she said, "Yeah,
[141:25] if a bunch of people hit people always
[141:27] hit on this this other woman, too."
[141:28] She's like, "If they do that,
[141:31] >> I sort of feel like I have to go kind of
[141:33] um get a clear perception again of
[141:35] whether or not I could be with an
[141:37] attractive guy." And now granted, she's
[141:39] married to a super successful, what
[141:42] anyone, male or female, would describe
[141:44] as super good-look guy,
[141:46] >> and they have a super stable family. And
[141:47] I thought to myself,
[141:49] >> "Oh my god." And I don't know that this
[141:51] is unique to women. I don't know. But
[141:53] it's kind of weird if you think about
[141:55] it. Now, it could be their unique
[141:57] insecurity, but it's like if data start
[141:59] coming in,
[142:01] >> let's flip it. date. If a lot of really
[142:03] attractive people of the opposite sex
[142:05] start talking to you, whoever's
[142:07] listening to this
[142:08] >> that you perhaps start to wonder if
[142:11] something
[142:12] >> important is going on there. There's
[142:14] information there. I just would like you
[142:15] to reflect on this. I've been perplexed
[142:17] by it for a long time. In some sense, it
[142:19] makes total sense,
[142:20] >> but as a scientist, I've learned, yeah,
[142:22] but
[142:23] >> just like like what's really going on
[142:25] here? I think the part of the story
[142:28] that's the most headscratching is that
[142:31] they're in relationships. So shouldn't
[142:34] they
[142:35] >> in the second case?
[142:35] >> Yeah. In the second case. So shouldn't
[142:38] they be getting the feedback
[142:40] that's positive on a regular basis?
[142:43] Anyway, let's for the sake of argument
[142:45] just assume that she was. So she was
[142:48] getting positive feedback at home and
[142:50] yet the experience of having less
[142:53] appealing men come up to her led her to
[142:56] feel like I need to do something to
[142:57] reaffirm my
[142:58] >> I think it was a question am I losing it
[143:00] was the was kind of the language that
[143:01] came up am I losing it whatever it was
[143:04] >> one of the reasons that scientifically I
[143:07] am out here like questioning the
[143:10] usefulness of the made value construct
[143:13] is because I know that people of quote
[143:15] unquote low value can have absolutely
[143:17] fantastic relationships and people of
[143:19] quote unquote high value can have
[143:21] absolutely terrible relationship.
[143:23] >> I observed that many many times. Sure.
[143:25] >> There you go. So that happens all the
[143:28] time.
[143:29] I think one of the strongest uh most uh
[143:33] like resonant things that made value
[143:36] does for us or the way that we
[143:37] experience it most acutely is indeed in
[143:41] the attention we get from strangers and
[143:43] or the junior high type scenarios that
[143:46] we talked about. So that we do have a
[143:50] level of attractiveness and it changes
[143:52] as we age. There is a consensus out
[143:55] there about how desirable we are. And
[143:58] that consensus is not going to stay
[144:00] exactly where it is. It's going to
[144:01] shift. And you might be in a
[144:02] relationship and be very happy with the
[144:04] person who unambiguously
[144:07] thinks you're a 10. And yet still
[144:09] wonder, what does everybody else think?
[144:11] Like do they think I'm a seven? Do they
[144:13] think I'm a four? What has happened to
[144:15] me? So I totally get that. That
[144:18] experience of how am I coming across to
[144:21] the world? Is it less than I thought it
[144:23] was? And that the only great information
[144:26] that you have is how strangers respond
[144:28] to you. It's sort of a funny way of
[144:31] flipping all of this stuff around
[144:33] because again, as a relationships
[144:35] researcher, my bias is always your
[144:39] husband thinks you're a 10. You think
[144:41] he's a 10. You won the lottery. Like
[144:43] that's it. You did it. But I
[144:46] acknowledge, yeah, there can be cases
[144:48] where we still wonder about what
[144:51] strangers think of us and it might
[144:53] matter to our sense of selfworth and
[144:55] sense of who we are. So, so I'm not
[144:57] going to judge it, but it is a
[144:59] fascinating flip of the way I typically
[145:01] think about these things.
[145:02] >> It makes me wonder whether that our um
[145:06] >> notions of self and this goes back to
[145:07] the what we were talking about before
[145:08] the Esther Prell thing and
[145:10] attractiveness that sort of boomerangs
[145:11] back into the relationship. something
[145:13] that's going to be uncomfortable for a
[145:14] lot of people to to hear, but at at some
[145:18] level all of it makes me wonder whether
[145:20] um there's a healthy
[145:21] compartmentalization
[145:23] >> that
[145:25] >> we could adopt as as a society. Which is
[145:28] not to say like anyone can be attracted
[145:30] to anyone and therefore commitment isn't
[145:32] real.
[145:33] >> Nor is it saying like okay when you're
[145:34] in a committed relationship it's it's a
[145:36] complete black box. Right. Right.
[145:38] Because there is this thing called the
[145:40] internet and there's this thing called
[145:41] the human psyche and you study it and
[145:43] around these issues. But maybe it's if
[145:46] people understood that those are two
[145:47] different things.
[145:49] >> Yeah.
[145:49] >> Sometimes we refer to it like as the
[145:51] shiny object,
[145:52] >> but that that's a an aspect of self or
[145:55] it's an aspect of of wanting that's not
[145:58] it's not not real. It's real, but that
[146:03] maybe there's a way to compartmentalize
[146:05] it so that it's has the potential to be
[146:07] toxic to relationship. Yeah.
[146:08] >> But acknowledging that it's real, that
[146:10] it's part of our wiring
[146:13] >> might diffuse some of its power.
[146:15] >> Like I said, some of these couples that
[146:16] are like, "Oh, yeah." Like, what's the
[146:18] the phrase couples have where they're
[146:19] like, "Oh, you get a it's like a hall
[146:21] pass."
[146:21] >> Oh, yeah.
[146:22] >> Which is never going to happen, right?
[146:23] She's like, you know, so and so, you
[146:25] know, my wife gets a hall my I get a
[146:27] hall pass with cuz basically it's never
[146:28] going to happen, right? So, it's not
[146:30] really a hall pass. It's a it's a it's a
[146:32] hall pass that uh exists in this
[146:34] alternate universe where um the other
[146:36] person could actually sleep with
[146:38] someone.
[146:39] >> Be careful with the hall notion because
[146:41] I don't know where that could lead. I'm
[146:42] not suggesting
[146:44] >> not a protocol I suggest. Not a protocol
[146:46] I suggest.
[146:48] >> But um it's kind of interesting because
[146:50] uh the parallel that comes to mind is
[146:53] you know if you're in Los Angeles long
[146:54] enough you get to know some people who
[146:56] are actors. Yeah. And from time to time,
[146:58] you'll run into somebody, male or
[147:00] female, who is who was a spectacular
[147:02] actor, had an amazing run on a comedy
[147:05] series or movies, and they're no longer
[147:08] working. And it is a
[147:11] >> biodal distribution. People who are
[147:14] happy and content and focusing on their
[147:15] life and can see that was the younger,
[147:18] more attractive,
[147:21] >> working,
[147:22] funny, sexy, whatever. And this is men
[147:27] and women versus the like tortured
[147:31] I'm not getting work, the work is not as
[147:34] good as it used to be. I mean there it's
[147:36] like and I've seen this with people who
[147:37] had uh fame young for other reasons in
[147:40] sports and things like that and they are
[147:42] crushed.
[147:43] >> And so what you want to say is like just
[147:46] realize that you have this awesome
[147:49] aspect of self that doesn't live in you
[147:51] right now anymore, but it's still you.
[147:53] Like you got that.
[147:54] >> Yeah. You know, I think there's a
[147:56] similarity here. Like if people just be
[147:57] like, I've got everything I need and I'm
[148:00] good because yeah, that other stuff
[148:01] exists and I feel good about it. Not
[148:03] like I'm gonna pretend it doesn't exist.
[148:04] Seems like they could be a very
[148:05] functional way to move through life for
[148:07] people who have this insecurity. I
[148:10] totally agree. And in fact, I'll even go
[148:12] a step further, which is to say, I try.
[148:16] I don't always succeed, but I try to
[148:18] think this way about relationships that
[148:21] have come and gone, too. Because I think
[148:25] there's a real tendency I mean I was
[148:28] going to say in our culture but it might
[148:30] be a lot of cultures to see like past
[148:34] relationships that have ended and I'll
[148:36] even put divorces in this category to
[148:38] look back and say I failed. And I think
[148:42] people reinforce this even
[148:43] unintentionally. You know you you go
[148:46] through a breakup a dating breakup and
[148:48] people say I'm so sorry. I know what
[148:50] that's like. come over and have some ice
[148:52] cream. You go through a divorce and
[148:54] people say, "Well, what happened?"
[148:56] Because they're trying to make sure that
[148:58] it doesn't happen to them because
[149:00] they're interpreting it as a failure.
[149:03] And boy, I think if we give each other a
[149:05] little bit of grace and see it all as,
[149:08] yeah, that was a thing that happened. It
[149:10] was real. It mattered in that moment.
[149:14] Things happened along the way. It it it
[149:16] didn't work out. I changed. You changed.
[149:18] like being able to accept that like all
[149:21] of those things are real and have or had
[149:25] value. You know, I'd love to try to
[149:28] encourage people to do that. I know like
[149:30] there's so many people out there right
[149:31] now who are like, "Yeah, but my ex is a
[149:33] dick." And I I'm with you. I totally get
[149:37] that. And to the extent that there's any
[149:40] ability to hold these two thoughts in
[149:42] mind simultaneously, I think it's good.
[149:45] >> My girlfriend and I have a rule. We
[149:46] don't have many rules. One of the rules
[149:48] is we don't talk negatively about anyone
[149:50] else that we've ever been with.
[149:52] >> We we
[149:54] were very comfortable with the fact that
[149:55] we've had previous relationships because
[149:57] early on we realize that like in the end
[150:00] like that's all about our choices. So
[150:02] it's kind of a crazy argument. Um and uh
[150:06] and she said something beautiful. She
[150:07] said like I'm grateful to all the good
[150:09] and bad things that you've had to
[150:11] experience regardless of you know and I
[150:13] said the same to her because the
[150:15] relationship is great and we bring that
[150:17] >> and I do think it was built on the
[150:19] trials and tribulations and great things
[150:21] you know now I'm careful to not ask too
[150:23] many questions and she's careful to ask
[150:25] not ask too many we we actually have um
[150:27] uh selective uh ignorance around around
[150:30] certain we just like I don't care like I
[150:33] genuinely don't
[150:34] >> go down certain lines of inquiry and she
[150:36] doesn't either. And I think it's great.
[150:38] >> I think it's great. I think it's uh it
[150:40] sets up like a you're the we're here
[150:42] now. This is time move from now forward
[150:44] and where it goes we determine that. But
[150:47] but histories are real
[150:48] >> and I have always admired I have a few
[150:50] friends that um paired up
[150:53] >> very early and they went through all
[150:54] these developmental milestones together,
[150:56] first jobs, some even graduate college
[150:59] as couples, kids, you know, all this
[151:01] stuff. And there's something really
[151:03] beautiful about people that you you have
[151:06] a long developmental trajectory to big
[151:09] milestones that they reach together.
[151:10] Nowadays, people are pairing up later.
[151:12] They're getting divorced and remarrying.
[151:14] It's harder to build a common narrative,
[151:16] >> right?
[151:16] >> Is there any data about common narrative
[151:20] good or bad like we went through a lot
[151:23] can be building as well. Is time
[151:25] together a factor? Like when you control
[151:28] for everything else, is duration of
[151:30] relationship
[151:31] an indicator of sort of quality and
[151:35] satisfaction of relationship?
[151:36] >> So if we're looking strictly at
[151:39] relationship duration,
[151:42] honestly, on average, it tends to be a
[151:46] bad sign. In other words, wait a second.
[151:49] Staying together is bad.
[151:50] >> Yeah. No, no, it just means that like
[151:52] that over time people were the happiest
[151:55] early on in their relationship than they
[151:58] are today. Right. It actually kind of a
[152:01] bummer. Um
[152:02] >> can you just break up and get back
[152:03] together a bunch?
[152:03] >> Yeah. Right. Okay.
[152:04] >> We don't study that. We should um that
[152:07] might have some problems volunteering.
[152:09] >> Yeah. But let me say this. the the
[152:11] narrative,
[152:13] right? The idea that we experienced a
[152:16] lot, that we grew, that we faced all
[152:18] these obstacles, that is huge. So, it's
[152:21] so so literal time is not the best
[152:25] metric to capture, I think, the essence
[152:28] of what you're getting at. It's a sense
[152:30] that like we were in this together and
[152:31] that we had a shared story. This is also
[152:34] why breakups are so hard because not
[152:38] only are you often losing a source of
[152:41] support, perhaps for men it might be
[152:43] more likely to be their only source of
[152:45] support. Not only um do you have to face
[152:49] the possibility of getting back out
[152:51] there, but you're also losing the
[152:54] continuity with yourself. you're losing
[152:57] the stories and the narratives that
[152:59] you've built with this other person and
[153:01] all of those memories and all of those
[153:03] components.
[153:04] >> Well, I think that's why it can feel
[153:06] like a failure because there's this
[153:09] understandable and I think very
[153:10] desirable wish that the
[153:13] >> it's like a novel. It's going to have a
[153:14] beginning, a middle, and an end
[153:16] >> and the end is death.
[153:18] >> Like we're going to till death do us
[153:19] part. That is written into the script,
[153:21] right? And so I think if it ends early,
[153:23] I think a lot of people don't know how
[153:25] to integrate it into their life story.
[153:27] >> Yeah.
[153:28] >> The evolutionary biology part, which
[153:30] seems very real to me,
[153:31] >> is that all we have is time and energy.
[153:35] Yeah.
[153:35] >> And when we invest,
[153:38] >> time is running. There's no doover,
[153:40] right?
[153:41] >> You know, there's no doover. So I think
[153:43] that people carry a lot of resent about
[153:45] the time lost.
[153:46] >> Yeah. and and the energy and the
[153:47] investments that you put into it. But
[153:49] and I think I think it's useful to think
[153:52] about those investments as being about
[153:54] like self and story
[153:58] and that to the extent that you can use
[154:02] it as an opportunity to like whether
[154:05] it's like reinvent or recreate or you
[154:07] know you preserve some of the parts of
[154:08] yourself from the prior relationship but
[154:10] maybe not all the prior parts of
[154:12] yourself. there are some things that
[154:13] you'd rather let go. To the extent that
[154:16] you can hold on to the good parts of the
[154:19] story, the parts that you want to
[154:21] remember, that you want to keep, it' be
[154:22] so painful when you're going through the
[154:24] breakup in the first place that I think
[154:26] a lot of times people just want to like
[154:27] take all of it, put it in a box, and get
[154:29] rid of it. Definitely throw away the
[154:31] photos at some point.
[154:32] >> Yeah. Yeah. Although, although now
[154:34] everything's, you know, in the cloud,
[154:36] it's very, very challenging.
[154:38] Hypothalamus versus forebrain. Does the
[154:41] good primitive stuff,
[154:43] >> meaning,
[154:44] >> yep,
[154:44] >> sexual attractiveness, outweigh the
[154:47] ability to think about how great someone
[154:49] is? Ideally, there's both.
[154:51] >> Yeah.
[154:51] >> But the good lover beats stated
[154:54] preferences model.
[154:56] >> Yeah.
[154:56] >> Is something that,
[154:57] >> okay,
[154:58] >> you've talked about before. In other
[155:00] words, is the real glue in a long-term
[155:04] relationship
[155:06] some form of physical intimacy that in
[155:09] or put differently, can we think and
[155:11] talk our way perhaps to ourselves?
[155:14] >> Yeah.
[155:15] >> Forward through a relationship that
[155:17] doesn't have that physical intimacy.
[155:19] Usually, you will see that things like
[155:21] sexual satisfaction or sexual desire for
[155:23] your partner are going to be pretty
[155:26] tightly related to how you feel about
[155:29] the relationship in general. It's an
[155:33] important component. I wouldn't say it's
[155:35] an essential component or even the
[155:38] central component for many people, but
[155:41] for other people it certainly can be.
[155:44] And I again I do believe in the church
[155:48] of Esther Pel which is that there are
[155:51] ways of recultivating
[155:53] sexual feelings about somebody that
[155:55] actually our sexual feelings about
[155:56] somebody. It's not like a switch where
[155:59] it's just on or it's off and we know
[156:01] just when we look at them that sometimes
[156:03] it's about the things we're talking
[156:05] about the time we spend together or the
[156:07] time that we spend apart and that that
[156:10] can be rekindling in various ways. So I
[156:12] think the key thing for me is not to
[156:16] engage in fatalism about the sexual
[156:21] desire component. That when like the
[156:23] when the passion fades in a
[156:26] relationship,
[156:27] that doesn't mean that it's gone
[156:29] forever. It might not be something that
[156:32] you feel like every day at 7:00 p.m.
[156:35] anymore. It might be the kind of thing
[156:38] that that comes to the four in certain
[156:40] circumstances or when you're not totally
[156:43] exhausted.
[156:44] I think that's okay. And a lot of
[156:46] relationships can absolutely thrive
[156:49] under those circumstances. And you can
[156:51] push it to extremes, too, where it's
[156:53] like, "My partner hasn't been sexually
[156:55] attracted to me in, you know, years and
[156:58] years." Like, that's going to be tough.
[157:00] And part of the reason that's tough is
[157:02] because you don't have the sexual
[157:03] intimacy. But also part of the reason
[157:04] it's tough is cuz it's making me feel
[157:06] terrible about myself. So these things
[157:09] all like cascade in various negative
[157:11] ways, but I think they can also be be
[157:14] helped in ways too that you know that
[157:16] engage some of these more, you know, the
[157:19] parts of our brains that at least we're
[157:20] more uh aware of and and have some
[157:23] agency over.
[157:25] >> So is it true that sexual attractiveness
[157:28] that rating the person's uh a person
[157:30] rating their partner as a quote unquote
[157:32] good lover is
[157:34] among the strongest predictors of how
[157:36] positively they feel about their partner
[157:39] because that's that I I really
[157:40] appreciate your answer, but I I want to
[157:42] make sure that if that's true, that
[157:44] comes comes through because what I'm
[157:46] hearing is yes, it can those feelings
[157:49] can uh wax and wayne and yes, life
[157:51] circumstances and raising kids and job
[157:53] and stress. Yes. Yes. And yes, I think
[157:56] uh everyone including me acknowledges
[157:57] that. But this idea that it's not
[158:01] important after a certain stage or that
[158:04] a really healthy romantic relationship
[158:06] can exist without that. What I'm hearing
[158:08] is the data
[158:10] >> point in the other direction.
[158:10] >> No, that is absolutely correct. the the
[158:13] subjective sense that and that's exactly
[158:15] the wording that we use the subjective
[158:18] sense that like this person that I am
[158:21] with or or this person that in that
[158:24] study we have people who are in
[158:25] relationships but we also have people
[158:27] who are reporting on like just folks
[158:29] that they're initially attracted to. But
[158:31] in both it actually doesn't really
[158:33] matter. In both cases, feeling like this
[158:36] person is a good lover or likely to be a
[158:39] good lover in the case of the attraction
[158:40] scenarios is a very very good sign for
[158:44] how positively you feel about the
[158:46] relationship in general and whether you
[158:48] want the relationship to continue it.
[158:51] But again, it's that it's that
[158:52] subjective sense and that's that's kind
[158:54] of where I'm getting to this component
[158:56] of like if if I start to feel like
[159:00] you're not a great lover, like that's
[159:02] going to rebound. So that then you don't
[159:04] feel desirable and it's going to sort of
[159:06] cascade in all of these negative ways.
[159:08] >> All seems to converge on it's an
[159:10] important feature of romantic
[159:11] relationships to cultivate protect from
[159:15] you know Yeah. And you describe some to
[159:17] me surprising um
[159:20] >> you know I I I think for some reason it
[159:22] it makes total sense and yet it's
[159:23] surprising that this kind of energy from
[159:25] the outside can
[159:27] >> provide positive support to the
[159:28] relationship. Um, but Esther said it,
[159:31] excuse me, has said it and others have
[159:33] said it. So,
[159:35] >> very interesting. Final question. Sounds
[159:37] like a game show. Final question. Um,
[159:40] >> billion dollar question.
[159:41] >> Your course on this topic and related
[159:43] topics is incredibly popular for obvious
[159:46] reasons. It's super interesting topic. I
[159:48] mean at at the end of the day like our
[159:50] species evolved through these dynamics
[159:52] you know it it wasn't all like you know
[159:55] club the the lion you know gather food
[159:58] make it was there was a lot of dynamics
[160:00] I always chuckle when people say like
[160:02] you know stress is a holdover from when
[160:04] we were being hunted by saber-tooth type
[160:07] no that's complete like nonsense it was
[160:10] also there for when your spouse went
[160:13] hunting for the day or gathering and you
[160:15] didn't know if they were going to come
[160:16] back or they came back after sundown
[160:17] when normally They're there at sundown
[160:18] and it's for when your baby was sick.
[160:19] Like this notion that like stress was
[160:21] only about pation. Like so it's just so
[160:24] stupid. I'd like to uh have words with
[160:26] whoever came up with that. It's so dumb.
[160:28] It makes no it's not true.
[160:30] >> What are the questions that students are
[160:33] asking most often nowadays? Because I
[160:36] realize that as a, you know, 50-year-old
[160:38] male, uh, I suffer from a number of
[160:40] different delusions about relationships
[160:43] as it is for people in their 20s.
[160:47] uh 30s now. Um and maybe for everybody
[160:52] because we're all in our own experience.
[160:54] But I think even though the college
[160:56] classroom is not a perfect sample by any
[160:58] stretch presumably there a lot of
[161:00] different people in there.
[161:01] >> Yeah.
[161:02] >> Men, women, right? Some are most are
[161:05] probably straight, some are gay on
[161:06] average 2%. Like you're going to get a
[161:08] lot of questions. What are the big
[161:09] questions that that people seem to want
[161:11] answered that
[161:14] you're just hearing over and over again
[161:16] that are both in the direction of like
[161:19] this is a challenge but also like what's
[161:21] going right out there? Is anything going
[161:23] right?
[161:23] >> I think most of the questions are about
[161:27] like like there is often an assumption
[161:29] that like
[161:31] >> yeah but these days
[161:34] it's so screwed up like that's what
[161:36] they're saying.
[161:36] >> Yeah. like the I mean you just have this
[161:39] undercurrent. It's almost like and I
[161:41] worry about this sometimes that when I
[161:43] teach the science on these topics
[161:46] there's a general sense of okay but that
[161:48] this is science from the before times
[161:50] like what like today
[161:53] when the the apps have have controlled
[161:56] everything and like nobody goes out
[161:58] anymore like what are we supposed to do
[162:02] and sometimes I fall back on the well
[162:07] look like these these groups and things
[162:09] like we were talking about these clubs.
[162:11] They're still out there. You can still
[162:12] get out there and meet people.
[162:14] >> Activities.
[162:14] >> Yeah. Activities like through these
[162:16] avenues. They tend to work pretty well.
[162:19] And at the same time, I have to
[162:21] acknowledge that the generations are
[162:23] going to change and these folks
[162:26] experiences will be different than the
[162:29] experiences that my generation had. So I
[162:33] think in many ways this ends up being
[162:35] the challenge to like to convey the
[162:38] science to folks but also do it in a way
[162:40] that shows that you're being responsive
[162:42] and aware of the fact that any
[162:44] generation feels like but things have
[162:46] changed now and sometimes it takes a
[162:48] while to know like what has really
[162:50] changed. I do think that these students
[162:53] go out less often. I think they drink
[162:55] less often. I think they are they aren't
[162:58] spending time socializing in the same
[163:00] way and they're interfacing more with
[163:01] technology that's probably helping some
[163:04] people and it's probably really making
[163:06] it hard for some other people and so um
[163:09] you know I try to like live the example
[163:12] of hey like I spent time hanging out
[163:14] with people in groups and it was hard
[163:16] and I got rejected and you know my high
[163:18] school girlfriend dumped me but I ended
[163:20] up doing okay and um I hope that other
[163:24] people can like resonate with that
[163:26] message in my glasses.
[163:27] >> Love it. And I'm also hearing um perhaps
[163:31] don't just sign up for something, but be
[163:33] the person who organizes it.
[163:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. I love this. I love this.
[163:36] >> Like you can throw a picnic or a party
[163:39] and uh
[163:40] >> when I was a graduate student at Davis,
[163:42] uh I often didn't make it cuz I was in
[163:44] lab, but um every Friday there was a
[163:47] pickup beach volleyball game.
[163:49] >> Oh, that's fantastic. And then people
[163:50] would go to uh there was a Thai
[163:53] restaurant that was that was also a bar.
[163:56] >> That night sometimes ended the next
[163:58] morning. There was a tattoo shop right
[164:00] across the street that closed called
[164:01] American Graffiti.
[164:02] >> Oh yeah.
[164:03] >> Yeah. That some people got tattoos.
[164:06] Do not recommend and definitely don't
[164:08] get tattooed drunk. Probably don't even
[164:10] get Do what you want. But um but but it
[164:13] was every Friday and there was only one
[164:15] rule which is that you had to at least
[164:18] attempt to do the kind of like bump set
[164:22] approach to beach volleyball. You
[164:23] couldn't just hit it across
[164:25] >> and it didn't matter how bad you were,
[164:28] you know,
[164:29] >> you had to do the three
[164:30] >> and then everyone would go Thai food.
[164:32] >> Some people would have
[164:34] >> drinks if they drank. Somebody would
[164:35] have a lot of drinks they definitely
[164:36] drank.
[164:37] >> It's just a really cool thing. Anyone
[164:39] could come.
[164:39] >> Yeah. Things like that happened a lot
[164:42] and it took like zero planning. It was
[164:44] an email that basically just went out
[164:46] and no one person was in charge. It was
[164:48] just kind of in the collective. Yeah.
[164:50] >> They did uh like cooking competition
[164:52] things where
[164:54] >> you'd meet at someone's house and
[164:55] everyone would have to bring like a
[164:57] particular dish and then everyone would
[164:58] try them. And I had no time in graduate
[165:01] school. I was working all the time. I
[165:02] would make time for these things
[165:03] occasionally and they were a lot of fun.
[165:05] Like these things are super easy to do.
[165:07] Yeah,
[165:07] >> you don't have to have any real athletic
[165:09] ability or cooking ability, trust me.
[165:11] Um, it I just feel like there's so much
[165:14] opportunity for that, but the barrier
[165:17] must be really there for people if
[165:19] they're not doing these things cuz I
[165:21] think it was just reflexive.
[165:22] >> Technology
[165:24] has a pull.
[165:26] >> Um, and we can say it's the phones. Um,
[165:30] but we could also say that it's whatever
[165:32] is on your TV. I mean, there's lots of
[165:34] reasons these days for people to stay in
[165:37] that just weren't there 20 to 30 years
[165:40] ago. I'd hope that the message would
[165:43] resonate like you know gang like like
[165:46] these whether it's the entertainment
[165:49] companies or the apps they're they're
[165:51] trying to keep you away from real
[165:54] socialization. Young people, don't you
[165:56] like rebelling and stuff? Rebel against
[165:58] this, you know. Exactly. Like form these
[166:01] groups. go out and meet people again in
[166:03] person. I think it's coming back.
[166:06] >> I I really do. I I think the pand I
[166:08] think it's like it was like a long
[166:10] pandemic hangover where we we just kind
[166:13] of forgot this part of our social
[166:16] architecture, but but it's coming back.
[166:18] It it didn't go anywhere. We're still
[166:20] social creatures and we also have these
[166:23] great frontal loes. And even if you
[166:24] don't feel like going out and
[166:26] interacting with people, you can kind of
[166:28] nudge yourself to do it. Um, and I I
[166:30] think uh I think that's pretty
[166:32] fantastic. Thank you so much for the
[166:34] work you do. It's very brave. It's very
[166:37] brave because it runs right up against
[166:39] some long-standing theories of which I,
[166:42] you know, I I still think very highly of
[166:44] of a good fraction of the evolutionary
[166:46] biology and psychology literature. I now
[166:49] have to filter it through these new
[166:51] findings. Um, but you've created your
[166:54] own new field basically. uh which is of
[166:57] course why your book which we'll provide
[166:59] a link to um and your work is is so
[167:02] popular and and it I love the optimism
[167:04] that it shines into every interaction.
[167:06] I'm sure people picked up on that that
[167:08] you're not a doom and gloom guy, you're
[167:10] a solutions guy. Really appreciate your
[167:13] time here. Um many people will thank you
[167:16] both those in relationship. you learn
[167:18] some things to, you know, armor your
[167:20] relationship, understand your
[167:22] relationship better yourself, and uh and
[167:24] for those who are who are seeking
[167:26] partners or who are just observing the
[167:28] world around them and are content where
[167:29] they're at, um they're going to benefit.
[167:31] So, thank you so much. Really appreciate
[167:33] you.
[167:33] >> Thank you so much for having me.
[167:36] >> Thank you for joining me for today's
[167:37] discussion with Dr. Paul Eastwick. To
[167:39] learn more about his work and to find a
[167:41] link to his book, Bonded by Evolution:
[167:43] The New Science of Love and Connection,
[167:45] please see the links in the show notes
[167:47] caption. If you're learning from andor
[167:49] enjoying this podcast, please subscribe
[167:50] to our YouTube channel. That's a
[167:52] terrific zerocost way to support us. In
[167:54] addition, please follow the podcast by
[167:56] clicking the follow button on both
[167:58] Spotify and Apple. And on both Spotify
[168:00] and Apple, you can leave us up to a
[168:01] five-star review. And you can now leave
[168:04] us comments at both Spotify and Apple.
[168:06] Please also check out the sponsors
[168:07] mentioned at the beginning and
[168:08] throughout today's episode. That's the
[168:10] best way to support this podcast. If you
[168:13] have questions for me or comments about
[168:14] the podcast or guests or topics that
[168:16] you'd like me to consider for the
[168:17] Huberman Lab podcast, please put those
[168:19] in the comment section on YouTube. I do
[168:21] read all the comments. For those of you
[168:23] that haven't heard, I have a new book
[168:25] coming out. It's my very first book.
[168:27] It's entitled Protocols: An Operating
[168:29] Manual for the Human Body. This is a
[168:31] book that I've been working on for more
[168:32] than five years and that's based on more
[168:34] than 30 years of research and
[168:36] experience. And it covers protocols for
[168:38] everything from sleep to exercise to
[168:41] stress control protocols related to
[168:43] focus and motivation. And of course, I
[168:45] provide the scientific substantiation
[168:48] for the protocols that are included. The
[168:50] book is now available by pre-sale at
[168:52] protocolsbook.com.
[168:54] There you can find links to various
[168:56] vendors. You can pick the one that you
[168:57] like best. Again, the book is called
[168:59] Protocols, an operating manual for the
[169:01] human body. And if you're not already
[169:03] following me on social media, I am
[169:05] Huberman Lab on all social media
[169:07] platforms. So that's Instagram, X,
[169:09] Threads, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And on
[169:12] all those platforms, I discuss science
[169:13] and science related tools, some of which
[169:15] overlaps with the content of the
[169:16] Huberman Lab podcast, but much of which
[169:18] is distinct from the information on the
[169:20] Huberman Lab podcast. Again, it's
[169:22] Huberman Lab on all social media
[169:24] platforms. And if you haven't already
[169:25] subscribed to our neural network
[169:27] newsletter, the neural network
[169:28] newsletter is a zerocost monthly
[169:30] newsletter that includes podcast
[169:32] summaries as well as what we call
[169:33] protocols in the form of 1 to three-page
[169:35] PDFs that cover everything from how to
[169:38] optimize your sleep, how to optimize
[169:39] dopamine, deliberate cold exposure. We
[169:41] have a foundational fitness protocol
[169:43] that covers cardiovascular training and
[169:45] resistance training. All of that is
[169:47] available completely zero cost. You
[169:49] simply go to hubmanlab.com, go to the
[169:51] menu tab in the top right corner, scroll
[169:53] down to newsletter, and enter your
[169:54] email. And I should emphasize that we do
[169:56] not share your email with anybody. Thank
[169:58] you once again for joining me for
[170:00] today's discussion with Dr. Paul
[170:01] Eastwick. And last, but certainly not
[170:04] least, thank you for your interest in
[170:06] science.