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

[00:00] When you look at who gets the right

[00:02] swipes and who receives messages on the

[00:05] apps, it's the most popular people. I

[00:08] mean, folks have claimed that it's one

[00:10] of the most unequal markets in the

[00:12] world, but regular acquaintance is not

[00:16] nearly so dramatic. I don't think the

[00:19] influence of attractiveness ever goes

[00:21] away, right? There's always going to be

[00:23] an unlevel playing field to some extent,

[00:26] but the more that people spend time

[00:28] together getting to know each other, it

[00:31] reduces some of those market forces that

[00:34] give the desirable people all the

[00:36] advantages.

[00:38] Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast,

[00:40] where we discuss science and

[00:42] science-based tools for everyday life.

[00:47] I'm Andrew Huberman and I'm a professor

[00:49] of neurobiology and opthalmology at

[00:51] Stanford School of Medicine. My guest

[00:53] today is Dr. Paul Eastwick, a professor

[00:55] of psychology at the University of

[00:57] California, Davis. Today we discuss the

[00:59] science of attraction, mate selection,

[01:01] and relationships. And I promise you

[01:03] what you are going to hear will surprise

[01:05] you. Paul's research has discovered that

[01:07] much of what you've heard about how

[01:08] people select partners, date, form

[01:11] relationships, even break up or

[01:13] repartner is simply wrong. At least when

[01:15] you look at the actual data. For

[01:17] example, his data show that both men and

[01:20] women when given a choice select

[01:22] partners that are younger than them.

[01:24] Yes, you heard that right. It's not just

[01:26] men. Men and women equally select

[01:28] partners that are younger than them

[01:29] given the choice. His data also

[01:31] challenged the idea that financial

[01:33] status is more important to women when

[01:35] looking for male partners. Turns out

[01:37] that when men are looking for female

[01:38] partners, on average, financial status

[01:41] is as important as it is when women are

[01:43] looking for men. And somewhat less

[01:45] surprising, his work shows that indeed

[01:47] dating apps select for qualities that

[01:49] are not the ones that research shows

[01:51] builds lasting partnerships. But he also

[01:53] offers solutions to those that are using

[01:55] dating apps to try and find a partner.

[01:57] Today's discussion is not just about

[01:59] finding a partner. It's also about what

[02:01] solidifies and maintains healthy

[02:03] relationships over time. Again, what the

[02:05] data say about that. Things like

[02:07] physical intimacy being among the very

[02:09] strongest predictors of relationship

[02:11] stability. As well as both partners

[02:13] feeling that no matter who else might be

[02:15] attractive to them, that their partner

[02:16] has unique qualities that no one else

[02:18] can match. So whether you are in a

[02:20] relationship or not, looking for a

[02:22] relationship or not, today's discussion

[02:24] gets into social bonding of all sorts

[02:27] and repeatedly throughout today's

[02:28] episode both as it relates to single

[02:31] people looking for a partner, people who

[02:32] are already partnered, we talk about the

[02:34] importance of activities that are done

[02:36] with other people, could be other

[02:37] couples or other single people, etc. And

[02:40] that this is critical for those wanting

[02:42] to meet a partner and it turns out to be

[02:44] critical for maintaining a healthy

[02:46] long-term relationship. We'll talk about

[02:48] what the data say about that. Super

[02:50] interesting. So today is not just about

[02:52] the real data of how people rate

[02:54] attractiveness, find partners, and the

[02:56] glue that keeps people happily together.

[02:58] It's about the real life data and the

[03:00] actions that anyone can take that help

[03:02] you build and sustain excellent romantic

[03:04] and other types of relationships. Before

[03:06] we begin, I'd like to emphasize that

[03:08] this podcast is separate from my

[03:09] teaching and research roles at Stanford.

[03:11] It is however part of my desire and

[03:13] effort to bring zero cost to consumer

[03:15] information about science and science

[03:16] related tools to the general public. In

[03:19] keeping with that theme, today's episode

[03:20] does include sponsors. And now for my

[03:23] discussion with Dr. Paul Eastwick. Dr.

[03:25] Paul Eastwick, welcome.

[03:27] >> Thank you so much for having me. A lot

[03:29] of theories out there, a lot of

[03:30] speculation about attraction, dating,

[03:34] romance, and relationships, which are

[03:36] separable things. Of course, we'll talk

[03:38] about all of them. But one of the

[03:40] semi-dominant themes in the public

[03:43] narrative and indeed on many podcasts is

[03:47] is kind of anchoring to evolutionary

[03:49] theory which to put it really coarsely

[03:53] sort of a market-based theory. You know

[03:55] people even say I married up or uh you

[03:57] know and people but quantitative

[03:59] measures on people they're a six they're

[04:01] a seven they're a 10 in this but a four

[04:04] in that. You know, as a neuroscientist,

[04:06] I hear that and I immediately go to, and

[04:09] again, this is just purely theoretical.

[04:12] >> Oh, this sounds very limbic. This is

[04:14] very much of like the hypothalamus. This

[04:16] is very much like the kind of thing that

[04:17] you might expect under conditions of

[04:19] like um low food availability,

[04:22] >> low mate availability, a lot of weapons

[04:24] and a few and very few laws, you know,

[04:26] to to regulate violence or something.

[04:28] Meaning men will will harm each other in

[04:31] order to get access to mates. women will

[04:33] um be deceptive. This is the whole idea.

[04:37] And you step back and you go, well,

[04:38] that's not the world we live in now. We

[04:40] have a forebrain. We can make choices.

[04:42] We can be strategic in the direction of

[04:44] benevolence. We can think about

[04:45] kindness. And so to me, it seems we need

[04:49] a revision or at least a better

[04:51] understanding of what's actually true in

[04:53] 2026 and forward. So, if you would, what

[04:56] are your thoughts about what is not true

[04:59] based on the data

[05:01] >> and perhaps what is true about this

[05:03] quote unquote evolutionary model of

[05:05] dating relationships and so on. The

[05:07] marketplace ideas, I think they

[05:10] definitely have their place and it deres

[05:14] from a a sensible evolutionary

[05:16] perspective like what you're describing.

[05:19] I think it describes well what happens

[05:22] in initial attraction settings when

[05:26] people are really meeting for the first

[05:28] time. There's this class demo that I do

[05:32] in my undergraduate classes. A lot of

[05:34] people use this demo and what you do is

[05:38] you have a bunch of your students put a

[05:40] number on their foreheads and they sort

[05:42] of hold it up so that they can't see it

[05:45] but other people can. and you tell the

[05:49] students your goal is to pair up with

[05:52] the highest value person that you can

[05:55] and you don't know what your number is,

[05:57] but I'm going to count to five and then

[05:59] I want you all to stroll around the room

[06:00] and try to make mating offers to folks.

[06:04] And what you see is that the people who

[06:06] have been randomly assigned a low

[06:07] number, they start to panic because what

[06:10] happens is that nobody will talk to

[06:13] them.

[06:13] >> And this is random. uh you know

[06:15] otherwise it would be very unethical and

[06:17] also who would decide but

[06:18] >> but people don't like it. I mean if you

[06:20] get a low number

[06:21] >> it's not an enjoyable experience

[06:24] >> and I think there is a parallel to what

[06:27] people are experiencing as they're

[06:29] growing up or maybe even if they're a

[06:31] little older and they're going to a

[06:33] party and they haven't met anybody

[06:34] there. So this is an analogy

[06:39] for how people internalize and you know

[06:43] act upon something that we call mate

[06:45] value and it's it's like what you

[06:47] describe. It's supposedly linked to

[06:49] traits that reflect your core

[06:52] desiraability like maybe your physical

[06:55] attractiveness but it could be other

[06:57] related traits too. It could be things

[06:59] like the size of your bank account or

[07:01] your status.

[07:02] What we tend to see is that when people

[07:05] are meeting for the first time, this is

[07:08] um a reasonable faximile of how people

[07:12] behave.

[07:13] But interesting things tend to happen

[07:17] when people get to know each other over

[07:19] a little bit more time. What then tends

[07:22] to happen is that that agreement that is

[07:26] required for that study to work. That

[07:28] study only works because you can read

[07:30] the numbers on people's foreheads. But

[07:33] if I were to blur that number, we

[07:35] wouldn't see as much pairing up. It

[07:37] wouldn't be as sad and as difficult for

[07:40] the people with low numbers. And in real

[07:42] life, that's kind of what tends to

[07:44] happen. We stop agreeing about who the

[07:47] eights are and who the fives are. And

[07:50] people might on average say that you're

[07:51] a six, but if I've gotten to know you

[07:53] over time, it means there's a chance I

[07:56] think you're a nine. There's also a

[07:58] chance I think you're a three. And so

[08:00] that increase in idiosyncrasy and

[08:04] variability, I think, is a really

[08:07] fortunate thing. And it's the thing

[08:09] that's going to allow a lot of partners

[08:12] to find each other uh even if they're

[08:14] not consensually the most desirable

[08:16] people. Consensually meaning in the eyes

[08:19] of others.

[08:20] >> Right. Right. Right. Right. So even if

[08:23] on average people think uh you're kind

[08:25] of middling with enough time people are

[08:29] more likely to find okay but okay you

[08:31] all think I'm a five but she thinks I'm

[08:33] a 10. And then what you're kind of

[08:35] crossing your fingers for are these

[08:36] moments where and I think she's a 10

[08:38] too. And it's this uh level of sort of

[08:42] disagreement or the emergence of what we

[08:45] might comp call compatibility that I

[08:47] think is it's been missing from the

[08:50] evolutionary narratives, but I think it

[08:52] plays a core part in explaining how

[08:55] couples get together as well. Wow. Um so

[08:58] many things come to mind. Uh the first

[09:00] thing that comes to mind is the

[09:02] question, you know, who and what are

[09:04] others looking at? Yeah, it seems like

[09:06] one of the more I want to use the word

[09:08] immature, but let's say less evolved,

[09:10] not in the evolutionary biology context,

[09:12] but kind of like life maturation sense,

[09:14] like less evolved aspects of self is

[09:16] when

[09:17] >> we are not thinking about what we

[09:19] actually like and don't like,

[09:21] >> but we're paying a lot of attention to

[09:22] what other people like and dislike as a

[09:25] barometer of what we should do or not

[09:27] do. Now, of course, that can be very

[09:29] informative in healthy ways, but when it

[09:32] really comes down to it, it's a

[09:34] potentially very toxic aspect of human

[09:37] nature, right? So, what I what I hear

[09:39] you saying is that at some point there's

[09:41] this kind of um dating, romance, and

[09:44] relational maturity that people come to

[09:47] where they're really able to sense what

[09:49] they actually like and they're able to

[09:52] put the blinders up to how other people

[09:54] are necessarily behaving. like are does

[09:57] everyone like this person? Do they not

[09:58] like this person? And the the words that

[10:00] come to mind, two words are junior high,

[10:03] >> like the junior high school dance for a

[10:05] number of reasons is kind of the first

[10:06] time, you know, most kids are starting

[10:08] to hit puberty or somewhere in puberty

[10:10] at that phase. And so there's a lot of

[10:11] recognition of others and

[10:13] >> kind of like who is cool, who's not

[10:15] cool, who's getting attention, who's not

[10:17] getting attention seems to surface first

[10:20] in junior high.

[10:21] >> Yeah.

[10:21] >> And admittedly, we're all pretty

[10:22] immature in junior high. Yeah. Exactly.

[10:24] So, has this been looked at in in a

[10:27] structured way? For instance, are there

[10:30] adults who are um good

[10:33] >> at ignoring what you you know what the

[10:36] consensus is? And are are they able to

[10:38] find mates and and set up relationships

[10:41] more readily than people who are paying

[10:42] a lot of attention to what other people

[10:44] like and don't like? Yes, I'm I am sure

[10:47] that there's considerable individual

[10:50] variability in how people react to

[10:54] what's going on around them. Sometimes

[10:56] you see this phenomenon called mate

[10:58] choice copying. But what that

[11:00] essentially means is that you know you

[11:03] kind of look to see who's attracted to

[11:05] somebody in my uh you know is everybody

[11:08] attracted to this person? Well, there

[11:10] must be some signal there. I'll sort of

[11:12] follow that.

[11:14] I totally agree. It it's a very junior

[11:17] high way of thinking about this whole

[11:19] process. But I think a lot of what is

[11:23] happening is that if people are spending

[11:26] time together and I I often go back to

[11:28] thinking about what is it like when

[11:31] we're hanging out in mixed gender groups

[11:33] if you're heterosexual.

[11:35] So we're spending time together and

[11:38] maybe for whatever reason I happen to

[11:41] spend more time with this person. we

[11:42] find something interesting to chat

[11:44] about. I see her reacting in situations

[11:47] that other people don't get to see. And

[11:50] so the particular time that I spend with

[11:53] her ends up being the material that I

[11:57] use that causes my opinion to diverge

[12:00] from everybody else's. So everybody else

[12:01] might be like, "She's not all that

[12:02] great." And I think, "But you weren't

[12:05] there when we were hanging out talking

[12:08] about, you know, some family challenges

[12:10] that I had. I'm trying to put myself

[12:12] back in like what were the things we

[12:14] would have been frustrated about in high

[12:15] school. But you know talking about like

[12:17] problems at school or problems with

[12:18] other friends like she was supportive

[12:21] and listened to me and then I was

[12:22] supportive and I listened to her and

[12:25] that reciprocity through a unique

[12:28] experience with another person. A lot of

[12:31] times this is where initial attraction

[12:33] comes from. It sounds a little squishy.

[12:36] It doesn't sound like the sexy form of

[12:39] attraction that we often think about,

[12:41] but what we see in our work is a lot of

[12:44] times this is how it happens. It it

[12:46] takes a little while, but attraction can

[12:49] form when two people spend that time

[12:52] together sort of pulling unique things

[12:54] out of each other. I'd like to take a

[12:57] quick break to acknowledge one of our

[12:59] sponsors, David. David makes protein

[13:02] bars unlike any other. Their newest bar,

[13:04] the Bronze Bar, has 20 gram of protein,

[13:07] only 150 calories, and zero gram of

[13:09] sugar. I have to say, these are the best

[13:12] tasting protein bars I've ever had, and

[13:14] I've tried a lot of protein bars over

[13:16] the years. These new David bars have a

[13:18] marshmallow base and they're covered in

[13:20] chocolate coating and they're absolutely

[13:23] incredible. I of course eat regular

[13:25] whole foods. I eat meat, chicken, fish,

[13:27] eggs, fruits, vegetables, etc. But I

[13:29] also make it a point to eat one or two

[13:31] David bars per day as a snack, which

[13:33] makes it easy to hit my protein goal of

[13:35] 1 gram of protein per pound of body

[13:36] weight. And that allows me to take in

[13:38] the protein I need without consuming

[13:40] excess calories. I love all the David

[13:42] Bronze Bar flavors, including cookie

[13:44] dough, caramel chocolate, double

[13:46] chocolate, peanut butter chocolate. They

[13:48] all actually taste like candy bars.

[13:50] Again, they're amazing. But again, they

[13:52] have no sugar and they have 20 gram of

[13:54] protein with just 150 calories. If you'd

[13:57] like to try David, you can go to

[13:58] davidprotein.com/huberman.

[14:01] Right now, David is offering a deal

[14:02] where if you buy four cartons, you get

[14:04] the fifth carton for free. You can also

[14:06] find David on Amazon or in stores such

[14:08] as Target, Walmart, and Kroger. Again,

[14:10] to get the fifth carton for free, go to

[14:12] davidproin.com/huberman.

[14:15] Today's episode is also brought to us by

[14:17] Lingo. Lingo is an everyday wearable

[14:19] that tracks your glucose 247. Glucose

[14:23] drives a lot of key processes that

[14:24] support energy, body composition, and

[14:27] long-term health. When glucose is

[14:29] constantly spiking and crashing, that's

[14:31] where we can start to see metabolic

[14:32] dysfunction. And over time, that can

[14:34] even progress to pre-diabetes. Right

[14:36] now, about 115 million adults in the US

[14:39] have pre-diabetes. Most don't know it,

[14:42] and a higher percentage of men have it

[14:44] than women do. Often, there aren't clear

[14:46] symptoms of pre-diabetes early on, so

[14:48] people don't tend to look into it. But

[14:50] the fact is that metabolic health is

[14:52] shaping how your body functions every

[14:53] day, whether you feel it or not.

[14:55] Tracking your glucose with Lingo can

[14:57] help you see how food, activity, and

[14:59] stress impact your glucose throughout

[15:01] the day. I personally have used Lingo,

[15:03] and it's been an invaluable tool for

[15:05] improving my metabolic health. If you

[15:07] would like to try Lingo, Hubberman Lab

[15:09] listeners in the US and UK can save 10%

[15:11] on a 4-week plan. Just visit

[15:14] hellolingo.com/huberman

[15:16] for more information. Terms and

[15:18] conditions apply. Again, that's

[15:19] hellingo.com/huberman.

[15:22] >> It's interesting. I'm thinking about um

[15:25] movies.

[15:26] >> Yeah.

[15:26] >> And um admittedly, I haven't seen that

[15:29] many romantic comedies, but there's some

[15:30] very there's some pretty awesome I've

[15:32] seen a few of them. Uh but there's some

[15:34] awesome movies about this issue.

[15:37] >> Yeah.

[15:37] >> And I'll offer some examples that will

[15:39] date myself, but

[15:42] >> that seem to fall into at least three

[15:43] bins.

[15:44] >> One is

[15:47] you're awesome. I'm awesome. Let's get

[15:50] together. All right. Nowadays, I think

[15:52] regardless of music taste, I think the

[15:54] kind of uh like royally celebrated

[15:57] couple is not a royal couple.

[15:59] Incidentally, I would say it's like the

[16:01] Taylor Swift

[16:02] >> Kelsey couple. People like people are

[16:04] like they're both winners. They're both

[16:06] super attractive. They're both super

[16:08] successful. And you know whether you

[16:10] like the Chiefs or you don't, whether or

[16:11] not you like her music or you don't,

[16:13] you're like, you're like they're like

[16:15] badass winners pairing up

[16:18] >> and it's very hard to say anything

[16:19] except like, wow, they totally quote

[16:21] unquote belong together, right? There's

[16:23] a sort of So there's that pairing and

[16:24] you can find that in movies and uh all

[16:26] the like ' 80s like um uh John Hughes

[16:29] movies centered around this like um and

[16:31] then broke that model. We'll go back to

[16:33] that. The other one would be Yeah. the

[16:35] breaking of that model. the like the

[16:37] it's this is very 80s but the kind of

[16:39] like the athlete you know pairs up with

[16:42] the nerd right okay now we nowadays we

[16:45] have athlete nerds and so it doesn't

[16:47] work quite as well

[16:48] >> and then the third model is the like

[16:50] well you're screwed up and I'm screwed

[16:51] up but we're really good people

[16:54] >> like you get true romance

[16:55] >> the movie True Romance which is an

[16:57] amazing movie right you know she was a

[17:00] >> you know not by her own choice

[17:01] apparently like she she's like I've been

[17:03] a prostitute for three call girl for

[17:04] three days and he's

[17:06] Well, I you know, someone paid for you

[17:08] to be on this date with me. They fall in

[17:09] love. They leave their

[17:10] >> professions, right? And they go and they

[17:12] go on this sort of semi-rime spree um

[17:16] that really uh demonstrates their

[17:18] immense love and devotion to one

[17:19] another. And the whole notion is like

[17:21] you're so cool. They both think the

[17:23] other person is super cool, don't care

[17:24] about their past, and kind of enjoy the

[17:26] fact that they're both kind of from

[17:29] >> uh hard scrabble backgrounds. So then

[17:31] there's that. And what's so different

[17:33] about that kind of model compared to

[17:36] like today where I hear because I so I

[17:39] don't have a lot to offer about personal

[17:40] experience on apps many years ago but

[17:42] it's been a while is this notion that

[17:44] like everyone you hear this everyone's

[17:46] competing for the same small number of

[17:48] people.

[17:48] >> So it seems like even those those three

[17:51] cliche models that are presented in a

[17:53] number of movies they exist. It's like

[17:57] since when did is everyone thinking that

[17:59] they're supposed to pair up with the

[18:01] same small number of people? This is

[18:04] like ridiculous. That's like saying

[18:05] everyone's supposed to like the same

[18:07] >> top three songs even though you might

[18:09] not even like that genre of music.

[18:11] That's that's um insanity.

[18:13] >> Yeah, the apps absolutely pull for this.

[18:17] So when you look at who gets the right

[18:21] swipes and who receives messages on the

[18:24] apps, it's the most popular people. I

[18:27] mean, folks have claimed that it's one

[18:28] of the most unequal markets in the

[18:31] world. I mean, it's basically a

[18:32] kleptocracy. The extent to which Yeah,

[18:35] kleptocracy, right? The extent to which

[18:36] it's skewed, right? That there's like,

[18:38] you know, the rich, quote unquote, who

[18:41] have all the, you know, who who get all

[18:43] the all the the right swipes at the top.

[18:46] But regular acquaintance is not nearly

[18:50] so dramatic. So, you know, one example

[18:54] that I like to use is that if our job

[18:57] was just to evaluate whether somebody

[19:00] standing in front of us was hot or not,

[19:02] and it was somebody that we like

[19:03] interacted with briefly

[19:06] and we're making just simple binary

[19:09] judgments, you and I are going to agree

[19:12] about like 2/3 of the time. So that's

[19:15] that's better than 50/50, but it's far

[19:18] from 100%. I I think actually that would

[19:20] surprise a lot of people. There's a

[19:21] reasonable amount of disagreement there.

[19:24] That's already starting to set the stage

[19:27] for us not necessarily pursuing the most

[19:31] appealing person because if there's

[19:33] disagreement, that means there's a

[19:35] chance that, well, you're going to go

[19:36] for this person, I'm going to go for

[19:37] that person, and it it levels out the

[19:41] playing field somewhat. I don't think

[19:44] the influence of attractiveness ever

[19:46] goes away, right? There's always going

[19:48] to be an unlevel playing field to some

[19:50] extent, but the more that people spend

[19:53] time together getting to know each

[19:55] other, it reduces some of those, you

[19:58] know, uh th those market forces that

[20:00] give the desirable people all the

[20:02] advantages.

[20:04] >> Yeah. The reason junior high school

[20:06] seemed so dreadful in my memory. I mean,

[20:09] I had a good time in junior high school,

[20:10] but it it was largely, at least for me,

[20:12] the fact that people in my peer group,

[20:16] cuz it was a pretty broad age range,

[20:17] were were still um among the guys were

[20:20] hitting puberty at different rates.

[20:21] >> Yeah.

[20:22] >> So, like a game of soccer that at one

[20:25] time was pretty even with respect to who

[20:28] could play well, like suddenly you're

[20:29] playing against what felt like a grown

[20:31] man. There's actually a kid in our town

[20:33] who I don't want to give up his name who

[20:35] I think he went on to I don't ever think

[20:37] he became a professional soccer player,

[20:38] but he was just

[20:39] >> he was like fully developed by the

[20:41] eighth grade. He was like facial hair

[20:43] and he was fast and he had like legs

[20:45] like tree trunks and he could move and I

[20:46] mean it was just

[20:47] >> completely dangerous to have him out on

[20:49] the field with the rest of us, right?

[20:51] And he was

[20:52] >> respected, adored, admired like and it

[20:54] was very context dependent. This was the

[20:56] other thing I was going to say. I think

[20:57] you and I are both scientists. So,

[20:59] coming up, you spent a lot of time in

[21:01] labs.

[21:01] >> Yeah.

[21:02] >> I never forget there was a romance in a

[21:04] neighboring lab um that none of us

[21:07] understood. Like none of us understood.

[21:09] >> That's funny.

[21:09] >> And I remember asking my friend who was

[21:11] in this pairing and he said the

[21:15] attraction for him, although she was

[21:16] also attractive, but the the the hook

[21:20] was her prowess at aloquotting. So

[21:23] there's a thing you do with antibodies

[21:24] and labs where they come in and you have

[21:26] to put them into the little things so

[21:27] that you know you freeze out a little

[21:28] bit and apparent

[21:29] >> really hard.

[21:30] >> Yeah. You get good at it. But apparently

[21:32] like he walked in one day and she had a

[21:34] bunch of these little tubes stuffed

[21:35] between her fingers and she was just

[21:36] aloquotting really quickly while talking

[21:39] and from that moment he was just like

[21:40] smitten.

[21:41] >> That's beautiful.

[21:42] >> And I'll say they both never heard an

[21:44] example this good. I was like her

[21:46] aloquatting process like it or prowess

[21:49] and I thought to myself like is this

[21:50] like tapping into something? They they

[21:52] actually have children. He's his

[21:53] professor. They have children together.

[21:55] They seem very happy. I think anyone

[21:56] would say they're both attractive

[21:58] people. But their pairing seemed like

[22:01] >> not predictable by any other external

[22:03] metrics. And the fact that something so

[22:06] specific was the hook.

[22:08] >> Yeah.

[22:09] >> And that opened up into what turned out

[22:10] to be a long-standing marriage with kids

[22:13] is kind of wild. It is.

[22:15] >> But is this uncommon? Because what you

[22:16] described before is kind of like this,

[22:18] like there's something unique that makes

[22:19] it feel like there's a special

[22:21] attraction that indicates something that

[22:23] opens up to a special discussion and

[22:24] then there's this

[22:25] >> kind of um intimacy, right, that they

[22:28] share

[22:29] >> around aloquading that was spawned by

[22:31] aloquading. I don't recommend folks run

[22:33] out and learn how to aloquat in order to

[22:35] like this is not a strategy. Um but

[22:38] that's the thing.

[22:38] >> Thematically it might be, but um so what

[22:41] are your thoughts on something like

[22:42] that? Okay, this is an incredible

[22:44] example and I think if if we're talking

[22:47] about couples, I think most people would

[22:49] find this idea intuitive that if you

[22:52] know I ask somebody what is what is it

[22:55] that you love about your wife or what is

[22:56] it that you love about your husband? You

[22:58] know, you're going to get a bunch of if

[23:00] you get them talking for long enough,

[23:02] you'll get some idiosyncratic details.

[23:04] You'll get some stories. I mean, maybe

[23:06] if they're really forthcoming, they'll

[23:08] give you the in jokes and they'll

[23:10] explain the moments that made them feel

[23:13] something special for this person.

[23:16] I think what I'm suggesting is that

[23:20] those moments, the the the creation of a

[23:23] narrative with another person, it goes

[23:25] back earlier than we think. And that a

[23:28] lot of times what we're doing when we're

[23:30] trying to figure out if we're into

[23:31] somebody, yes, we look at how they look

[23:35] visually and we we take in all that

[23:37] information and it matters a lot. But

[23:39] we're also talking with them, forming

[23:43] little stories. If you have a little bit

[23:46] of good banter, that means when I see

[23:47] you at the party next week, I'm going to

[23:50] want to sit next to you and see if we

[23:51] can recreate that moment. And that's

[23:54] often where attraction is coming from. I

[23:56] think that's why the apps are so hard

[23:59] because it turns it into an interview

[24:01] where you're trying to impress other

[24:02] people with your traits. And again,

[24:05] traits are important, but it's like it

[24:07] it's not the life of the thing. The life

[24:09] of the thing is the little stories and

[24:11] moments that two people are sharing and

[24:14] and that's I think something that that

[24:16] people can be doing more with.

[24:19] >> I'd like to divide this process that we

[24:21] call dating, romance, relationships,

[24:23] etc. into some pieces that may or may

[24:26] not be the right way to segment it. So,

[24:28] so please um change any of what I'm

[24:30] about to, you know, toss out. We're

[24:33] talking about impressions.

[24:34] >> Yeah.

[24:35] >> That either seed or don't see desire for

[24:39] more time. So, interest

[24:41] >> and then that I'll just broadly separate

[24:42] with compatibility over time.

[24:44] >> Yeah.

[24:45] >> So, let's spend some time on impressions

[24:47] that lead to desire. Which ones are

[24:49] meaningful? Which ones aren't? Which

[24:51] ones can be a bit misleading? I think

[24:53] most people are probably more intuitive

[24:55] about those if they're really honest,

[24:57] like what they find, who they find

[24:58] attractive,

[24:59] >> who they'd be willing to admit they find

[25:01] attractive if you remove all the other

[25:03] social inputs.

[25:04] >> Yeah.

[25:04] >> And so on. But the compatibility over

[25:06] time piece is the one that is really

[25:08] hard. If you just look at the statistics

[25:10] on marriage, let alone the statistics

[25:12] on, you know, other relationships.

[25:14] >> It's not a bleak picture, but the

[25:16] numbers don't play out into if people

[25:18] get together and make the commitment.

[25:21] Most of the time it works out. It

[25:22] unfortunately doesn't seem to be that

[25:24] way or maybe who knows fortunately but

[25:26] so impressions leading to desire given

[25:29] that many of the people listening to

[25:30] this will they'll be thinking about

[25:32] their own history with their current

[25:34] partner or are seeking a partner or

[25:36] maybe not. What do the data say about

[25:39] what people are picking up on as really

[25:42] valid cues that drive real desire as

[25:47] opposed to the

[25:48] >> the BS about like, well, everyone else

[25:50] thought they were great or the great on

[25:52] paper kind of thing. The early phases

[25:55] especially are just naturally filled

[25:57] with a lot of uncertainty. And I think

[26:00] this is a bummer for a lot of people

[26:02] because it can feel like you're really

[26:04] into somebody or like they're really

[26:05] into me and then it turns on a dime. So

[26:08] part of that is about like searching for

[26:11] signals trying to resolve the

[26:13] uncertainty. And the problem is that

[26:15] it's not like, oh, if I get sufficient

[26:17] evidence that you're smart, that's going

[26:19] to do it. Or if I get sufficient

[26:21] evidence that you're really good at

[26:22] aloquotting, that's going to do it. What

[26:25] people are, I think, trying to do is

[26:28] they're trying to figure out like, do I

[26:30] feel enough of something for you that I

[26:33] want to continue this that I want to

[26:35] keep going? Yes. And but I don't want to

[26:38] act like cuz sometimes when people think

[26:40] about the spark, what they think is,

[26:41] "Oh, it's got to be there right away and

[26:43] I've already got to be feeling 100 for

[26:44] this person, right? I got to be at the

[26:46] top of the scale." That actually isn't

[26:48] what happens on average. Typically, if

[26:51] you if you look at what most

[26:53] relationships look like and you look

[26:55] back at the beginning, the the typical

[26:57] first impression is middling. That's how

[26:59] we feel at first. Middling. Just kind of

[27:01] I don't know, middle of the sky. That

[27:03] seemed all right. You know, it was fine.

[27:05] And then we interacted again.

[27:06] >> Not bad, not over the top.

[27:07] >> Not bad. Not Not over the top. And as we

[27:10] spend a little more time together, oh,

[27:12] like actually I find him pretty funny or

[27:15] I think he's really smart or um you

[27:19] know, I really like how good a listener

[27:21] he was. And I think what people are

[27:24] often trying to do is get enough moments

[27:27] that fit enough of these different trait

[27:30] categories that they think, well, you

[27:32] know, whatever other people say about

[27:34] this person, like with me, he seems like

[27:37] a pretty sensitive guy. with me, he

[27:39] seems pretty witty. With me, you know,

[27:42] like I actually think he's really hot

[27:45] when he does XYZ. And so if you

[27:47] accumulate enough of those, then you

[27:49] find yourself, you know, it's like you

[27:51] keep coming back. So that's how I think

[27:53] about it is this like slow accumulation

[27:56] of information.

[27:58] Sometimes people will encounter things

[28:00] like like the ick where there's one

[28:03] moment and then they tip over the edge

[28:05] the other way into feeling like I can't

[28:07] be with this person.

[28:08] >> Is that typically women who feel that

[28:10] about men? I mean do men describe that?

[28:12] >> I think yeah men have those experiences

[28:15] too. It is pretty underresarched. And

[28:18] one of the reasons why is because this

[28:20] whole phase I'm talking about is

[28:22] remarkably hard to study because we as

[28:25] researchers we're very good at how do

[28:28] you feel about somebody if you're

[28:29] looking at a picture or if you've hung

[28:31] out for like four minutes. I mean that's

[28:34] what a lot of the initial attraction

[28:35] paradigms look like. I like those

[28:37] paradigms. I study those paradigms

[28:39] myself. And then it's very easy to

[28:41] recruit couples and then see what

[28:44] happens to them. what explains why their

[28:46] relationships stay together and why they

[28:48] fall apart. But this period and it's

[28:51] it's my favorite thing to think about

[28:53] and it's also one of the most mysterious

[28:55] is Yeah, but what happened from like

[28:58] minute 10 to you know day 30 where now

[29:03] you were really determined to be in a

[29:06] relationship with this person and and

[29:08] that's a typical amount of time. it it

[29:11] usually doesn't happen instantaneously

[29:13] that people know right away, hey, no,

[29:15] this is it. I want to be with this

[29:17] person. It's that slow accumulation. And

[29:20] when we look at it, it's it's almost

[29:23] like you've got a window of uncertainty

[29:26] and it's slowly collapsing to a stable

[29:31] impression that people have of this

[29:33] person as they gather a little bit more

[29:36] information and a little bit more

[29:37] information. And what you just hope for

[29:40] is that as two people you're collapsing

[29:44] to a fairly stable impression that is

[29:46] both very positive of each other. And I

[29:49] think a large part that's how people get

[29:51] together

[29:52] >> and hopefully accurate too.

[29:54] >> Yeah. So the accuracy part is

[29:56] interesting because I mean you know I'm

[29:58] a psychologist. I'm a social

[30:00] psychologist and so social psychologists

[30:02] are big into well your perception is

[30:05] your reality and boy do you see a lot of

[30:08] evidence especially in relationships

[30:11] that people are biased when it comes to

[30:14] their romantic relationships

[30:15] >> in what sense

[30:16] >> it can happen in ways like you know

[30:20] everybody kind of agrees that your

[30:21] partner's a jerk but you genuinely don't

[30:24] think they're a jerk and when they're

[30:26] with you they don't seem like a jerk so

[30:28] any kind measure I would take your

[30:31] perception of, you know, your partner

[30:33] versus everybody else's perception. You

[30:36] would seem to be horribly positively

[30:38] biased

[30:40] for your partner.

[30:42] The question is whether you're wrong and

[30:46] I land on the side of I mean from your

[30:50] perspective you're not

[30:53] to argue that it would be better to

[30:56] listen to the consensus that your

[30:58] partner is a jerk kind it's sort of like

[31:01] um you're arguing for like a sleeper

[31:03] effect like there's wisdom in what other

[31:06] people know that you don't see.

[31:09] The evidence for that is actually not

[31:11] not great. It's it I'm it it could be

[31:14] and I'm sure it happens sometimes, but

[31:17] what usually happens in relationships is

[31:20] that people's own impressions and

[31:22] perceptions tend to be the major driver.

[31:25] Now, that can go in the other way, too,

[31:27] because we might all agree this person

[31:29] would be the most amazing partner to be

[31:31] with, and yet you've now gotten to the

[31:34] point in this relationship where you

[31:35] don't see it anymore, and you can't

[31:36] unsee the negative things you've seen.

[31:39] And so, that relationship can be very

[31:41] hard to salvage. The statement has been

[31:45] made by someone I know and trust about

[31:48] all things in life, all things in life,

[31:51] not just relationships, but certainly

[31:52] including them, that

[31:54] If people just treated

[31:57] their taste in people, in music, in art,

[32:03] in experiences the same way they treated

[32:05] their taste in food, everyone would be a

[32:08] lot better off.

[32:10] >> Meaning,

[32:11] if one has the impression that they

[32:14] really like something, they really like

[32:16] this person, then just go for it. I

[32:19] mean, unless there's some sort of danger

[32:21] they're not aware of, right?

[32:22] >> Okay. Okay. And which and we'll talk

[32:23] about consensus, communicating danger,

[32:26] separate separate issue, but it crosses

[32:28] into this online dating thing based on a

[32:30] lot of conversations I've had with young

[32:32] men and women. But music, you hear it,

[32:36] you either like it or you don't. We

[32:38] don't tend to have a hard time defending

[32:41] our stance on those things. But when it

[32:44] comes to relationships, it's almost like

[32:46] we're many people are walking around

[32:48] with a little or a lot of that junior

[32:51] high narrative in their in their mind.

[32:53] >> Not necessarily be with somebody that

[32:56] they can't stand because everyone else

[32:58] thinks they're great. I think that's

[32:59] pretty rare. Probably happens, but it's

[33:01] pretty rare. But at these early stages

[33:04] that you study, that they're navigating

[33:07] that process in a way where they're not

[33:09] in tune with their own taste. they're

[33:11] integrating all this other information

[33:13] in a way that's not helpful. It's not

[33:15] protecting them. In fact, it's it's just

[33:17] clouding the signal. It's noise,

[33:19] >> right? In the signal to noise model,

[33:20] like it's noise. It's just pure noise.

[33:23] >> And as a consequence,

[33:25] >> people are wasting their time and other

[33:27] people's time.

[33:28] >> Yeah.

[33:28] >> And I don't believe everyone's trying to

[33:31] waste each other's time. It just seems

[33:34] that we're conditioned to do this. Yeah.

[33:36] And I will say it does take a pretty

[33:39] strong

[33:40] person to say, "Listen, I know that's

[33:45] what you see. I know that's what they

[33:47] say, but like this person's great. Like

[33:49] they're right for me." And when people

[33:51] do that in general, people tend to back

[33:53] off.

[33:53] >> And of course, there's

[33:55] >> Shakespeare about this, right? But that

[33:57] tends to be cultural pressure of like,

[33:59] "No, you two can't be together or the

[34:02] parents don't want her or one set of

[34:03] parents." I mean some of the greatest

[34:05] romances have been born out of that fu

[34:08] to the to the elders to the community

[34:11] but this is a little different. Yes. You

[34:14] know, it's a tricky thing to navigate

[34:16] because I I think one of the best

[34:18] situations to end up in is where you're

[34:23] in a relationship and let's say it's a

[34:25] new relationship and your friends around

[34:27] you basically think, you know, we're

[34:30] happy for you and we're going to

[34:33] celebrate you and, you know, we're going

[34:36] to celebrate this relationship. We

[34:38] support you. We just wouldn't be

[34:40] terribly interested in this person

[34:41] ourselves. That's the ideal, right?

[34:44] Where it's not exceptionally

[34:46] competitive. You're not worried about

[34:48] your friends trying to poach your

[34:50] partner away, but at the same time,

[34:52] they're supportive of the relationship

[34:54] because that support from friends and

[34:57] family, it is important. Like, it

[35:00] certainly shapes how people feel.

[35:03] there's a way to navigate that that

[35:05] doesn't make it a you know like I'm glad

[35:08] you I'm glad you like my girlfriend but

[35:10] like don't like her too much please. You

[35:12] want to kind of try to find that balance

[35:14] there. And that's a tricky thing. I mean

[35:16] I think this is a lot of what people are

[35:18] trying to navigate in adolescence.

[35:20] They're trying to figure out like how

[35:23] can I be part of a friend group and have

[35:26] a romantic relationship and navigate the

[35:29] complexities that come with that. I

[35:31] mean, I vividly remember these like

[35:34] junior high, early high school

[35:36] experiences

[35:38] of dating somebody, but also your

[35:41] friends are into this person. And

[35:42] actually, it was a relationship where my

[35:46] girlfriend at the time broke up with me,

[35:48] starts dating my best friend. We're all

[35:51] friends now. It's all fine now. And it's

[35:53] like at this moment that I discover

[35:56] evolutionary psychology, that I discover

[35:58] this narrative. And it just felt like

[36:01] such a double-edged sword cuz how

[36:03] wonderful is it to think about how

[36:06] people have been navigating these

[36:08] challenges, ex-girlfriends breaking up

[36:11] with you for your best friend. This has

[36:13] been happening for tens of thousands of

[36:15] years. Like I'm not alone. I'm not the

[36:18] first person to experience this. And

[36:20] then to also read at the same time, oh

[36:23] my god, this reflects something true

[36:26] about my deep underlying value. This is

[36:29] kind of scary. So those two things

[36:33] together, weirdly, were what got me

[36:36] hooked on this. The the feeling like

[36:38] evolutionary psychology is fascinating

[36:40] and really bleak at the same time.

[36:43] >> Yeah, I agree. Uh I was going to say

[36:45] brutal. I'm sorry you had to go through

[36:47] that. Although I'm glad you're all

[36:48] friends. I think it happens. It's all

[36:49] good. probably not to everyone, but I I

[36:51] can remember similar experiences where

[36:53] you're just like, "Oh man, what a gut

[36:54] punch." And part of the maturational

[36:56] process is um

[36:58] >> realizing like, okay, they might be

[36:59] better suited and they'll be someone for

[37:01] me. And

[37:02] >> honestly, they were better suited for

[37:03] each other.

[37:04] >> All right. All right. I have a question

[37:06] about the science or how to study these

[37:08] sorts of things. So, if I set aside my

[37:11] science hat and I say, "All right,

[37:13] >> you can study this stuff, but wait,

[37:16] >> if we're talking about a a kind of

[37:18] unique hook, like let's just assume the

[37:20] person the people are within the range

[37:21] of attractiveness. Again, I hate this

[37:24] quantitative thing, but they think the

[37:25] other person's attractive, they're they

[37:27] they're dating because they want to find

[37:29] someone, right? They're not resistant to

[37:31] commitment. They're looking for for a

[37:33] partner. And the number of histories

[37:36] that people are bringing to that is

[37:39] infinite or near infinite. So let's say

[37:41] the hook is listen one person had a hard

[37:44] past based on um an abusive household.

[37:48] The other person is really gentle. They

[37:50] had a great past and and the person

[37:52] feels very safe in that. Right? We

[37:54] always think about the trauma bond,

[37:55] right? Which is an unfortunate thing

[37:57] that does seem to happen. But it could

[37:59] also be both people had difficult pasts.

[38:02] you know, parents with addiction issues

[38:03] or mental health issues and they can

[38:04] relate. Okay, that's one example. The

[38:06] other is uh we both value X, we both

[38:09] value Y. And so the the unique glue,

[38:12] >> yeah,

[38:13] >> is near infinite, right? So the question

[38:15] I have and this isn't a challenge, it's

[38:17] just a genuine um curiosity is how do

[38:20] you study this process then? Because

[38:22] what are the universals of what is it

[38:25] what people define as some kind of um

[38:29] like lock and key that they didn't know

[38:30] they were looking for that that lock and

[38:32] key combination and then they go oh this

[38:34] feels unique and the reason I asked this

[38:36] is because I want to frame the the

[38:38] science but also I want to know to what

[38:41] extent being aware of what's critical to

[38:44] oneself is important in this process.

[38:46] >> Does that make sense? There's a lot of

[38:48] words there, but basically like how well

[38:50] one knows themselves can often help lead

[38:52] to better choices in in partner choice.

[38:54] >> And so people go know like gosh, I I

[38:56] really really would like someone that I

[38:58] could feel understood around this or

[39:00] feel really safe around this or make

[39:02] them feel really safe around that. With

[39:03] any relationship, it's almost like you

[39:05] have to hold these two seemingly

[39:07] contradictory truths at the same time.

[39:09] One is that

[39:10] >> no two people in the history of the

[39:12] world have experienced what we're

[39:14] experiencing right now. And yet there

[39:18] are broad general principles that we can

[39:21] point to that can explain some of the

[39:25] dynamics of every romantic relationship

[39:27] that has ever existed. So when it comes

[39:31] to broad principles, I love the

[39:34] attachment framework. I mean, what's

[39:36] fascinating about attachment is that

[39:38] this is just as evolutionary as all the

[39:40] other evolutionary theories you've heard

[39:42] about online. It's just a different

[39:44] evolutionary theory. But this

[39:46] perspective suggests that we are

[39:49] creatures that form bonds with each

[39:52] other. We essentially crave closeness,

[39:56] intimacy, support. We thrive when we get

[39:59] it. We're more likely to recover. We

[40:02] sleep better. We get all of these

[40:04] benefits from close attached

[40:06] relationships.

[40:08] But for some people or at some points in

[40:11] their lives, we can struggle to have

[40:16] those kinds of relationships sometimes

[40:19] because we become too anxious about

[40:21] them. We need them a little too much. We

[40:24] become uncomfortable in our own skin or

[40:27] we tip the other way. We become very

[40:30] avoidant. We become overly independent.

[40:33] We become convinced that we really don't

[40:35] need anybody else.

[40:37] These are broad attachment dynamics that

[40:40] people will go through their whole lives

[40:42] having to navigate. A lot of people have

[40:44] probably heard about like the you can

[40:46] have an anxious attachment style or an

[40:48] avoidant attachment style and all of

[40:50] that is true. But one thing we know

[40:52] today from studying more couples and

[40:55] getting better at studying couples over

[40:58] longer periods of time is you realize

[41:01] that boy people's attachment

[41:03] orientations really can change. So

[41:06] somebody can come into a relationship

[41:09] with an avoidant trauma-filled past, but

[41:13] with enough time with the right kind of

[41:15] person, again sharing their unique bond,

[41:18] which maybe science will never crack,

[41:20] but they know all about it.

[41:23] That person will start to become less

[41:25] and less avoidant with time. They'll

[41:28] become more secure. They'll get more of

[41:30] those physiological benefits out of the

[41:32] relationship. they'll get more of the

[41:34] support related benefits out of the

[41:36] relationship and that can in effect turn

[41:40] somebody into a more secure person. So

[41:43] the these are the attachment lessons

[41:45] that I often point to and I think

[41:48] they're they're useful for at least

[41:49] helping me remember that tension between

[41:51] like yeah anxiety and avoidance. Two

[41:55] very broad processes that are always

[41:58] happening behind the scenes and yet the

[42:01] way it unfolds for any one particular

[42:03] couple. It's always going to be this

[42:04] weird unique combination of stories and

[42:07] in jokes and little moments that

[42:10] scaffold up to hopefully, you know, help

[42:13] somebody become more secure eventually.

[42:16] I'd like to take a quick break and

[42:18] acknowledge our sponsor, AG1. AG1 is a

[42:21] vitamin mineral probiotic drink that

[42:23] also includes prebiotics and adaptogens.

[42:26] I discovered AG1 way back in 2012, long

[42:29] before I ever had a podcast, and I've

[42:31] been taking it every day since. The

[42:33] reason I started taking AG1 and the

[42:35] reason I still take it every day is

[42:37] because AG1 is, to my knowledge, the

[42:39] highest quality and most comprehensive

[42:40] of the foundational nutritional

[42:42] supplements on the market. AG1 is

[42:44] designed to support things like gut

[42:45] health, immune health, and overall

[42:47] energy. And it does so by helping to

[42:49] fill any gaps that you might have in

[42:51] your daily nutrition. I get asked pretty

[42:53] much all the time, "If I could only take

[42:55] one supplement, what should that

[42:56] supplement be?" And my answer is always

[42:58] AG1. It has just been so helpful for

[43:01] supporting all aspects of physical

[43:03] health, mental health, and performance.

[43:05] If you would like to try AG1, you can go

[43:07] to drink AG1.com/huberman

[43:10] to get a special offer. For a limited

[43:12] time, AG1 is giving away a free bottle

[43:14] of their new Omega-3 co-enzyme Q10

[43:16] product. Omega-3 and co-enzyme Q10 are

[43:19] known to support cardiovascular health,

[43:21] cellular health, and energy, generally,

[43:23] brain health, and much more. I

[43:25] personally take them both every day.

[43:27] Again, go to drinkaga1.com/huberman

[43:30] to get a free bottle of the new Omega-3

[43:32] co-enzyme Q10 with your first AG1

[43:34] subscription.

[43:36] Seems to me that barring um again like

[43:39] an emotional or physical safety issue,

[43:41] >> the less that couples are talking to

[43:43] other people besides a trained

[43:45] >> therapist, if they choose to do that,

[43:47] maybe not even doing that about their

[43:50] relationship, probably the more

[43:52] protected their relationship is. So

[43:54] that's interesting.

[43:56] >> The the darts of uh envious people.

[43:59] >> Um

[44:00] >> the unhelpful positive comments from

[44:03] people, right? Because there could be

[44:04] instances where a relationship is really

[44:06] flagging and and

[44:08] >> someone doesn't disclose that and they

[44:10] they don't really understand what's

[44:12] going on and were they not to share that

[44:14] then, you know, everyone's getting all

[44:15] this positive input and they think,

[44:16] well, I think this is just how it's

[44:18] supposed to go.

[44:19] >> So there's the suffering and silence

[44:20] piece. Y

[44:22] >> we want to I I don't think that's good.

[44:24] But there's the kind of um going out for

[44:29] external assessment piece. And as I say

[44:32] this, I you know it's it's funny because

[44:34] we the year at UC Davis and I did my PhD

[44:36] there. I was just remembering like when

[44:38] you pick projects in graduate school,

[44:41] you get some consensus about what's a

[44:42] good project. But so much of becoming a

[44:44] good scientist is kind of learning to

[44:46] put up the middle finger and just keep

[44:48] going as the the sort of pressure test

[44:51] of doing science is people going, "Well,

[44:53] that's is that really that interesting?"

[44:54] And you don't really know how much to

[44:56] pay attention to it. And it kind of pays

[44:58] to be a little bit bulldogish and just

[45:01] go, "Yeah, I don't know like and just

[45:04] ignore it and just keep going." I can

[45:05] say this is also true in any kind of

[45:07] creative endeavor or public facing life.

[45:08] Like it doesn't make good adaptive sense

[45:11] to pay too much attention but nobody

[45:14] wants to be the person that like steps

[45:15] in it or does something really stupid.

[45:17] But in relationships when if something

[45:20] feels good

[45:21] >> maybe

[45:22] >> we shouldn't be going out and getting

[45:24] you know putting our finger in the wind

[45:25] to get input. So it's fascinating

[45:28] because I mentioned earlier that right

[45:30] the the extent to which you feel at

[45:33] least like the people around you have

[45:36] your relationships back that's a useful

[45:40] thing but I think that probably isn't

[45:43] happening through a process of

[45:47] yeah like pseudotherapy I want to talk

[45:49] to my friends about my relationship or

[45:52] at least to the extent that that is

[45:53] happening I bet you're right that has

[45:56] some real risks. I think probably the

[45:59] good version of this process or the one

[46:00] that I would advocate for comes from

[46:03] research looking at like couple friends

[46:06] or like double date nights. So, I'm not

[46:10] asking you for input on my relationship,

[46:13] but in effect, I'm asking you and maybe

[46:16] your partner to experience our

[46:19] relationship in real time by hanging out

[46:21] together, the four of us. And so that

[46:25] can often feel like validation without

[46:29] explicitly asking for it. And I think

[46:32] that can often be a very good thing. And

[46:34] there's research showing that, you know,

[46:36] generally couples who feel like they

[46:37] have couple friends and are embedded in

[46:39] networks like that that that generally

[46:42] tends to go well on average. Um so yeah,

[46:46] I would think about it that way. It's

[46:47] like you can feel that you have the

[46:49] support of the people around you without

[46:51] directly asking

[46:53] for their assessment of your

[46:55] relationship because the reality is

[46:56] other people don't know. And this is

[46:59] hard as a judge because when I encounter

[47:03] couples and I have friends who are in

[47:05] relationships, it is so tempting to look

[47:07] at that relationship and think like,

[47:09] well, man, like she shouldn't have done

[47:11] that or I don't know if if I were her, I

[47:14] wouldn't stand for this. But I'm not in

[47:16] that relationship. So unless you are a

[47:19] therapist and they're coming to you for

[47:21] therapy, I find it useful to try to

[47:24] resist that impulse because a

[47:27] relationship is this vast deep store of

[47:31] information that two people have and

[47:33] often we're not privy to what's really

[47:36] going on there.

[47:37] >> I'm going back to junior high school

[47:38] again and I can remember at this one

[47:40] game I hope this isn't dramatic.

[47:41] >> No, no, it's not. Not at all. But we had

[47:43] this uh all girls school in our in our

[47:45] town, Castilea School, which was a

[47:47] boarding school. And so their dances

[47:49] were the best because they'd invite

[47:51] people from other schools, but all the

[47:54] >> guys were really excited to go, right?

[47:56] Cuz the numbers were really like worked

[47:57] out really well in our favorite women

[48:00] and and and boys and girls in our

[48:02] school, right? Would go to these dances.

[48:04] But that means you just have like an

[48:06] outsized pool of so everyone got someone

[48:08] to dance with at some point. This is

[48:09] what mattered in the seventh grade,

[48:11] right? But there were these people I had

[48:14] to say there were these individuals who

[48:16] were not going through the admittedly

[48:20] like tense challenge of

[48:22] >> first dance, first slow dance. This was

[48:24] before phones and it was tense then too.

[48:27] >> And they weren't doing any of that. What

[48:28] were they doing? They were running

[48:30] around telling people about who was

[48:32] doing what and who was doing that. And I

[48:34] remember thinking at the time, I mean,

[48:35] I'm no psychologist then or now, but

[48:37] thinking like they're avoiding the whole

[48:39] thing. Yeah, this is like going to a

[48:40] soccer game and instead of playing

[48:41] soccer, they're like critiquing people

[48:43] from the sidelines cuz it's a lot easier

[48:45] to do that than to actually get out

[48:46] there and risk and risk miss, you know,

[48:49] like being the goalie that lets the the

[48:50] winning shot through. And I remember

[48:52] thinking like these people are really uh

[48:54] really corrosive.

[48:56] >> Um, one or two in particular, I don't

[48:58] know what ever became of them.

[48:59] Hopefully, they're doing well in their

[49:00] lives. They got over this. But

[49:02] >> those people exist throughout life.

[49:04] >> Yeah.

[49:04] >> Meaning they're rarely the people that

[49:06] are happy in their own relationship

[49:08] life. Now, I have to say it's probably a

[49:09] Y chromosome link disorder, but I assume

[49:12] that my friends who are in male friends

[49:14] who are in relationship.

[49:16] If they're still in the relationship

[49:18] that it's going great.

[49:19] >> That's funny.

[49:19] >> There's not a lot of feedback. Like

[49:21] there's not a whole lot of feedback

[49:22] exchange. That said, if something were

[49:24] really like really off, I assume that

[49:27] they would bring it up, but probably not

[49:29] to me. like there's I do think that

[49:31] there's probably a sex difference here

[49:33] and these things are changing now, but I

[49:35] think that there's not a lot of sitting

[49:36] around talking about how well or poorly

[49:39] the relationship is going. And so like,

[49:41] you know, you ask about somebody's

[49:42] spouse like, "How are they doing?" And

[49:43] they go, "Yeah, great." Like we did this

[49:44] this weekend. There's not a whole lot

[49:46] of, "Yeah, we we had this one moment of

[49:47] exchange that was kind of sticky. Can I

[49:49] get your input on it?" Like that's not

[49:50] happening. That's just not happening. At

[49:52] least not in my life. I'm glad you

[49:54] brought up these gender differences

[49:55] because I think you're hitting on one

[49:57] that at least again as a relationships

[49:59] researcher I would sit here and say I

[50:01] think this is the big one. And the big

[50:04] one is that women generally are better

[50:08] at cultivating social support from all

[50:11] corners of their lives, not just their

[50:14] romantic partner. Whereas for men, it's

[50:18] largely their romantic partner. That's

[50:20] where they're getting most of their

[50:23] support, intimacy needs met. Probably

[50:25] the person who at least for a while is

[50:28] mostly in their corner. And this is why

[50:31] you see across the full range of the arc

[50:35] of a relationship that men are always a

[50:37] little bit more eager than women.

[50:39] >> Eager in what sense?

[50:40] >> Eager in in all the ways. I want to be

[50:43] in this relationship in the first place.

[50:45] I'm more likely to say I love you first.

[50:46] I'm more I'm more likely to want to be

[50:48] exclusive. I'm more likely to want to

[50:50] take things to the next level.

[50:51] >> Men are more willing to do that.

[50:52] >> Men's counter current to all this stuff

[50:54] about men being non-committal.

[50:56] >> Yeah. Right. So like I don't uh I don't

[51:00] this is what there's like new review

[51:02] papers on this that are really

[51:04] compelling and it's like kind of the

[51:06] same effect size across the board which

[51:08] is how we talk about you know how big is

[51:10] the sex difference? You know, it's it's

[51:13] mediumsiz, but it's just right there all

[51:16] the way through through breaking up. Who

[51:18] who wants who's more likely to want to

[51:20] break up? It's women who are more likely

[51:22] to want to break up. Men are more likely

[51:23] to be thinking about their exes.

[51:25] >> And the the not while they're in a

[51:28] relationship.

[51:28] >> Right. Right. Right. Not while they're

[51:29] in a relationship. Right. Now it's over.

[51:31] >> That's the meme. You know, I went

[51:32] online. The meme is like, who's he

[51:35] thinking about? Who's Okay. Yeah.

[51:36] Exactly. The reason put forward for

[51:38] this, and I find it very compelling, is

[51:40] that

[51:42] That's because men just don't quite have

[51:45] their social lives put together in the

[51:48] same way that women do. Meaning they

[51:49] don't have a lot of male friends or

[51:52] here. By the way, I want to put up a

[51:53] disclaimer at the beginning. I should

[51:55] have said this to make the conversation

[51:57] more fluid. We're framing everything in

[51:59] the context of heterosexual pairings,

[52:01] but I I think it's fair to assume that

[52:04] this would also extend to homosexual

[52:06] pairings.

[52:06] >> I think it would

[52:07] >> in in many ways. But

[52:09] >> men have friends. Yeah,

[52:11] >> I realize activity based friendships

[52:14] are, you know, kind of the the dominant

[52:16] theme.

[52:17] >> Men not getting having connection in

[52:21] other things.

[52:22] >> You know, is it could it be that the

[52:25] like the connection that I feel to my

[52:26] male friends and co-workers is is very

[52:28] deep.

[52:29] >> They're important to me. They're like

[52:30] family to me by now. We spend so much

[52:31] time together.

[52:32] >> So, it feels connected.

[52:34] >> It's just but it's a very different kind

[52:36] of um I don't ever think of the word

[52:39] intimacy. I think of trust.

[52:41] >> Yeah.

[52:41] >> And I'm not trying to just, you know,

[52:42] like be, you know, put up a wall to my

[52:44] whatever feminine traits I happen to

[52:46] harbor, you know, like I I I'm I'm cool

[52:48] with that. I'm good with the idea that I

[52:52] have emotions and that I have needs and

[52:53] stuff, but I but I think it it just

[52:55] makes good intuitive sense to me that if

[52:58] I have something that I'm really that I

[53:00] want input on that's of a more like has

[53:03] a more of an emotional undercurrent that

[53:06] I would bring that to my romantic

[53:08] partner. So, here's the question I would

[53:11] pose and I would be clear. I'm not a

[53:12] therapist. I'm a scientist. But I would

[53:14] I would ask you this.

[53:17] If something went wrong, do you feel

[53:20] like you have a sense that there are

[53:22] other people in your life and not your

[53:25] partner but other people that you could

[53:27] go to if you needed to?

[53:29] >> Definitely.

[53:30] >> See, that is the essence of social

[53:33] support. It's actually not literally do

[53:36] you take people up on it. It's do you

[53:38] kind of have a vague sense that people

[53:40] are around and that's the part that

[53:42] matters. That's the part that gives us

[53:45] the health and well-being benefits. It's

[53:47] like a bank account you never have to

[53:49] dip into. It just gives you the sense to

[53:52] dip into it.

[53:52] >> Yeah. Right. Right. There you go.

[53:54] >> Luckily, it's a vast account. I try not

[53:56] to make too many withdrawals on it.

[53:58] >> Yeah.

[53:58] >> So, just the feeling that it's there is

[54:02] really the core component. And I think

[54:03] there are a lot of men, not you and not

[54:06] me, but a lot of men out there that

[54:08] don't feel like they have that social

[54:11] support bank account,

[54:12] >> like a close male friend or female

[54:15] friend or female friendly platonic or

[54:17] family for that matter. I mean, you

[54:19] know, who's who's more likely to like

[54:21] lose touch with siblings? I I I'm

[54:24] willing to bet that that's more likely

[54:25] to be men, too. So, I think this is part

[54:29] of like the modern challenge of

[54:32] masculinity that that that worries me

[54:35] that I point to like I want to help men

[54:37] at least have that sense. I think they

[54:40] can cultivate it through all the

[54:42] activity- based things that you describe

[54:44] and like I did that myself throughout my

[54:47] 20s and 30s. Like I could not count the

[54:49] number of kickball and softball teams

[54:51] that I participated in. And I did that

[54:55] not because I wanted support. I don't

[54:59] think I ever got emotional and cried in

[55:01] front of any of those guys, but I knew

[55:02] they were there and that if I ever had

[55:05] to go to that, I I could. You I'm

[55:08] talking about memes and internet themes

[55:09] and I have to be careful doing that

[55:11] because I don't want to put too much

[55:12] weight on the uh the direction of those

[55:15] things and what they really mean. And

[55:16] the science is what I'm interested in.

[55:18] But, you know, I think um most guys

[55:21] would probably say that that scene in

[55:23] that movie, The Town, where uh Ben

[55:25] Affleck walks in and says, you know,

[55:27] listen,

[55:29] yep, we got to do something. People are

[55:30] going to get hurt. We got to do this.

[55:32] And you know, like, and you can't talk

[55:33] to anybody. And his friend's only

[55:34] response is who's driving.

[55:36] >> Yeah.

[55:37] >> Is is kind of like the essence of what a

[55:39] lot of men want and kind of idealize

[55:41] male friendship as. Like, are we got to

[55:43] go bury a body or create one? And

[55:46] there's it's just that it's the loyalty.

[55:47] It's the trust. A lot's encapsulated in

[55:49] that. It's a bad quote unquote badass

[55:51] scene, right? But they're about to do

[55:53] something real bad. I recommend that,

[55:55] right? That's not the friend test you

[55:56] want. I know people have used that as

[55:58] the friend test and they paid dearly for

[56:00] it. Right. But the point is that friends

[56:02] who aren't going to ask too many

[56:03] questions that they can hold in the

[56:06] center of their um mind without any long

[56:11] preamble that your friend needs

[56:14] something and you'll do whatever it is

[56:17] that they need because you love them.

[56:19] >> I think that that's what's the deeper

[56:21] layer of it.

[56:23] I'm realizing there I have this like

[56:26] sense that there's a a big contradiction

[56:29] not in the scientific literature but in

[56:31] the public perception

[56:32] >> which is this I feel like one common

[56:35] narrative these days is

[56:38] >> look men failed they just failed like

[56:42] they didn't step up right they weren't

[56:44] committal you know we have to take care

[56:46] of them they live much longer in a

[56:48] relationship we die much earlier

[56:51] >> that's one narrative that you hear a lot

[56:53] about. It's a scary narrative, right?

[56:56] >> Because you also hear the narrative,

[56:58] yeah, like women are just uh very

[57:00] extractive. They'll trade up. You know

[57:02] how unfortunately your friend dated your

[57:05] uh then they you they broke up. She

[57:07] broke up with you first.

[57:08] >> Right. Right. But, you know, a lot of

[57:10] the things that come into play like the

[57:11] Coldplay concert affair that got went

[57:13] viral was about this woman and you know,

[57:15] and a lot of it was pointed at her, him

[57:17] too, but you know, it was like

[57:19] >> a lot was made of this thing that does

[57:22] happen.

[57:22] >> Yeah.

[57:23] >> That there's this notion like, well, who

[57:25] would actually pair up with their, you

[57:28] know, their female friend? A woman

[57:30] pairing up with a female friend's

[57:31] husband or brother. There's a lot of

[57:32] that. And you never know how much of

[57:33] this is being these narratives are being

[57:35] fed. So, I feel like now we're at this

[57:37] point that seems to be resolving a

[57:40] little bit, but we've been at this point

[57:41] where there are these two camps and I

[57:44] saw something on um Twitter X some time

[57:46] ago and it just like stopped me in my

[57:48] tracks which said the way you destroy a

[57:49] society is to get the men and the women

[57:51] to hate each other and maybe I would

[57:53] just underwrite distrust each other.

[57:55] >> Yeah.

[57:56] >> Right. And so

[57:57] >> we need to move through this. I'm not

[57:59] actually asking you to solve it but what

[58:01] do the data say? For instance, if we

[58:04] were to look at dating apps and I ask,

[58:07] do you think that the dynamics on dating

[58:09] apps, the algorithms, which are clearly

[58:11] designed to make the company's money?

[58:13] >> Yeah.

[58:13] >> Do you think those are more femaledriven

[58:16] algorithms or maledriven algorithms? Not

[58:19] meaning who runs the companies. We know

[58:21] the answer to that

[58:22] >> for the most part. The question is, do

[58:25] you think that the apps are trying to

[58:27] optimize for more women to come to them

[58:31] or for more men to come to them and stay

[58:33] there? Because the theory is always kind

[58:36] of launch in the opposite direction. And

[58:38] if that wasn't clear, um I'm just

[58:40] wondering who's who's got the power. My

[58:43] understanding now again, the dating apps

[58:45] are hard to decipher because like these

[58:48] companies don't share data with us. I've

[58:50] worked with some matchmaking companies

[58:52] data. They're more interested in

[58:54] generally in collaborating with

[58:56] scientists because they've they got to

[58:58] make people on dates happy. They don't

[59:00] work on engagement, they work on happy

[59:02] dates right?

[59:03] >> So, they're more interested in talking

[59:04] to scientists.

[59:05] >> But I think when your goal is getting

[59:07] users and getting engagement,

[59:09] >> what you're probably trying to do is

[59:11] bring more women in because my

[59:14] understanding is that there's more men

[59:15] on the apps. Yeah, I think so. I what I

[59:19] don't know and I don't know if anybody

[59:21] knows other than the people at these

[59:22] companies is like okay but how many of

[59:24] those apps are in use and how many

[59:26] people you know regular users I'm not

[59:28] sure. So you got to bring more women in

[59:32] but again engagement is the goal right I

[59:36] mean that's what the apps want you

[59:38] spending time on it and then they want

[59:40] you to get the fancier features. So is

[59:42] that going to be more geared toward men?

[59:45] It it might be, but I'm kind of

[59:48] speculating here. I expect that when

[59:50] you're trying to create an app for

[59:53] heterosexual men and women, you're going

[59:56] to have to somehow marry those two

[59:58] challenges. And look, one of the bigger

[1:00:01] gender differences that we see in the

[1:00:04] whole realm of sex and relationships is

[1:00:07] in swiping behavior. the fact that women

[1:00:10] will swipe yes on like 5% of the men

[1:00:12] they see, but men swipe yes at about

[1:00:15] 50/50. But that fits the kind of

[1:00:18] evolutionary quote unquote narrative

[1:00:20] like men being less selective, wanting

[1:00:22] to spread their

[1:00:23] >> their DNA, this kind of thing. I mean,

[1:00:26] >> to my mind, that whole thing around like

[1:00:28] men want to spread their DNA. Okay. Like

[1:00:31] I believe in in evolutionary biology,

[1:00:33] sure, but there's a lot of modern

[1:00:38] features that make like accountability

[1:00:40] for offspring and things like it's not

[1:00:41] like men can run around just having kids

[1:00:42] with anyone and and afford all of that,

[1:00:44] right? It's I mean, you know, we were

[1:00:46] talking earlier the sort of like two

[1:00:47] models. There's like the there's like

[1:00:49] the Genghask Khan ideal within this

[1:00:52] evolutionary

[1:00:53] >> biology model and then there's, you

[1:00:56] know, kind of like where are we now? I

[1:00:58] mean, I don't think anyone

[1:01:00] with the exception of some very wealthy

[1:01:01] people who who have kids with lots and

[1:01:03] lots of people and clearly can afford

[1:01:04] it,

[1:01:04] >> I don't think anyone's thinking they're

[1:01:06] going to go out and just have kids with

[1:01:07] as many people as they possibly can,

[1:01:09] >> right?

[1:01:10] >> And so what what's so interesting about

[1:01:12] these gendered dynamics is that from my

[1:01:16] perspective, they tend to get the

[1:01:18] largest the biggest gulf between men and

[1:01:21] women in the situations that are the

[1:01:23] weirdest. So, for example, we this is

[1:01:26] and this is a real study. You recruit

[1:01:29] confederates. So, that means it's

[1:01:30] somebody who's working for the

[1:01:32] experimentter. And then uh they go

[1:01:34] around campus and they ask people, "I've

[1:01:36] noticed you around and I find you very

[1:01:37] attractive. Would you like to go to bed

[1:01:39] with me?" And when you do this, you find

[1:01:43] that men are about 20 times more likely

[1:01:46] to say yes to that request than women.

[1:01:49] Very few women say yes to this request,

[1:01:52] but a reasonable number of men do. All

[1:01:55] right. But the thing about that

[1:01:57] experiment, and that experiment is very

[1:01:59] valuable, and it's very influential, and

[1:02:00] I love at least that it was real, that

[1:02:03] people were actually out in the world

[1:02:05] doing something, even if it's a little

[1:02:08] wild and uh probably a little scary,

[1:02:10] especially for the women. But if you do

[1:02:13] this one little tweak and you say,

[1:02:15] "Yeah, okay, but how about like the last

[1:02:18] time that happened to you in real life,

[1:02:20] like in a context where you knew people

[1:02:22] and then you look at the gender

[1:02:23] difference, it's not 20 times more, it's

[1:02:25] two times more."

[1:02:27] >> What do you mean?

[1:02:27] >> It's like the last time somebody you

[1:02:29] know, like among a group of friends like

[1:02:32] ask like, "Hey, do you want to go hook

[1:02:33] up?" How much more likely then are men

[1:02:37] to say yes than women? And men are still

[1:02:41] more likely, but they're only twice as

[1:02:43] likely rather than 20 times as likely.

[1:02:45] >> So, this is not my belief, but the

[1:02:47] cynical um incel types on the internet

[1:02:51] or the just cynical guys will say will

[1:02:54] say, "Oh, that's because women are

[1:02:55] sleeping around more than they used to

[1:02:57] when the first experiment was done." I

[1:02:59] don't believe that's true. But I can

[1:03:01] tell you that would be their reflexive

[1:03:03] response. Like like there's so there's

[1:03:05] this ammo there these arrows that each

[1:03:07] side holds. one side holds the

[1:03:09] >> guys aren't stepping up. They're not

[1:03:11] they're not managing their own lives,

[1:03:13] let alone making themselves somebody who

[1:03:15] would be attractive as a a partner who

[1:03:17] could listen and do and take help take

[1:03:18] care of somebody because the notion of

[1:03:20] taking care is something we can talk

[1:03:21] about. the guys are saying, "Well,

[1:03:24] they're just all extractive, you know,

[1:03:26] that and there's deceptiveness there,

[1:03:27] and they'll trade up in a at a moment's

[1:03:29] notice, you know, and and so

[1:03:31] >> I mean, I don't want to feed the flames

[1:03:34] of distrust, but the data you just

[1:03:37] provided, what do they what is the

[1:03:39] conclusion? Like, so that's the result,

[1:03:41] but but in that paper, what's the the

[1:03:44] authors, you know, we the authors

[1:03:46] therefore conclude that?" So I would I

[1:03:48] would conclude this

[1:03:50] >> that approaching strangers

[1:03:53] is especially in a romantic or sexual

[1:03:56] context is very very tricky, very

[1:04:00] challenging and it is a weird modern

[1:04:02] skill because we actually evolved in

[1:04:06] environments where you didn't actually

[1:04:07] meet that many strangers. So if some

[1:04:10] people are adept at that, God bless. But

[1:04:13] for most of us, we had to get to know

[1:04:16] people over time. We needed that long

[1:04:19] process to make a good impression on

[1:04:21] somebody because most of us are like not

[1:04:24] all that hot and not so appealing that

[1:04:27] people fall for us the moment we see

[1:04:28] them. And so that is what I would tell

[1:04:30] these hypothetical incels is I think

[1:04:33] part of the problem is that you're

[1:04:35] locked into a way of thinking about sex

[1:04:38] and romance that it's about a pickup

[1:04:40] line or it's about an initial

[1:04:41] impression. I think women are more

[1:04:44] interested in casual sex when it's

[1:04:46] somebody that they like kind of know and

[1:04:48] have been friendly with for a while and

[1:04:51] have had like some good banter with. And

[1:04:53] if you surround yourself with people,

[1:04:56] not just women, but also men, and you

[1:04:59] meet friends of friends, you're going to

[1:05:01] find more opportunities that way. So,

[1:05:04] it's like a shift in the mindset that we

[1:05:06] have about how it is we meet people and

[1:05:09] how it is we get to know them. and that

[1:05:11] hitting on strangers is like low yield,

[1:05:15] very difficult. Spending time with

[1:05:17] friends, it's time consuming, although

[1:05:19] it's enjoyable in and of itself. It's a

[1:05:22] timeconsuming approach, but it's

[1:05:24] ultimately going to be better for more

[1:05:27] people. Uh, you know, on on average, at

[1:05:30] least in light of the apps, social

[1:05:33] media, this divide, I I'm very grateful

[1:05:36] that you're bringing up this notion of

[1:05:38] spending time in small groups. Yeah,

[1:05:40] probably around certain activities.

[1:05:42] Could be pickle ball, could be a

[1:05:43] barbecue, could be I mean that's how

[1:05:45] people used to meet. You know, sometimes

[1:05:48] there's work adjacency. I mean, I think

[1:05:50] that one of the reasons the coal play

[1:05:51] thing went so viral is that the woman

[1:05:53] was head of HR. So there were a number

[1:05:55] of things that were ethical violations

[1:05:56] independent of like they tried to kind

[1:05:58] of rescue it like but they were in love

[1:06:00] and there were marriages were failing

[1:06:01] and people were like there are

[1:06:03] violations down the line on this right

[1:06:05] you know in laboratories

[1:06:07] >> many people cuddled up in laboratories

[1:06:09] you know my adviserss were always like

[1:06:11] really adamant that no one should do

[1:06:12] that I listen interesting oh yeah

[1:06:14] >> so they try to lock it down I mean in

[1:06:16] graduate school I I worked alone in the

[1:06:18] lab but my graduate adviser actually uh

[1:06:20] suggested I not even date within our

[1:06:22] graduate program this is peerto-peer I

[1:06:23] was a graduate student and for the most

[1:06:25] part I I obeyed but I was so focused on

[1:06:28] work and and I guess it happened with

[1:06:30] like you'd go to meetings you meet other

[1:06:32] graduate students so it was really

[1:06:33] peerto-peer

[1:06:34] >> in my post-doal laboratory my adviser

[1:06:37] was like vocal to everyone like no

[1:06:39] dating in the lab and of course there

[1:06:40] are certain married couples nowadays

[1:06:42] with kids

[1:06:43] >> several of them in fact that met in the

[1:06:44] lab just by proximity interest and who

[1:06:46] knows aloequading prowess who knows

[1:06:48] >> somebody out there an incredible aloquat

[1:06:51] that never got to attract somebody to my

[1:06:54] knowledge this by the way folks again

[1:06:56] this is not a way to attract a mate

[1:06:58] unless you're a molecular biologist

[1:06:59] perhaps but I think that there's real

[1:07:03] value in this in this because unlike our

[1:07:05] earlier discussion where other people's

[1:07:07] input

[1:07:08] >> um be can be kind of toxic to the

[1:07:11] process of understanding and really

[1:07:12] getting in touch with one's sense of

[1:07:14] taste I like this person I don't this

[1:07:15] feels safe it doesn't feel safe and I'm

[1:07:17] not using by the way the safe language

[1:07:18] to be politically correct like some

[1:07:20] people feel emotionally unsafe because

[1:07:22] it's just like like if there were a

[1:07:24] stressful circumstance, they would

[1:07:25] dissolve into a puddle of their own

[1:07:27] tears. That's a different version of it,

[1:07:28] right? I think we all kind of like flit

[1:07:30] to the the extremes. But that's that's

[1:07:32] another aspect.

[1:07:33] >> But this is a context in which you can

[1:07:35] get a read of how someone behaves, their

[1:07:38] values, their reflexive levels of

[1:07:41] kindness or lack thereof with other

[1:07:43] people.

[1:07:44] >> Yeah.

[1:07:44] >> You get a lot of data.

[1:07:46] >> Yeah.

[1:07:47] >> In a in a setting that

[1:07:49] >> you're hopefully enjoying yourself in

[1:07:51] any way. That seems very very valuable.

[1:07:54] >> So we're talking 80s movies and 90s

[1:07:56] movies already. So I'm gonna throw out

[1:07:58] Say Anything.

[1:07:59] >> Oh yeah.

[1:07:59] >> Do you remember Say Anything?

[1:08:00] Absolutely. So the John Cusack lead

[1:08:03] character um asks out the Ioni Sky

[1:08:06] character, but where they go on their

[1:08:09] first date is absolutely fascinating.

[1:08:11] They go to a party. So, they are clearly

[1:08:15] going together, but they don't spend the

[1:08:18] whole party like attached to each other

[1:08:20] and they're not interviewing each other

[1:08:22] like they met on an app. They're

[1:08:24] actually kind of watching each other as

[1:08:26] they float through these various groups.

[1:08:29] And sometimes they're talking to other

[1:08:31] folks about the fact that they're kind

[1:08:32] of on a date right now and how is it's

[1:08:34] going, but they're also talking to each

[1:08:37] other. And it's kind of a beautiful

[1:08:39] depiction of this old kind of lost art

[1:08:43] of you're dating, but you're also with

[1:08:46] other people seeing how uh they behave.

[1:08:49] And and one of the moments where I sky

[1:08:53] sort of you can see are starting to fall

[1:08:55] for John Cusack is when he's actually

[1:08:58] looking out for some of the other folks

[1:09:00] there like you know taking their keys

[1:09:01] away so they don't drive. And I I think

[1:09:05] that that idea of like watching how we

[1:09:07] behave around other people can be very

[1:09:09] powerful.

[1:09:10] >> So one of his unique qualities was that

[1:09:12] he's protective of other people and

[1:09:14] responsible and he put other people's

[1:09:15] safety ahead of his own desire to go out

[1:09:17] and drink that night or something.

[1:09:18] >> Yeah.

[1:09:18] >> Yeah. I forgot that scene.

[1:09:20] >> I'm I I That's a perfect segue to what I

[1:09:22] was going to say next, but I'm brought

[1:09:24] to this mildly traumatic experience in

[1:09:26] high school where I didn't go any go to

[1:09:28] any high school dances early in high

[1:09:30] school. I was like really in the

[1:09:31] skateboard community, just really

[1:09:32] focused on that. And then uh it was my

[1:09:35] junior year of high school.

[1:09:36] >> Um the now woman, then young woman,

[1:09:41] girl, whatever, uh asked me that. It was

[1:09:43] the Satie Hawkins dance where the the

[1:09:45] girls asked the boys. This was very

[1:09:48] oldfashioned, right? Like I've heard

[1:09:49] this. It already assumes, right, that

[1:09:51] the guy that the guys always ask the

[1:09:53] girls, which was pretty much the

[1:09:54] standard.

[1:09:55] >> We go and um she was a year older and

[1:09:58] extremely beautiful, super kind. It

[1:10:00] ended up being a very long-term

[1:10:01] relationship. But I remember going and

[1:10:03] she had something back then where her

[1:10:05] hands would get really cold.

[1:10:07] >> She had this thing where it was a cold

[1:10:08] night. And so she went into the

[1:10:10] bathroom. She said, "I'd have to like

[1:10:10] warm my hands." She was in there a

[1:10:12] really long time. And I'm standing out

[1:10:14] there and people are coming up to me and

[1:10:17] they're like, "What are you doing here?"

[1:10:19] Like, "Why are you at a dance?" And I

[1:10:20] said, "So and so invited me." And no one

[1:10:23] believed me. They was like, "There's no

[1:10:24] chance." And I have to say, it was the

[1:10:26] most mortifying thing. And I kept

[1:10:28] waiting for this moment where she would

[1:10:29] come out of the bathroom and like

[1:10:30] vindicate me. And they all kept like

[1:10:32] dissipating before she came back. She

[1:10:33] eventually came back. And I just

[1:10:35] remember thinking like, oh man, like

[1:10:36] nobody even and I thinking like I'm

[1:10:38] either completely outclassed, like

[1:10:41] completely outclassed or like this is

[1:10:44] one of the best opportunities that ever

[1:10:45] landed uh in my lap and I'm going to I'm

[1:10:47] going to pursue this with everything

[1:10:48] I've got. So I went with the second

[1:10:49] thing and anyway, we uh

[1:10:51] >> this is John Cusack enter.

[1:10:52] >> It was it was brutal. Like I had to sit

[1:10:54] there and like you know and like no one

[1:10:56] believed me. They actually thought like

[1:10:57] I just like snuck in or something like

[1:10:59] that. Anyway,

[1:11:01] the John Cusack example is a really good

[1:11:03] one because his character in that movie

[1:11:05] is a little awkward along certain

[1:11:06] dimensions. He's certainly not as um

[1:11:09] quote unquote ambitious in the typical

[1:11:10] sense, although he wants to be a great

[1:11:11] kickboxer. Kickboxing sport of the

[1:11:13] future, right? It's a great scene

[1:11:15] between him and and her dad where he's

[1:11:17] explaining what he's going to do in life

[1:11:18] and and not in any kind of uh fluent way

[1:11:23] >> and her family clearly has other plans

[1:11:25] for her. But it gets to this thing that

[1:11:29] I had written down because I want to ask

[1:11:31] about next which is this notion of

[1:11:33] texting in particular. So not even apps

[1:11:36] but let's just say it's migrated off app

[1:11:38] or people meet they exchange number and

[1:11:39] there's some texting right and this

[1:11:42] notion of of the kind of unique um

[1:11:45] advantage at least early on

[1:11:48] >> that I think can be somewhat misleading

[1:11:51] of people who are hyperverbal. Oh,

[1:11:54] interesting.

[1:11:55] >> And in particular among men. And so

[1:11:56] here's what um I think years ago when I

[1:11:59] was on the job market for academic

[1:12:01] science, a really fantastic

[1:12:03] neurobiologist who actually read uh ran

[1:12:05] um let's just say a very famous school

[1:12:07] in Boston's brain science center. Um

[1:12:09] they never admit the name of their

[1:12:10] school anyway. um said to me, he said,

[1:12:13] "You know, the worst part about the job

[1:12:15] search process in uh neuroscience is

[1:12:19] that it selects for hyperverbal people

[1:12:21] where people can present their data,

[1:12:23] excite people about it, present their

[1:12:24] vision." And he said, "And there's so

[1:12:26] many amazing scientists that just don't

[1:12:28] know how to communicate their data

[1:12:30] >> and we're selecting for someone who can

[1:12:32] also teach, who can also do these

[1:12:34] things." And I realize he's absolutely

[1:12:36] right, you know, and some people can

[1:12:38] overcome this, but some of the best

[1:12:40] scientists in the world, speaking isn't

[1:12:42] their forte.

[1:12:43] >> Yeah.

[1:12:43] >> Okay. So, in the realm of text

[1:12:45] communication, there's a kind of a bias

[1:12:48] toward can somebody like a good listener

[1:12:51] in a face to face interaction like a guy

[1:12:53] can just sit there, listen,

[1:12:55] >> not interrupt, nod, maybe reflect,

[1:12:59] >> maybe reflect, tell me more. Well, that

[1:13:02] must have been interesting, hard,

[1:13:03] whatever, you know, and can convey a lot

[1:13:06] of of genuine ability to uh to

[1:13:10] communicate and bond

[1:13:12] >> over text, just listening

[1:13:16] >> doesn't work. In fact, if it's just

[1:13:17] like, wow, that must have been hard to

[1:13:19] like a paragraph this long, like it

[1:13:21] starts to fall flat. And this is where I

[1:13:23] think

[1:13:24] >> some people might be screaming, no, no,

[1:13:26] no, that's what I want. you know, but

[1:13:28] there's a strong selection process now

[1:13:31] for people who can communicate quickly

[1:13:33] with their thumbs, be witty in writing.

[1:13:36] >> And so the hyperverbal thing has moved

[1:13:38] to text.

[1:13:39] >> Yeah,

[1:13:40] >> that's a challenge. And I do think even

[1:13:42] though some men are very hyperverbal,

[1:13:45] there is a sex difference here that we

[1:13:47] are well aware of.

[1:13:48] >> So do you think that that's skewing

[1:13:51] things? because the ability to to kind

[1:13:53] of keep to get and keep somebody's

[1:13:54] interest early on is strongly dependent

[1:13:56] on these days on texting,

[1:13:57] >> right? I think this is a really good

[1:14:00] point. You know, I was reminded of some

[1:14:03] work, this is early work in the like

[1:14:07] online interaction space that suggested

[1:14:11] that actually anxious people get a lot

[1:14:14] out of being able to communicate with a

[1:14:17] keyboard or with texting because they

[1:14:19] don't get so overwhelmed. So, this is

[1:14:22] probably going to be somebody who also

[1:14:25] on a first date would be having a bit of

[1:14:27] a tough time. So, it might be that

[1:14:31] actually texting for them has at least

[1:14:34] the advantage of reducing some of the

[1:14:36] anxiety because they can take a minute

[1:14:37] to think about what they want to say

[1:14:40] before they have to actually come out

[1:14:41] with it. But I also think you're right

[1:14:44] that the ability to be witty over text

[1:14:49] um as opposed to the kind of like

[1:14:51] nonverbal listening that you're

[1:14:52] describing that is going to be a special

[1:14:55] advantage for some people today. So it c

[1:14:58] it could very well be skewing things in

[1:15:00] the way that you describe. There's not

[1:15:02] great data on this either. I mean I

[1:15:04] mentioned earlier we don't have great

[1:15:05] data on like the arc of the

[1:15:07] relationship.

[1:15:08] But some of the the people that have

[1:15:11] tackled this question uh this is great

[1:15:14] researcher named Mimi Binberg at at Ohio

[1:15:16] State. And what she does is she gets

[1:15:19] couples who are together and then says,

[1:15:22] "Uh, let me uh let me see your texts."

[1:15:26] And then gets the whole text thread go

[1:15:28] with their permission all the way back

[1:15:31] to when they first started texting. And

[1:15:33] what you see are some cool things like

[1:15:36] essentially their styles of

[1:15:37] communicating start to like cohhere,

[1:15:40] right? It's like a pattern of mutual

[1:15:42] influence where they they get the

[1:15:44] similar cadence and they start using

[1:15:46] similar words and other things as

[1:15:49] they're talking to each other. Now, of

[1:15:51] course, those are the successful cases.

[1:15:53] So, what would it look like if we had

[1:15:55] the unsuccessful cases? And I think

[1:15:57] you're right. We would see that the

[1:15:59] people who can't match or can't be witty

[1:16:03] early on that those are the the text

[1:16:06] threads that never become couples. Um,

[1:16:09] so we just have to figure out how to

[1:16:10] recruit those folks to to be in our

[1:16:13] studies. Give us the last 10 threads of

[1:16:15] of uh, you know, dates that never went

[1:16:17] anywhere.

[1:16:18] >> I'd like to take a quick break and

[1:16:20] acknowledge one of our sponsors,

[1:16:22] Element. Element is an electrolyte drink

[1:16:24] that has everything you need and nothing

[1:16:26] you don't. That means the electrolytes,

[1:16:28] sodium, magnesium, and potassium, all in

[1:16:30] the correct ratios, but no sugar. Proper

[1:16:33] hydration is critical for brain and body

[1:16:35] function. Even a slight degree of

[1:16:37] dehydration can diminish your cognitive

[1:16:39] and physical performance. It's also

[1:16:41] important that you get adequate

[1:16:42] electrolytes. The electrolytes, sodium,

[1:16:44] magnesium, and potassium are vital for

[1:16:46] the functioning of all cells in your

[1:16:48] body, especially your neurons or your

[1:16:50] nerve cells. Drinking element makes it

[1:16:52] very easy to ensure that you're getting

[1:16:54] adequate hydration and adequate

[1:16:56] electrolytes. My days tend to start

[1:16:58] really fast, meaning I have to jump

[1:17:00] right into work or right into exercise.

[1:17:02] So, to make sure that I'm hydrated and I

[1:17:04] have sufficient electrolytes, when I

[1:17:05] first wake up in the morning, I drink 16

[1:17:07] to 32 ounces of water with an element

[1:17:09] packet dissolved in it. I also drink

[1:17:11] Element dissolved in water during any

[1:17:13] kind of physical exercise that I'm

[1:17:14] doing, especially on hot days when I'm

[1:17:16] sweating a lot and losing water and

[1:17:18] electrolytes. Element has a bunch of

[1:17:20] great tasting flavors. In fact, I love

[1:17:22] them all. I love the watermelon, the

[1:17:23] raspberry, the citrus, and I really love

[1:17:25] the lemonade flavor. So, if you'd like

[1:17:27] to try Element, you can go to

[1:17:28] drinkelement.com/huberman

[1:17:31] to claim a free element sample pack with

[1:17:33] any purchase. Again, that's

[1:17:34] drinkelement.com/huberman

[1:17:37] to claim a free sample pack. Yeah, we're

[1:17:40] sort of veering towards compatibility

[1:17:42] when I say um you know, if I were to,

[1:17:44] you know, ask a close family member, you

[1:17:46] know, like what's great about the

[1:17:47] relationship you're in, uh this is a

[1:17:50] woman, and she'll be referring to her

[1:17:51] male partner in this case. She'll

[1:17:54] generally talk about the things that he

[1:17:57] does and the things that he is able to

[1:18:00] do in support that may or may not even

[1:18:02] require the ability to speak. Now, he's

[1:18:04] not aphasic, you know, um but you know,

[1:18:08] it's

[1:18:09] >> it's more about like

[1:18:11] >> what he does. And when we've had

[1:18:13] conversations on this podcast in the

[1:18:14] past about kind of relationship glue and

[1:18:16] things like that, it's like it's like,

[1:18:18] oh, that they always like, you know,

[1:18:20] >> one person always seems to like make the

[1:18:22] bed by the time I'm back from the

[1:18:23] bathroom in the morning and you're like,

[1:18:25] "No, my turn." And they they or the

[1:18:26] other person always sets out the coffee

[1:18:28] or some it's these the little thing

[1:18:30] phenomenon. Rarely is it like sometimes

[1:18:33] it's a note but rarely is it like

[1:18:36] >> yeah I love the way you know he strings

[1:18:38] together uh you know sentences or

[1:18:42] something like I love the way that I

[1:18:43] love the way that um you know she

[1:18:46] describes this thing you know so

[1:18:48] >> it's often about actions at least in the

[1:18:50] in the observing the qualities of the

[1:18:52] positive qualities of the male partner

[1:18:54] and that's very kind of

[1:18:55] >> stereotypical

[1:18:57] >> but I think that it just it's it's a

[1:18:59] kind of window in my mind into the

[1:19:01] difference between the quote unquote

[1:19:04] exploration and courting process,

[1:19:06] although the courting process, what

[1:19:08] people do arguably matters more than

[1:19:10] what they say,

[1:19:11] >> and the kind of long-term thing,

[1:19:15] >> the the consistency of of the stability

[1:19:18] of the relationship over time.

[1:19:20] >> So, I wish that, you know, it's it's a

[1:19:21] shame that these apps don't select for

[1:19:23] uh action. The only way to do that would

[1:19:26] would be something where you would say,

[1:19:28] "Okay, if you're going to sign up for

[1:19:29] this app, you know, we're going to ask

[1:19:31] you to go on at least three dates with,

[1:19:33] you know, anybody that you match with,

[1:19:35] and we want to see you dating in these

[1:19:37] very different circumstances where the

[1:19:40] point isn't always to just talk at each

[1:19:43] other. That also you like you got to do

[1:19:46] things together." I wish there were

[1:19:47] dates that were like assemble this IKEA

[1:19:50] furniture.

[1:19:50] >> Don't people still go for like a hike or

[1:19:52] go to a show?

[1:19:52] >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's that that's good,

[1:19:54] too, cuz at least it's it's talking and

[1:19:56] interacting, but a different kind of

[1:19:58] talking and interacting. I want I want

[1:19:59] like physical challenges. Get out of

[1:20:01] this escape room, stuff like that.

[1:20:03] Anyway, I'm not actually handle.

[1:20:05] >> Yeah, right. You're right. Yeah. So, you

[1:20:07] got to be witty, but also not panic.

[1:20:09] >> Do you suggest that? Is it is it like a

[1:20:10] first date?

[1:20:11] >> I don't know. Maybe third date.

[1:20:12] >> Okay.

[1:20:13] >> Third date sounds good for escape. I

[1:20:15] want to be clear. I've never I've only

[1:20:16] done the the escape room board games.

[1:20:18] >> You're just throwing people under the

[1:20:19] bus just to see what happens. Get to

[1:20:20] that date. Yeah. No, no, I'm just

[1:20:22] kidding. But like you know events that

[1:20:24] sporting events I mean things that are

[1:20:26] um uh that are exciting that you're

[1:20:30] doing together but also facilitate

[1:20:32] interaction I think can be really good.

[1:20:35] It is very very hard though to simulate

[1:20:40] the patterns of what would it be like to

[1:20:43] be in a long-term relationship with this

[1:20:45] person and the 4,000 daily

[1:20:48] responsibilities that come with that.

[1:20:51] And I think even when we are really

[1:20:54] crazy about somebody early on, we try to

[1:20:58] forecast what that's going to be like as

[1:20:59] best we can, but we really don't know.

[1:21:03] And I think the like the beautiful thing

[1:21:06] but also the challenge that a lot of

[1:21:08] relationships have is you know what you

[1:21:10] do is you know like you just described

[1:21:12] like okay it becomes my job to set out

[1:21:14] the coffee and it becomes your job to

[1:21:16] mow the lawn and we create this very

[1:21:19] elaborate structure that guides not just

[1:21:23] our day-to-day lives and the crap we

[1:21:25] have to do but it also guides how we

[1:21:28] communicate when we communicate what we

[1:21:30] communicate about. If we create a

[1:21:33] business together,

[1:21:36] that can create a relationship that

[1:21:37] starts to feel like more transactional,

[1:21:40] that's maybe less warm, has less

[1:21:42] opportunity for connection

[1:21:45] as opposed to creating a relationship

[1:21:47] that builds, you know, time for fun

[1:21:50] activities together, for fun

[1:21:52] experiences, or again, I recognize like

[1:21:55] people are stressed and often working

[1:21:56] multiple jobs, but at least when we are

[1:21:58] interacting, are we able to interact

[1:22:00] about the fun, silly things that brought

[1:22:03] us together in the first place. Um, I

[1:22:06] think it's it's very challenging to do

[1:22:08] these things. When people go to couples

[1:22:10] therapy and the couples therapy is

[1:22:11] effective, it's usually because

[1:22:15] therapists are able to help couples

[1:22:19] essentially like rewind all the bad

[1:22:21] patterns they've created and go back to

[1:22:23] when things were good. uh rediscover

[1:22:26] what it was that they really appreciated

[1:22:29] about each other and like recreate their

[1:22:31] relationship from there in a new way.

[1:22:33] But yes, many of these things are

[1:22:35] they're just deeply deeply hard to

[1:22:37] forecast.

[1:22:39] >> Yeah. And there's always the natural

[1:22:41] desire to want to know if one's time and

[1:22:44] energy is well spent. I mean it's really

[1:22:47] in some sense the most um important

[1:22:51] investment is time and energy of I mean

[1:22:54] and uh it's kind of all we have it's all

[1:22:56] we have and that's very evolutionary in

[1:22:59] its core. You talked before about this

[1:23:01] kind of crystal ball question or um

[1:23:04] probing for particular disclosures that

[1:23:07] people are willing or not willing to

[1:23:09] make as a

[1:23:10] >> as a perhaps better indication of

[1:23:12] whether somebody is interesting or

[1:23:15] appropriate. Yeah.

[1:23:16] >> For you. I realize however that the

[1:23:19] notion that there's a like a question or

[1:23:21] a set of questions that would say green

[1:23:23] light

[1:23:24] >> is that's not true. That just can't be

[1:23:28] true. There's probably some answers that

[1:23:29] are red light. Everyone, you know, knows

[1:23:31] red light. Hopefully, they're paying

[1:23:33] attention to that, but they it's the

[1:23:35] yellow it's the yellow but it's the

[1:23:37] yellow lights and not knowing what

[1:23:38] questions to ask to see if there's a

[1:23:40] sort of green light path forward. Tell

[1:23:43] me what those questions are. Like,

[1:23:45] phrased differently. If two people are

[1:23:47] on a date and they have only a few

[1:23:49] minutes, it's kind of a speed dating

[1:23:51] type situation and they need to make a

[1:23:52] good assessment as to whether or not

[1:23:54] they genuinely would like to spend more

[1:23:56] time with the person again.

[1:23:58] uh what what are the questions they

[1:24:00] should ask?

[1:24:01] >> All right. So, I like the questions that

[1:24:03] are a little bit more offbeat. You know,

[1:24:05] what people tend to do on speed dates is

[1:24:07] they they want to find common ground

[1:24:10] quickly. You know, if it's college

[1:24:12] students, maybe we're going to talk

[1:24:13] about their major. Uh do we share a

[1:24:14] major? No. Uh like pivot. Uh where are

[1:24:16] you from? And they'll try to find

[1:24:18] something that they can bond over

[1:24:23] and that can work very well. But I think

[1:24:26] the core of what we want in an initial

[1:24:29] interaction with somebody is to take

[1:24:31] away something that feels like it was at

[1:24:33] least a little different than all the

[1:24:35] other interactions that we have. And so

[1:24:38] sometimes what that means is going a

[1:24:42] touch deeper than people are comfortable

[1:24:44] with. Now in in 4 minutes it's tricky if

[1:24:49] you have a little bit longer like a

[1:24:50] regular evening length date. I really

[1:24:53] like the 36 questions test. Like this is

[1:24:56] the sometimes it's called the fast

[1:24:58] friends procedure, but these are

[1:25:00] questions like, you know, what's one

[1:25:02] thing that you've never told somebody

[1:25:04] that you've always wanted to tell them

[1:25:05] and what's stopping you? Or

[1:25:07] >> people answer that.

[1:25:08] >> Yeah. I mean, after if you've been

[1:25:10] hanging out with somebody for 60 to 90

[1:25:13] minutes, that is a pretty good way to

[1:25:17] elicit real depth and give like both

[1:25:21] people a chance to do some reciprocal

[1:25:23] self-disclosure cuz that's what people

[1:25:25] want. That's what people connect over is

[1:25:27] like I've like I feel like I've just

[1:25:30] heard you. Maybe it's true, maybe it's

[1:25:32] not, but I feel like you've just told me

[1:25:34] something that you haven't told most

[1:25:36] people and maybe you haven't told

[1:25:38] anybody. I vividly remember falling for

[1:25:42] somebody when that moment happened. It's

[1:25:45] like I really you are telling me this. I

[1:25:48] I don't I don't think you've ever told

[1:25:50] anybody this before and it is such a

[1:25:54] rush. I I think like I don't know, man.

[1:25:57] The internet, it's like convince us all

[1:25:59] we care about is like sex and hotness.

[1:26:01] There is nothing like the rush of having

[1:26:04] somebody tell you something that they've

[1:26:05] never told anybody else. And again, this

[1:26:08] is like the stuff that gets

[1:26:09] relationships researchers excited

[1:26:10] because this is what we see in our data.

[1:26:12] Responsiveness, closeness, like building

[1:26:15] trust and all of that stuff. Now again,

[1:26:17] four minutes is really hard. Four

[1:26:19] minutes you just got to get a little

[1:26:21] nugget of something that you want to

[1:26:22] build off later. And maybe that is your

[1:26:25] hometown and maybe it is like, "Isn't

[1:26:27] this a weird experience that we're only

[1:26:29] going to get to chat for 4 minutes, but

[1:26:31] whenever there are roots to go for a

[1:26:34] little bit more disclosure, I usually

[1:26:36] advise that that people go for it. It it

[1:26:39] it will pay off on average, even if it

[1:26:42] can feel kind of awkward in the moment."

[1:26:44] Do you think there's uh more excitement

[1:26:47] if one gets the sense that the other

[1:26:49] person is um taking a bit of a risk in

[1:26:53] disclosing it? Not like I've been dying

[1:26:55] to tell somebody this and there's never

[1:26:56] been opportunity. Thanks for giving me

[1:26:58] the opportunity and

[1:26:59] >> you know I whatever. I always, you know,

[1:27:02] wanted to come back in my second life as

[1:27:04] a guppy or something. I I don't know.

[1:27:05] I'm picking a trivial example on purpose

[1:27:08] cuz it's not true. Much better tropical

[1:27:10] fish. Big tropical fish enthusiast. much

[1:27:12] better freshwater discus. Much better

[1:27:14] fresh owned by me cuz it would be have a

[1:27:16] really good life. Um take really good

[1:27:18] care of my freshwater discus. But in all

[1:27:21] seriousness, does that mean that people

[1:27:23] are walking around harboring, especially

[1:27:26] single people are harboring

[1:27:29] parts of themselves that they're craving

[1:27:31] intimacy, you know, that that's of the

[1:27:34] exchange things that they've never told

[1:27:36] anyone that they wish they could tell

[1:27:37] someone, feel safe enough to tell them.

[1:27:39] Is that what you're talking about? you

[1:27:41] know, creating a real moment of intimacy

[1:27:43] early on. That's not physical intimacy.

[1:27:46] It's

[1:27:47] >> I don't even know if it's emotional

[1:27:48] intimacy. It's like it's like human

[1:27:50] connection, right? It's like I'm a

[1:27:53] person that's had particular experiences

[1:27:55] and you're a person that's that's had

[1:27:57] particular experiences and we have these

[1:27:59] like narratives and stories about

[1:28:01] ourselves.

[1:28:02] >> Again, the science historically has been

[1:28:04] so focused on traits and I get it. Like

[1:28:07] I and I understand the evolutionary

[1:28:08] focus on traits, but man, humans are

[1:28:11] stories, right? We're narratives and we

[1:28:14] want other people to be privy to that

[1:28:17] narrative and then maybe eventually be a

[1:28:20] part of it. So I think that that is

[1:28:23] often what can be very powerful. Now for

[1:28:25] people who are single and they like want

[1:28:27] to be in a relationship, I do think that

[1:28:31] it can be that sense that they're

[1:28:33] lacking. A lot of people are single and

[1:28:35] are very very happy with their single

[1:28:37] lives. And I also understand that a lot

[1:28:39] of people if they're single and they're

[1:28:40] dating.

[1:28:42] Look, there's a lot of reasons to be

[1:28:44] cautious. Forming a relationship is a

[1:28:46] low base rate event. It doesn't happen

[1:28:48] all that often.

[1:28:50] >> And it's time costly. It can be

[1:28:51] financially costly. It's energetically

[1:28:54] costly. Exactly. It's very

[1:28:55] energetically.

[1:28:56] >> Exactly. Like we don't go around forming

[1:28:58] relationships with everybody. But I I

[1:29:00] also happen to think that like once the

[1:29:02] ball gets rolling, the pull can be very

[1:29:04] strong. And part of that pull is this

[1:29:08] this desire to have somebody kind of see

[1:29:11] me, get me, understand me. I might be

[1:29:14] talking about securely attached people

[1:29:15] on average, right? There's always going

[1:29:17] to be that avoidance pull too, like

[1:29:19] people need to self-protect to some

[1:29:22] extent, but the sort of desire to open

[1:29:25] up and have somebody like really get

[1:29:26] you, it's it's so core to the

[1:29:29] relationship science worldview and and I

[1:29:32] think it says a lot about like who we

[1:29:35] are as a species and like how we form

[1:29:37] mating relationships.

[1:29:39] You've said in um so many words uh

[1:29:43] before uh that men and women essentially

[1:29:45] want the same things.

[1:29:47] >> Yeah. I think that's going to hit some

[1:29:49] people square in the face and they're

[1:29:50] going to say that is so not true. Men

[1:29:53] just want blank. Women just want blank.

[1:29:55] >> I I'm like on this campaign lately to

[1:29:58] try and defang

[1:30:00] >> the trolls. Yeah.

[1:30:02] >> That seem to have like it's like it we

[1:30:05] were in high school. Let's leave junior

[1:30:06] high school. Let's go to high school.

[1:30:08] And there were like a bunch of like

[1:30:09] really awful people. Let's evenly

[1:30:12] distribute it between the sexes. Let's

[1:30:13] just do that for fairness sake. Yeah.

[1:30:15] >> And they're like constantly pointing out

[1:30:17] how

[1:30:18] >> these people are always bad and

[1:30:21] extractive and these people are always,

[1:30:23] you know, uh, cold and avoidant and like

[1:30:25] and and if those narratives were just

[1:30:27] constantly like posted on the walls and

[1:30:29] like and talked about in the uh over

[1:30:32] lunch and whispered in the hallways, it

[1:30:34] would be very poisonous to the whole

[1:30:37] environment. And that's kind of what the

[1:30:38] internet is. and then the traditional

[1:30:41] news, but also some podcasts, not this

[1:30:43] podcast, but will kind of amplify these

[1:30:45] narratives because they feel juicy. They

[1:30:48] feel uh and they get clicks.

[1:30:50] >> And I think we all have an innate desire

[1:30:52] to avoid danger. So, we like know where

[1:30:55] where this stuff is. But when you step

[1:30:57] back, you go, right? Like most people

[1:30:59] are pretty well-meaning. Most people are

[1:31:00] looking for good partnership. Nobody's

[1:31:02] perfect, but uh where people make

[1:31:05] mistakes. Most people are like looking

[1:31:06] to at least modify their behavior over

[1:31:08] time. Like it's all reasonably

[1:31:11] benevolent, but then there are these

[1:31:13] like

[1:31:14] >> kind of nasty characters out there

[1:31:16] >> and we give them so much credit and we

[1:31:19] give them so much power

[1:31:20] >> and they just plain suck.

[1:31:22] >> Yeah.

[1:31:22] >> So

[1:31:23] >> men and women want the same things.

[1:31:25] Let's shut them up for a second and ask

[1:31:27] what the data say. This was one of the

[1:31:29] first things I studied when I started

[1:31:31] looking at attraction like almost 20

[1:31:34] years ago now. And in part because I

[1:31:37] found the gender differences

[1:31:38] fascinating. It was very clear for

[1:31:41] decades and decades that if you ask men

[1:31:43] and women about the qualities they want

[1:31:45] in a partner that you'll see these

[1:31:47] differences show up pretty routinely and

[1:31:50] they are differences that then in the

[1:31:52] hands of nefarious characters online get

[1:31:54] spun out into exactly the narrative that

[1:31:56] you're describing. But the basic data on

[1:31:59] what men and women say they want, it's

[1:32:02] there. Men will say they care about

[1:32:04] attractiveness in a partner more than

[1:32:06] women. And women will say they care

[1:32:07] about earning potential in a partner

[1:32:09] more than men. Now, I'm phrasing that in

[1:32:12] a particular way. And I'm I'm saying

[1:32:15] what people say they want because I'm

[1:32:18] critiquing the experimental paradigms

[1:32:21] that were used. It usually had people

[1:32:24] rating a bunch of traits on scales. And

[1:32:27] as a psychologist, I have no problem

[1:32:29] with that. I'm very interested in

[1:32:30] people's subjective experiences and I

[1:32:32] use scales all the time. But we wondered

[1:32:36] that's different than or it might be

[1:32:40] different than what happens when you're

[1:32:42] meeting people face to face and you're

[1:32:45] reacting to a set of people who might be

[1:32:48] very attractive or of middling

[1:32:50] attractiveness or not very attractive at

[1:32:52] all. And that to me seems closer to

[1:32:55] capturing what people actually want.

[1:32:57] Like if you meet 10 women, how much does

[1:33:01] their attractiveness drive your desire

[1:33:05] to date them? How much does

[1:33:06] attractiveness affect whether you want a

[1:33:09] second date with them or not? So, we ran

[1:33:11] speed dating studies to try to capture

[1:33:14] exactly this phenomenon. I'll make it

[1:33:17] about earning prospects because it's

[1:33:18] really the same the same thing. So, we

[1:33:21] have these men and they go speed dating

[1:33:23] and some of these women are very

[1:33:24] ambitious. They're going to be lawyers

[1:33:25] and doctors. Others are a little bit

[1:33:28] less ambitious. And what you'd see is

[1:33:30] that the men tended to like the women a

[1:33:33] little bit more to the extent that they

[1:33:34] were ambitious. It wasn't a huge driver

[1:33:36] of their liking, but it was definitely

[1:33:39] there and it was definitely positive.

[1:33:41] But then when we flipped it and we

[1:33:43] looked at what the women were drawn to,

[1:33:45] not what they said, but what they were

[1:33:47] drawn to, they also tended to like the

[1:33:49] ambitious men a little bit. And the

[1:33:52] magnitude of that preference was

[1:33:53] identical. And it's been 20 years of

[1:33:56] this where we've looked at ongoing

[1:33:58] relationships. We've looked at um you

[1:34:01] know 40 something countries throughout

[1:34:03] the world. That narrative uh plays out

[1:34:06] every time. There's no gender

[1:34:08] differences in the extent to which these

[1:34:11] traits appeal to men and women when

[1:34:14] they're evaluating like real people

[1:34:16] they've actually met. Online is

[1:34:18] different. What people say they want is

[1:34:20] different. but real people that you've

[1:34:22] at least met face to face seems to

[1:34:25] dramatically reduce the power of the

[1:34:27] gender differences and the appeal of

[1:34:28] these traits.

[1:34:30] >> Fascinating and runs countercurrent to I

[1:34:32] think what many people including I have

[1:34:34] heard out there.

[1:34:35] >> Yeah. But but I think the like I think

[1:34:37] the key lesson here is like

[1:34:41] >> believe your subjective experience when

[1:34:44] you're interacting with somebody and

[1:34:46] you're getting to know them. And maybe

[1:34:47] that subjective experience is like,

[1:34:49] "She's hot, but I am not feeling this."

[1:34:51] And maybe that subjective experience is

[1:34:53] like, you know, I know that maybe to

[1:34:56] some people he looks like he doesn't

[1:34:57] have his life together, but I really see

[1:34:59] a spark there.

[1:35:02] If you trust that experience, I think

[1:35:05] that's likely to go better.

[1:35:08] And we don't have an experience to go on

[1:35:10] like that when it's online. When it's

[1:35:12] online, it's very easy to put people in

[1:35:14] boxes, put people in groups, and then

[1:35:15] make the groups fight each other. And I

[1:35:18] too am very distressed about all the

[1:35:20] heteropessimism.

[1:35:22] >> Yeah. Right. That's It's not my term,

[1:35:24] but it's one of my favorite terms.

[1:35:25] >> Do you know who coined it?

[1:35:26] >> I know the year is like 2019, but I

[1:35:28] forget the author. Yeah, look it up.

[1:35:30] >> Great term. Heteropet. Right. It's like

[1:35:33] men and women can't get along. How could

[1:35:34] they get along? They've got different

[1:35:36] interests and different priorities.

[1:35:38] Look, in the close relationships realm,

[1:35:40] it's not true. And that's the realm I

[1:35:43] know. Men and women, they want the same

[1:35:45] things out of their relationships. Yes,

[1:35:48] there are gender differences and like

[1:35:50] the thresholds for sex and especially

[1:35:52] early on that can be that can be really

[1:35:55] messy. Um, but overall I see a lot of

[1:35:59] similarity and a lot of potential for

[1:36:01] these the bonds that men and women form

[1:36:04] to do great things for people and women

[1:36:06] and women and men and men and any

[1:36:08] gendered combination that you want to

[1:36:09] come up with. Um, I think we're pair

[1:36:13] bonding creatures. We get a lot of joy

[1:36:15] and a lot of fulfillment out of that.

[1:36:17] And I want to see men and women find a

[1:36:19] way to make it work again.

[1:36:21] springboarding off of the heteropesses.

[1:36:23] Yeah. term, which is great because it

[1:36:25] encapsulates so much even though what it

[1:36:27] encapsulates is definitely not great.

[1:36:29] Yeah. The term I'm about to use is gonna

[1:36:31] sound um

[1:36:33] >> like it means something uh it doesn't.

[1:36:35] But is there any research on

[1:36:37] homopessimism, which is not the same as

[1:36:39] homophobia? Homopim meaning I'm not

[1:36:41] aware because I happen to be

[1:36:43] heterosexual, but I have homosexual

[1:36:44] friends, men and women. I'm not hearing

[1:36:47] them talk a lot about how dating culture

[1:36:49] is much worse

[1:36:51] >> now.

[1:36:51] >> I hear this too.

[1:36:53] >> But

[1:36:54] >> then again, uh sample size isn't that

[1:36:56] great here.

[1:36:57] >> So I don't know because a lot of the

[1:36:59] same things apply in terms of like apps.

[1:37:02] Uh sure cultures vary. Yeah.

[1:37:05] >> But there are some constants in this

[1:37:07] picture. Um so in any research yours or

[1:37:12] others research about um homosexual

[1:37:16] dating and couples is there pessimism

[1:37:19] guys saying well guys these days and

[1:37:21] women saying in uh yeah lesbian women

[1:37:25] let's just you know for lack of a better

[1:37:26] term um saying

[1:37:28] >> women these days

[1:37:29] >> I don't think that's out there nearly to

[1:37:32] the same extent. I think some of the

[1:37:35] like interesting components that you see

[1:37:38] out there is look the apps I think did

[1:37:41] they did a lot of good in the world for

[1:37:43] people who you know just felt like their

[1:37:46] social networks had no options in them

[1:37:48] but especially for people who might have

[1:37:51] been living in places that were

[1:37:52] genuinely unsafe for gays and lesbians

[1:37:55] and might have helped them to find

[1:37:57] romantic partners. So like um I always

[1:38:00] want to be the first one to give the

[1:38:02] apps credit for that for providing those

[1:38:04] kinds of opportunities.

[1:38:06] Classically speaking, what you tend to

[1:38:09] see is that, you know, I've talked a

[1:38:11] little bit about the the time frame as

[1:38:14] people form relationships in the first

[1:38:16] place. And that sometimes we get locked

[1:38:17] into this idea that it's like, oh, it's

[1:38:19] going to happen in an instant and and

[1:38:20] now you're together. But the reality is

[1:38:22] it's often an elongated process. That

[1:38:26] process has tended historically to be

[1:38:29] even longer for folks who are gays and

[1:38:32] lesbians forming same gender

[1:38:33] relationships. And I think part of that

[1:38:36] is something that you you might even

[1:38:38] call like a bigotry tax because if you

[1:38:42] lived in a place where it was like

[1:38:44] vaguely dangerous to admit your same-sex

[1:38:48] attractions, you got to be really

[1:38:51] careful before you start disclosing how

[1:38:55] you feel about somebody because

[1:38:56] rejection doesn't just mean rejection.

[1:38:58] Rejection is maybe actually carries

[1:39:00] other threats and stigma and all of

[1:39:02] these other things with it.

[1:39:03] >> Loss of jobs. Exactly. We've seen

[1:39:04] examples of that like it's sort of again

[1:39:07] it plays on stereotypes but um I'm I'm

[1:39:09] going to assume some of it is true. Uh

[1:39:11] like in in Mad Men, right? There's a

[1:39:14] disclosure and then it doesn't go well.

[1:39:16] >> Right. Right.

[1:39:17] >> Yeah. It doesn't go well.

[1:39:18] >> I love the movie Call Me By Your Name.

[1:39:20] >> I don't think I've seen it.

[1:39:22] >> Yeah. It's it's it's about 10 years old.

[1:39:23] It's it's Luca Guadanino and and he's a

[1:39:26] fabulous director, but it's about two

[1:39:29] men who get together over the course of

[1:39:30] a summer. young men who find it's it's

[1:39:33] one of Timothy Shalamé's earlier movies

[1:39:37] >> and one of the things they come to

[1:39:38] regret is that like we didn't disclose

[1:39:41] our feelings sooner but it's it the

[1:39:43] movie was taking place in the 1980s so

[1:39:46] you had to be really careful with

[1:39:50] whether you were going to be upfront

[1:39:51] about how you were feeling about

[1:39:53] somebody. wasn't uh in a place where you

[1:39:56] can't be fully confident that you're