UC Davis's Eastwick Debunks App Algorithms as Long-Term Mate Predictors

UC Davis学者Eastwick驳斥约会软件算法可预测长期伴侣 基于客观相似度的约会软件匹配并不优于随机概率，而现实中长期的相识与独特的契合度仍是维持长期关系稳定的主要驱动因素。 本讨论剖析了恋爱吸引力背后的进化与心理机制，对比了现代数字约会环境与自然的相识过程。约会软件往往基于共识特征制造出人为且高度不平等的市场动态，而真正的契合源于脱离集体评价的独特个体共同经历。长期关系成功的关键预测因素在于感知到的相似性、性亲密感以及共同叙事的建立，而非客观的匹配特征。此外，积极组织社群活动以及把握Instagram等平台微妙的社交生态，也是现代寻找并维系伴侣关系的关键途径。 约会软件形成了极度不平等的市场动态，极少数热门用户占据了绝大部分的右滑匹配与互动；然而在线下现实中，人们对外貌吸引力的判断分歧较大，反而自然平衡了竞争空间。 (18:13) 长期的相处与了解能打破大众对个人吸引力的刻板共识，使严苛的市场化择偶标准转化为独特的个性化兼容——真正的吸引力源于独特的双向互动，而非盲从群体的追捧。 (7:13) 持久稳固的伴侣关系依赖于两人专属的内部梗、生活趣事与共同回忆，而非约会软件在面试式筛选中格外看重的静态指标。 (21:01) 恋爱历程分为第一印象与长期兼容性两个不同阶段，真正的爱意往往不是瞬间的电光石火，而是在不同情境中一系列微小积极时刻的缓慢累积。 (24:19)

Psychological and behavioral data indicate that real-world romantic attraction operates far differently from popular cultural assumptions and dating app algorithms. Drawing on empirical research, Dr. Paul Eastwick demonstrates that stated preferences vanish during face-to-face interactions, while lasting compatibility relies on perceived similarity, shared narratives, and organic social context. Stated Preferences Versus In-Person Chemistry (89:39) Public discourse often frames mate selection around rigid gender asymmetries, assuming men prioritize physical youth while women prioritize wealth and ambition. Dr. Paul Eastwick points out that while subjective questionnaires reflect these traditional patterns, twenty years of speed-dating data across approximately 40 countries reveal that reported gender divides disappear in face-to-face evaluations. In person, men demonstrate attraction to ambitious partners to the exact same degree as women do, and both genders actively pursue partners younger than themselves. Stated filters also fail to predict actual pairing outcomes. In a study of roughly 4,000 matchmaking clients, women who explicitly preferred older partners frequently reported high enjoyment and requested second dates after meeting younger men. Similarly, an individual's isolated income shows negligible effects on partner satisfaction compared to collective socioeconomic stability. Historical trends also challenge conventional wisdom: the heightened divorce risk once associated with marriages where women out-earned men disappeared in the 1990s. Artificial Marketforces of Dating Apps (18:13) Mainstream swiping apps create an artificial dating economy where an extreme minority captures the majority of matches and messages. This dynamic amplifies superficial attributes and heavily favors hyperverbal communication over actionable compatibility. Additionally, cold romantic approaches to strangers represent an evolutionarily atypical behavior. While experimental data show men are 20 times more likely than women to accept a sexual invitation from an unfamiliar person approaching them on campus, that gender gap shrinks to only two times when the invitation occurs between existing acquaintances. In natural environments, consensus regarding physical attractiveness is imperfect—two people evaluating an individual's appearance agree only about 66% of the time. Repeated acquaintance and personal interaction dampen market-driven sorting, allowing individual preferences to diverge from group consensus. Investing in ongoing mixed-gender social circles and community groups offers a higher-yield foundation for romance by fostering mutual familiarity and banter over time. Perception, Motivated Reasoning, and Idiosyncratic Bonds (123:48) Algorithmic matchmaking relying on objective, 'actual similarity' metrics rarely performs better than chance. Instead, relationship stability is driven by perceived similarity—a subjective sentiment enabling motivated reasoning. When deeply attracted, individuals amplify minor commonalities and compartmentalize major divides, including opposing political orientations, which data show do not inherently diminish relationship satisfaction. Long-term bonds coalesce around highly specific, idiosyncratic hooks rather than checklist virtues—such as shared in-jokes or observing a partner excel at a unique task. Rather than duration itself predicting relationship health, couples depend on a shared narrative of overcoming obstacles. When relationships become transactional corporate arrangements through daily routines, reconnecting requires actively recovering that idiosyncratic playfulness and mutual appreciation. Commitment Defenses, External Desires, and Intimacy (128:35) Committed partnerships protect themselves through the 'derogation of alternatives,' a psychological mechanism where contented individuals instinctively rate outside potential partners as less desirable. Controlled studies reveal that feeling outside attraction does not inherently signal relational doom; fantasizing about an external acquaintance can temporarily rebound to increase sexual desire for the primary partner. Relational threats arise when digital platforms like Instagram turn transient private attraction into ongoing, secretive escalation. Physical intimacy remains critical throughout mature relationships. Data indicate that perceiving a partner as a 'good lover' serves as one of the strongest statistical predictors of overall relationship satisfaction and stability. Distinct gender patterns also emerge across commitment trajectories: because women typically maintain multifaceted emotional support networks while men concentrate intimacy almost entirely within their romantic relationship, men consistently display greater eagerness to initiate commitment, state love first, and experience extended longing after a breakup. Real-world relationship research shows that abstract checklists, market-value models, and algorithmic formulas fail to forecast romantic success. Lasting compatibility develops out of gradual acquaintance, subjective narrative alignment, and reciprocal physical intimacy, challenging both cynical internet tropes and purely market-based interpretations of human courtship.

心理学教授Paul Eastwick与神经生物学家Andrew Huberman指出，传统演化心理学对择偶的市场化假设常被数字约会软件放大，但真实面对面的长期人际吸引更多由独特的双向互动、主观感知与共同叙事所决定，而非静态的纸面偏好。 线上算法扭曲与线下吸引力的真实分布 (18:13) Huberman与Eastwick讨论指出，主流约会软件营造出极度不平等的市场结构，绝大部分滑动与互动集中于极少数高吸引力用户，本构成了类似“盗贼统治”的赢者通吃环境。但在线下现实中，人们在二元评判他人是否具有吸引力时，一致性仅约三分之二（66%），存在显著的分歧空间。随着双方在线下相处与了解，外貌等共识性特征带来的压倒性优势会自然减弱，真实互动中的背景因素与独特偏好会使择偶竞争环境更加平缓。 打破性别刻板印象：纸面陈述与面对面互动的断层 (89:39) Eastwick基于横跨约40个国家、长达20年的实证数据反驳了将两性对立化的“异性恋悲观主义”。在问卷调查等抽象量表中，男性倾向于声称看重外貌，女性声称看重经济实力；然而在速配等真实的面对面接触实验中，这些性别差异几乎完全消失，男性对有野心、有事业追求的女性展现出的偏好强度与女性对男性的偏好完全一致。此外，针对约4000名专业婚介客户的数据显示，女性声称排斥年轻男性，但在约会后对年轻伴侣的接受度和再次约会意愿往往与陈述相反；而在实际维系方面，自1990年代起，妻子收入高于丈夫导致婚姻破裂的统计风险便已不复存在。 交往机制：双向叙事胜过客观算法匹配 (123:48) 研究表明，伴侣间的“主观感知相似度”远比硬性量化的“实际客观相似度”更能预测关系质量。当两个人产生吸引力时，主观偏见与动机性推理会促使个体主动放大微小的共同点，甚至将政治等维度的巨大分歧边缘化，导致基于固定特征匹配的算法效果并不优于抛硬币。在日常相处中，成功的关系往往伴随沟通节奏与文本结构的自然同步，维系长久伴侣关系的关键并非抽象的硬件指标，而是高度个人化的经历、生活默契以及共同克服困难的叙事记忆。 边界守护、性吸引力与外部刺激的心理动态 在长期承诺关系中，个体通常依赖“贬低替代选择”的心理机制保护伴侣关系，将外部潜在对象视作缺乏吸引力以维持专注。但实验数据也揭示出一种反弹效应：对非伴侣对象产生的性幻想或外界吸引力反馈，有时会反向增加个体对自己现有伴侣的欲望，吸引力本身并非破坏关系的元凶，私密化与持续升级才是风险所在。与此同时，将伴侣主观评估为“好情人”是预测整体关系满意度与持续意愿的关键指标，长期缺乏亲密接触会对个体的自我认同与关系稳定性造成深层损害。 摆脱冷启动困境与重建真实社交架构 从演化视角来看，向完全陌生的人发起恋爱邀请是极其低效且现代化的反常态行为。校园实验显示，在面对陌生人的直接搭讪邀请时，男性的接受概率是女性的20倍；但当互动发生在熟人或朋友社交圈内时，这一性别差距急剧缩小至仅2倍。因此，应对现代约会焦虑与孤立的有效途径，是减少依赖算法优化的搭讪套路，主动构建或参与混合性别的真实社群，通过长期的互动、自然的交谈与人际网络，让浪漫关系有机生长。 本期对话强调，静态的演化指标与抽象偏好无法准确预测现实关系的结果。尽管数字平台与商业化叙事强化了外貌与收入的量化博弈，但面对面的感知弹性、日常互动契合度与社群支持仍是决定长期伴侣关系稳定性的核心要素。

[15:22] Andrew Huberman: you're awesome, I'm awesome, let's get together [15:22] Andrew Huberman: badass winners pairing up [29:54] If people just treated their taste in people, in music, in art, in experiences the same way they treated their taste in food, everyone would be a lot better off. [43:36] Andrew Huberman: corrosive [46:40] like a bank account you never have to dip into [48:20] the way you destroy a society is to get the men and the women to hate each other [123:48] perceived similarity matters more than actual similarity [135:17] Female athlete (via anecdote): I feel like I have to go like flirt with a really attractive guy now. [135:17] Married woman (via anecdote): Am I losing it? [146:15] Andrew Huberman: billion dollar question [148:27] Andrew Huberman: bump, set, approach

[0:00] When you look at who gets the right [0:02] swipes and who receives messages on the [0:05] apps, it's the most popular people. I [0:08] mean, folks have claimed that it's one [0:10] of the most unequal markets in the [0:12] world, but regular acquaintance is not [0:16] nearly so dramatic. I don't think the [0:19] influence of attractiveness ever goes [0:21] away, right? There's always going to be [0:23] an unlevel playing field to some extent, [0:26] but the more that people spend time [0:28] together getting to know each other, it [0:31] reduces some of those market forces that [0:34] give the desirable people all the [0:36] advantages. [0:38] Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast, [0:40] where we discuss science and [0:42] science-based tools for everyday life. [0:47] I'm Andrew Huberman and I'm a professor [0:49] of neurobiology and opthalmology at [0:51] Stanford School of Medicine. My guest [0:53] today is Dr. Paul Eastwick, a professor [0:55] of psychology at the University of [0:57] California, Davis. Today we discuss the [0:59] science of attraction, mate selection, [1:01] and relationships. And I promise you [1:03] what you are going to hear will surprise [1:05] you. Paul's research has discovered that [1:07] much of what you've heard about how [1:08] people select partners, date, form [1:11] relationships, even break up or [1:13] repartner is simply wrong. At least when [1:15] you look at the actual data. For [1:17] example, his data show that both men and [1:20] women when given a choice select [1:22] partners that are younger than them. [1:24] Yes, you heard that right. It's not just [1:26] men. Men and women equally select [1:28] partners that are younger than them [1:29] given the choice. His data also [1:31] challenged the idea that financial [1:33] status is more important to women when [1:35] looking for male partners. Turns out [1:37] that when men are looking for female [1:38] partners, on average, financial status [1:41] is as important as it is when women are [1:43] looking for men. And somewhat less [1:45] surprising, his work shows that indeed [1:47] dating apps select for qualities that [1:49] are not the ones that research shows [1:51] builds lasting partnerships. But he also [1:53] offers solutions to those that are using [1:55] dating apps to try and find a partner. [1:57] Today's discussion is not just about [1:59] finding a partner. It's also about what [2:01] solidifies and maintains healthy [2:03] relationships over time. Again, what the [2:05] data say about that. Things like [2:07] physical intimacy being among the very [2:09] strongest predictors of relationship [2:11] stability. As well as both partners [2:13] feeling that no matter who else might be [2:15] attractive to them, that their partner [2:16] has unique qualities that no one else [2:18] can match. So whether you are in a [2:20] relationship or not, looking for a [2:22] relationship or not, today's discussion [2:24] gets into social bonding of all sorts [2:27] and repeatedly throughout today's [2:28] episode both as it relates to single [2:31] people looking for a partner, people who [2:32] are already partnered, we talk about the [2:34] importance of activities that are done [2:36] with other people, could be other [2:37] couples or other single people, etc. And [2:40] that this is critical for those wanting [2:42] to meet a partner and it turns out to be [2:44] critical for maintaining a healthy [2:46] long-term relationship. We'll talk about [2:48] what the data say about that. Super [2:50] interesting. So today is not just about [2:52] the real data of how people rate [2:54] attractiveness, find partners, and the [2:56] glue that keeps people happily together. [2:58] It's about the real life data and the [3:00] actions that anyone can take that help [3:02] you build and sustain excellent romantic [3:04] and other types of relationships. Before [3:06] we begin, I'd like to emphasize that [3:08] this podcast is separate from my [3:09] teaching and research roles at Stanford. [3:11] It is however part of my desire and [3:13] effort to bring zero cost to consumer [3:15] information about science and science [3:16] related tools to the general public. In [3:19] keeping with that theme, today's episode [3:20] does include sponsors. And now for my [3:23] discussion with Dr. Paul Eastwick. Dr. [3:25] Paul Eastwick, welcome. [3:27] >> Thank you so much for having me. A lot [3:29] of theories out there, a lot of [3:30] speculation about attraction, dating, [3:34] romance, and relationships, which are [3:36] separable things. Of course, we'll talk [3:38] about all of them. But one of the [3:40] semi-dominant themes in the public [3:43] narrative and indeed on many podcasts is [3:47] is kind of anchoring to evolutionary [3:49] theory which to put it really coarsely [3:53] sort of a market-based theory. You know [3:55] people even say I married up or uh you [3:57] know and people but quantitative [3:59] measures on people they're a six they're [4:01] a seven they're a 10 in this but a four [4:04] in that. You know, as a neuroscientist, [4:06] I hear that and I immediately go to, and [4:09] again, this is just purely theoretical. [4:12] >> Oh, this sounds very limbic. This is [4:14] very much of like the hypothalamus. This [4:16] is very much like the kind of thing that [4:17] you might expect under conditions of [4:19] like um low food availability, [4:22] >> low mate availability, a lot of weapons [4:24] and a few and very few laws, you know, [4:26] to to regulate violence or something. [4:28] Meaning men will will harm each other in [4:31] order to get access to mates. women will [4:33] um be deceptive. This is the whole idea. [4:37] And you step back and you go, well, [4:38] that's not the world we live in now. We [4:40] have a forebrain. We can make choices. [4:42] We can be strategic in the direction of [4:44] benevolence. We can think about [4:45] kindness. And so to me, it seems we need [4:49] a revision or at least a better [4:51] understanding of what's actually true in [4:53] 2026 and forward. So, if you would, what [4:56] are your thoughts about what is not true [4:59] based on the data [5:01] >> and perhaps what is true about this [5:03] quote unquote evolutionary model of [5:05] dating relationships and so on. The [5:07] marketplace ideas, I think they [5:10] definitely have their place and it deres [5:14] from a a sensible evolutionary [5:16] perspective like what you're describing. [5:19] I think it describes well what happens [5:22] in initial attraction settings when [5:26] people are really meeting for the first [5:28] time. There's this class demo that I do [5:32] in my undergraduate classes. A lot of [5:34] people use this demo and what you do is [5:38] you have a bunch of your students put a [5:40] number on their foreheads and they sort [5:42] of hold it up so that they can't see it [5:45] but other people can. and you tell the [5:49] students your goal is to pair up with [5:52] the highest value person that you can [5:55] and you don't know what your number is, [5:57] but I'm going to count to five and then [5:59] I want you all to stroll around the room [6:00] and try to make mating offers to folks. [6:04] And what you see is that the people who [6:06] have been randomly assigned a low [6:07] number, they start to panic because what [6:10] happens is that nobody will talk to [6:13] them. [6:13] >> And this is random. uh you know [6:15] otherwise it would be very unethical and [6:17] also who would decide but [6:18] >> but people don't like it. I mean if you [6:20] get a low number [6:21] >> it's not an enjoyable experience [6:24] >> and I think there is a parallel to what [6:27] people are experiencing as they're [6:29] growing up or maybe even if they're a [6:31] little older and they're going to a [6:33] party and they haven't met anybody [6:34] there. So this is an analogy [6:39] for how people internalize and you know [6:43] act upon something that we call mate [6:45] value and it's it's like what you [6:47] describe. It's supposedly linked to [6:49] traits that reflect your core [6:52] desiraability like maybe your physical [6:55] attractiveness but it could be other [6:57] related traits too. It could be things [6:59] like the size of your bank account or [7:01] your status. [7:02] What we tend to see is that when people [7:05] are meeting for the first time, this is [7:08] um a reasonable faximile of how people [7:12] behave. [7:13] But interesting things tend to happen [7:17] when people get to know each other over [7:19] a little bit more time. What then tends [7:22] to happen is that that agreement that is [7:26] required for that study to work. That [7:28] study only works because you can read [7:30] the numbers on people's foreheads. But [7:33] if I were to blur that number, we [7:35] wouldn't see as much pairing up. It [7:37] wouldn't be as sad and as difficult for [7:40] the people with low numbers. And in real [7:42] life, that's kind of what tends to [7:44] happen. We stop agreeing about who the [7:47] eights are and who the fives are. And [7:50] people might on average say that you're [7:51] a six, but if I've gotten to know you [7:53] over time, it means there's a chance I [7:56] think you're a nine. There's also a [7:58] chance I think you're a three. And so [8:00] that increase in idiosyncrasy and [8:04] variability, I think, is a really [8:07] fortunate thing. And it's the thing [8:09] that's going to allow a lot of partners [8:12] to find each other uh even if they're [8:14] not consensually the most desirable [8:16] people. Consensually meaning in the eyes [8:19] of others. [8:20] >> Right. Right. Right. Right. So even if [8:23] on average people think uh you're kind [8:25] of middling with enough time people are [8:29] more likely to find okay but okay you [8:31] all think I'm a five but she thinks I'm [8:33] a 10. And then what you're kind of [8:35] crossing your fingers for are these [8:36] moments where and I think she's a 10 [8:38] too. And it's this uh level of sort of [8:42] disagreement or the emergence of what we [8:45] might comp call compatibility that I [8:47] think is it's been missing from the [8:50] evolutionary narratives, but I think it [8:52] plays a core part in explaining how [8:55] couples get together as well. Wow. Um so [8:58] many things come to mind. Uh the first [9:00] thing that comes to mind is the [9:02] question, you know, who and what are [9:04] others looking at? Yeah, it seems like [9:06] one of the more I want to use the word [9:08] immature, but let's say less evolved, [9:10] not in the evolutionary biology context, [9:12] but kind of like life maturation sense, [9:14] like less evolved aspects of self is [9:16] when [9:17] >> we are not thinking about what we [9:19] actually like and don't like, [9:21] >> but we're paying a lot of attention to [9:22] what other people like and dislike as a [9:25] barometer of what we should do or not [9:27] do. Now, of course, that can be very [9:29] informative in healthy ways, but when it [9:32] really comes down to it, it's a [9:34] potentially very toxic aspect of human [9:37] nature, right? So, what I what I hear [9:39] you saying is that at some point there's [9:41] this kind of um dating, romance, and [9:44] relational maturity that people come to [9:47] where they're really able to sense what [9:49] they actually like and they're able to [9:52] put the blinders up to how other people [9:54] are necessarily behaving. like are does [9:57] everyone like this person? Do they not [9:58] 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 [60:01] gender differences that we see in the [60:04] whole realm of sex and relationships is [60:07] in swiping behavior. the fact that women [60:10] will swipe yes on like 5% of the men [60:12] they see, but men swipe yes at about [60:15] 50/50. But that fits the kind of [60:18] evolutionary quote unquote narrative [60:20] like men being less selective, wanting [60:22] to spread their [60:23] >> their DNA, this kind of thing. I mean, [60:26] >> to my mind, that whole thing around like [60:28] men want to spread their DNA. Okay. Like [60:31] I believe in in evolutionary biology, [60:33] sure, but there's a lot of modern [60:38] features that make like accountability [60:40] for offspring and things like it's not [60:41] like men can run around just having kids [60:42] with anyone and and afford all of that, [60:44] right? It's I mean, you know, we were [60:46] talking earlier the sort of like two [60:47] models. There's like the there's like [60:49] the Genghask Khan ideal within this [60:52] evolutionary [60:53] >> biology model and then there's, you [60:56] know, kind of like where are we now? I [60:58] mean, I don't think anyone [61:00] with the exception of some very wealthy [61:01] people who who have kids with lots and [61:03] lots of people and clearly can afford [61:04] it, [61:04] >> I don't think anyone's thinking they're [61:06] going to go out and just have kids with [61:07] as many people as they possibly can, [61:09] >> right? [61:10] >> And so what what's so interesting about [61:12] these gendered dynamics is that from my [61:16] perspective, they tend to get the [61:18] largest the biggest gulf between men and [61:21] women in the situations that are the [61:23] weirdest. So, for example, we this is [61:26] and this is a real study. You recruit [61:29] confederates. So, that means it's [61:30] somebody who's working for the [61:32] experimentter. And then uh they go [61:34] around campus and they ask people, "I've [61:36] noticed you around and I find you very [61:37] attractive. Would you like to go to bed [61:39] with me?" And when you do this, you find [61:43] that men are about 20 times more likely [61:46] to say yes to that request than women. [61:49] Very few women say yes to this request, [61:52] but a reasonable number of men do. All [61:55] right. But the thing about that [61:57] experiment, and that experiment is very [61:59] valuable, and it's very influential, and [62:00] I love at least that it was real, that [62:03] people were actually out in the world [62:05] doing something, even if it's a little [62:08] wild and uh probably a little scary, [62:10] especially for the women. But if you do [62:13] this one little tweak and you say, [62:15] "Yeah, okay, but how about like the last [62:18] time that happened to you in real life, [62:20] like in a context where you knew people [62:22] and then you look at the gender [62:23] difference, it's not 20 times more, it's [62:25] two times more." [62:27] >> What do you mean? [62:27] >> It's like the last time somebody you [62:29] know, like among a group of friends like [62:32] ask like, "Hey, do you want to go hook [62:33] up?" How much more likely then are men [62:37] to say yes than women? And men are still [62:41] more likely, but they're only twice as [62:43] likely rather than 20 times as likely. [62:45] >> So, this is not my belief, but the [62:47] cynical um incel types on the internet [62:51] or the just cynical guys will say will [62:54] say, "Oh, that's because women are [62:55] sleeping around more than they used to [62:57] when the first experiment was done." I [62:59] don't believe that's true. But I can [63:01] tell you that would be their reflexive [63:03] response. Like like there's so there's [63:05] this ammo there these arrows that each [63:07] side holds. one side holds the [63:09] >> guys aren't stepping up. They're not [63:11] they're not managing their own lives, [63:13] let alone making themselves somebody who [63:15] would be attractive as a a partner who [63:17] could listen and do and take help take [63:18] care of somebody because the notion of [63:20] taking care is something we can talk [63:21] about. the guys are saying, "Well, [63:24] they're just all extractive, you know, [63:26] that and there's deceptiveness there, [63:27] and they'll trade up in a at a moment's [63:29] notice, you know, and and so [63:31] >> I mean, I don't want to feed the flames [63:34] of distrust, but the data you just [63:37] provided, what do they what is the [63:39] conclusion? Like, so that's the result, [63:41] but but in that paper, what's the the [63:44] authors, you know, we the authors [63:46] therefore conclude that?" So I would I [63:48] would conclude this [63:50] >> that approaching strangers [63:53] is especially in a romantic or sexual [63:56] context is very very tricky, very [64:00] challenging and it is a weird modern [64:02] skill because we actually evolved in [64:06] environments where you didn't actually [64:07] meet that many strangers. So if some [64:10] people are adept at that, God bless. But [64:13] for most of us, we had to get to know [64:16] people over time. We needed that long [64:19] process to make a good impression on [64:21] somebody because most of us are like not [64:24] all that hot and not so appealing that [64:27] people fall for us the moment we see [64:28] them. And so that is what I would tell [64:30] these hypothetical incels is I think [64:33] part of the problem is that you're [64:35] locked into a way of thinking about sex [64:38] and romance that it's about a pickup [64:40] line or it's about an initial [64:41] impression. I think women are more [64:44] interested in casual sex when it's [64:46] somebody that they like kind of know and [64:48] have been friendly with for a while and [64:51] have had like some good banter with. And [64:53] if you surround yourself with people, [64:56] not just women, but also men, and you [64:59] meet friends of friends, you're going to [65:01] find more opportunities that way. So, [65:04] it's like a shift in the mindset that we [65:06] have about how it is we meet people and [65:09] how it is we get to know them. and that [65:11] hitting on strangers is like low yield, [65:15] very difficult. Spending time with [65:17] friends, it's time consuming, although [65:19] it's enjoyable in and of itself. It's a [65:22] timeconsuming approach, but it's [65:24] ultimately going to be better for more [65:27] people. Uh, you know, on on average, at [65:30] least in light of the apps, social [65:33] media, this divide, I I'm very grateful [65:36] that you're bringing up this notion of [65:38] spending time in small groups. Yeah, [65:40] probably around certain activities. [65:42] Could be pickle ball, could be a [65:43] barbecue, could be I mean that's how [65:45] people used to meet. You know, sometimes [65:48] there's work adjacency. I mean, I think [65:50] that one of the reasons the coal play [65:51] thing went so viral is that the woman [65:53] was head of HR. So there were a number [65:55] of things that were ethical violations [65:56] independent of like they tried to kind [65:58] of rescue it like but they were in love [66:00] and there were marriages were failing [66:01] and people were like there are [66:03] violations down the line on this right [66:05] you know in laboratories [66:07] >> many people cuddled up in laboratories [66:09] you know my adviserss were always like [66:11] really adamant that no one should do [66:12] that I listen interesting oh yeah [66:14] >> so they try to lock it down I mean in [66:16] graduate school I I worked alone in the [66:18] lab but my graduate adviser actually uh [66:20] suggested I not even date within our [66:22] graduate program this is peerto-peer I [66:23] was a graduate student and for the most [66:25] part I I obeyed but I was so focused on [66:28] work and and I guess it happened with [66:30] like you'd go to meetings you meet other [66:32] graduate students so it was really [66:33] peerto-peer [66:34] >> in my post-doal laboratory my adviser [66:37] was like vocal to everyone like no [66:39] dating in the lab and of course there [66:40] are certain married couples nowadays [66:42] with kids [66:43] >> several of them in fact that met in the [66:44] lab just by proximity interest and who [66:46] knows aloequading prowess who knows [66:48] >> somebody out there an incredible aloquat [66:51] that never got to attract somebody to my [66:54] knowledge this by the way folks again [66:56] this is not a way to attract a mate [66:58] unless you're a molecular biologist [66:59] perhaps but I think that there's real [67:03] value in this in this because unlike our [67:05] earlier discussion where other people's [67:07] input [67:08] >> um be can be kind of toxic to the [67:11] process of understanding and really [67:12] getting in touch with one's sense of [67:14] taste I like this person I don't this [67:15] feels safe it doesn't feel safe and I'm [67:17] not using by the way the safe language [67:18] to be politically correct like some [67:20] people feel emotionally unsafe because [67:22] it's just like like if there were a [67:24] stressful circumstance, they would [67:25] dissolve into a puddle of their own [67:27] tears. That's a different version of it, [67:28] right? I think we all kind of like flit [67:30] to the the extremes. But that's that's [67:32] another aspect. [67:33] >> But this is a context in which you can [67:35] get a read of how someone behaves, their [67:38] values, their reflexive levels of [67:41] kindness or lack thereof with other [67:43] people. [67:44] >> Yeah. [67:44] >> You get a lot of data. [67:46] >> Yeah. [67:47] >> In a in a setting that [67:49] >> you're hopefully enjoying yourself in [67:51] any way. That seems very very valuable. [67:54] >> So we're talking 80s movies and 90s [67:56] movies already. So I'm gonna throw out [67:58] Say Anything. [67:59] >> Oh yeah. [67:59] >> Do you remember Say Anything? [68:00] Absolutely. So the John Cusack lead [68:03] character um asks out the Ioni Sky [68:06] character, but where they go on their [68:09] first date is absolutely fascinating. [68:11] They go to a party. So, they are clearly [68:15] going together, but they don't spend the [68:18] whole party like attached to each other [68:20] and they're not interviewing each other [68:22] like they met on an app. They're [68:24] actually kind of watching each other as [68:26] they float through these various groups. [68:29] And sometimes they're talking to other [68:31] folks about the fact that they're kind [68:32] of on a date right now and how is it's [68:34] going, but they're also talking to each [68:37] other. And it's kind of a beautiful [68:39] depiction of this old kind of lost art [68:43] of you're dating, but you're also with [68:46] other people seeing how uh they behave. [68:49] And and one of the moments where I sky [68:53] sort of you can see are starting to fall [68:55] for John Cusack is when he's actually [68:58] looking out for some of the other folks [69:00] there like you know taking their keys [69:01] away so they don't drive. And I I think [69:05] that that idea of like watching how we [69:07] behave around other people can be very [69:09] powerful. [69:10] >> So one of his unique qualities was that [69:12] he's protective of other people and [69:14] responsible and he put other people's [69:15] safety ahead of his own desire to go out [69:17] and drink that night or something. [69:18] >> Yeah. [69:18] >> Yeah. I forgot that scene. [69:20] >> I'm I I That's a perfect segue to what I [69:22] was going to say next, but I'm brought [69:24] to this mildly traumatic experience in [69:26] high school where I didn't go any go to [69:28] any high school dances early in high [69:30] school. I was like really in the [69:31] skateboard community, just really [69:32] focused on that. And then uh it was my [69:35] junior year of high school. [69:36] >> Um the now woman, then young woman, [69:41] girl, whatever, uh asked me that. It was [69:43] the Satie Hawkins dance where the the [69:45] girls asked the boys. This was very [69:48] oldfashioned, right? Like I've heard [69:49] this. It already assumes, right, that [69:51] the guy that the guys always ask the [69:53] girls, which was pretty much the [69:54] standard. [69:55] >> We go and um she was a year older and [69:58] extremely beautiful, super kind. It [70:00] ended up being a very long-term [70:01] relationship. But I remember going and [70:03] she had something back then where her [70:05] hands would get really cold. [70:07] >> She had this thing where it was a cold [70:08] night. And so she went into the [70:10] bathroom. She said, "I'd have to like [70:10] warm my hands." She was in there a [70:12] really long time. And I'm standing out [70:14] there and people are coming up to me and [70:17] they're like, "What are you doing here?" [70:19] Like, "Why are you at a dance?" And I [70:20] said, "So and so invited me." And no one [70:23] believed me. They was like, "There's no [70:24] chance." And I have to say, it was the [70:26] most mortifying thing. And I kept [70:28] waiting for this moment where she would [70:29] come out of the bathroom and like [70:30] vindicate me. And they all kept like [70:32] dissipating before she came back. She [70:33] eventually came back. And I just [70:35] remember thinking like, oh man, like [70:36] nobody even and I thinking like I'm [70:38] either completely outclassed, like [70:41] completely outclassed or like this is [70:44] one of the best opportunities that ever [70:45] landed uh in my lap and I'm going to I'm [70:47] going to pursue this with everything [70:48] I've got. So I went with the second [70:49] thing and anyway, we uh [70:51] >> this is John Cusack enter. [70:52] >> It was it was brutal. Like I had to sit [70:54] there and like you know and like no one [70:56] believed me. They actually thought like [70:57] I just like snuck in or something like [70:59] that. Anyway, [71:01] the John Cusack example is a really good [71:03] one because his character in that movie [71:05] is a little awkward along certain [71:06] dimensions. He's certainly not as um [71:09] quote unquote ambitious in the typical [71:10] sense, although he wants to be a great [71:11] kickboxer. Kickboxing sport of the [71:13] future, right? It's a great scene [71:15] between him and and her dad where he's [71:17] explaining what he's going to do in life [71:18] and and not in any kind of uh fluent way [71:23] >> and her family clearly has other plans [71:25] for her. But it gets to this thing that [71:29] I had written down because I want to ask [71:31] about next which is this notion of [71:33] texting in particular. So not even apps [71:36] but let's just say it's migrated off app [71:38] or people meet they exchange number and [71:39] there's some texting right and this [71:42] notion of of the kind of unique um [71:45] advantage at least early on [71:48] >> that I think can be somewhat misleading [71:51] of people who are hyperverbal. Oh, [71:54] interesting. [71:55] >> And in particular among men. And so [71:56] here's what um I think years ago when I [71:59] was on the job market for academic [72:01] science, a really fantastic [72:03] neurobiologist who actually read uh ran [72:05] um let's just say a very famous school [72:07] in Boston's brain science center. Um [72:09] they never admit the name of their [72:10] school anyway. um said to me, he said, [72:13] "You know, the worst part about the job [72:15] search process in uh neuroscience is [72:19] that it selects for hyperverbal people [72:21] where people can present their data, [72:23] excite people about it, present their [72:24] vision." And he said, "And there's so [72:26] many amazing scientists that just don't [72:28] know how to communicate their data [72:30] >> and we're selecting for someone who can [72:32] also teach, who can also do these [72:34] things." And I realize he's absolutely [72:36] right, you know, and some people can [72:38] overcome this, but some of the best [72:40] scientists in the world, speaking isn't [72:42] their forte. [72:43] >> Yeah. [72:43] >> Okay. So, in the realm of text [72:45] communication, there's a kind of a bias [72:48] toward can somebody like a good listener [72:51] in a face to face interaction like a guy [72:53] can just sit there, listen, [72:55] >> not interrupt, nod, maybe reflect, [72:59] >> maybe reflect, tell me more. Well, that [73:02] must have been interesting, hard, [73:03] whatever, you know, and can convey a lot [73:06] of of genuine ability to uh to [73:10] communicate and bond [73:12] >> over text, just listening [73:16] >> doesn't work. In fact, if it's just [73:17] like, wow, that must have been hard to [73:19] like a paragraph this long, like it [73:21] starts to fall flat. And this is where I [73:23] think [73:24] >> some people might be screaming, no, no, [73:26] no, that's what I want. you know, but [73:28] there's a strong selection process now [73:31] for people who can communicate quickly [73:33] with their thumbs, be witty in writing. [73:36] >> And so the hyperverbal thing has moved [73:38] to text. [73:39] >> Yeah, [73:40] >> that's a challenge. And I do think even [73:42] though some men are very hyperverbal, [73:45] there is a sex difference here that we [73:47] are well aware of. [73:48] >> So do you think that that's skewing [73:51] things? because the ability to to kind [73:53] of keep to get and keep somebody's [73:54] interest early on is strongly dependent [73:56] on these days on texting, [73:57] >> right? I think this is a really good [74:00] point. You know, I was reminded of some [74:03] work, this is early work in the like [74:07] online interaction space that suggested [74:11] that actually anxious people get a lot [74:14] out of being able to communicate with a [74:17] keyboard or with texting because they [74:19] don't get so overwhelmed. So, this is [74:22] probably going to be somebody who also [74:25] on a first date would be having a bit of [74:27] a tough time. So, it might be that [74:31] actually texting for them has at least [74:34] the advantage of reducing some of the [74:36] anxiety because they can take a minute [74:37] to think about what they want to say [74:40] before they have to actually come out [74:41] with it. But I also think you're right [74:44] that the ability to be witty over text [74:49] um as opposed to the kind of like [74:51] nonverbal listening that you're [74:52] describing that is going to be a special [74:55] advantage for some people today. So it c [74:58] it could very well be skewing things in [75:00] the way that you describe. There's not [75:02] great data on this either. I mean I [75:04] mentioned earlier we don't have great [75:05] data on like the arc of the [75:07] relationship. [75:08] But some of the the people that have [75:11] tackled this question uh this is great [75:14] researcher named Mimi Binberg at at Ohio [75:16] State. And what she does is she gets [75:19] couples who are together and then says, [75:22] "Uh, let me uh let me see your texts." [75:26] And then gets the whole text thread go [75:28] with their permission all the way back [75:31] to when they first started texting. And [75:33] what you see are some cool things like [75:36] essentially their styles of [75:37] communicating start to like cohhere, [75:40] right? It's like a pattern of mutual [75:42] influence where they they get the [75:44] similar cadence and they start using [75:46] similar words and other things as [75:49] they're talking to each other. Now, of [75:51] course, those are the successful cases. [75:53] So, what would it look like if we had [75:55] the unsuccessful cases? And I think [75:57] you're right. We would see that the [75:59] people who can't match or can't be witty [76:03] early on that those are the the text [76:06] threads that never become couples. Um, [76:09] so we just have to figure out how to [76:10] recruit those folks to to be in our [76:13] studies. Give us the last 10 threads of [76:15] of uh, you know, dates that never went [76:17] anywhere. [76:18] >> I'd like to take a quick break and [76:20] acknowledge one of our sponsors, [76:22] Element. Element is an electrolyte drink [76:24] that has everything you need and nothing [76:26] you don't. That means the electrolytes, [76:28] sodium, magnesium, and potassium, all in [76:30] the correct ratios, but no sugar. Proper [76:33] hydration is critical for brain and body [76:35] function. Even a slight degree of [76:37] dehydration can diminish your cognitive [76:39] and physical performance. It's also [76:41] important that you get adequate [76:42] electrolytes. The electrolytes, sodium, [76:44] magnesium, and potassium are vital for [76:46] the functioning of all cells in your [76:48] body, especially your neurons or your [76:50] nerve cells. Drinking element makes it [76:52] very easy to ensure that you're getting [76:54] adequate hydration and adequate [76:56] electrolytes. My days tend to start [76:58] really fast, meaning I have to jump [77:00] right into work or right into exercise. [77:02] So, to make sure that I'm hydrated and I [77:04] have sufficient electrolytes, when I [77:05] first wake up in the morning, I drink 16 [77:07] to 32 ounces of water with an element [77:09] packet dissolved in it. I also drink [77:11] Element dissolved in water during any [77:13] kind of physical exercise that I'm [77:14] doing, especially on hot days when I'm [77:16] sweating a lot and losing water and [77:18] electrolytes. Element has a bunch of [77:20] great tasting flavors. In fact, I love [77:22] them all. I love the watermelon, the [77:23] raspberry, the citrus, and I really love [77:25] the lemonade flavor. So, if you'd like [77:27] to try Element, you can go to [77:28] drinkelement.com/huberman [77:31] to claim a free element sample pack with [77:33] any purchase. Again, that's [77:34] drinkelement.com/huberman [77:37] to claim a free sample pack. Yeah, we're [77:40] sort of veering towards compatibility [77:42] when I say um you know, if I were to, [77:44] you know, ask a close family member, you [77:46] know, like what's great about the [77:47] relationship you're in, uh this is a [77:50] woman, and she'll be referring to her [77:51] male partner in this case. She'll [77:54] generally talk about the things that he [77:57] does and the things that he is able to [78:00] do in support that may or may not even [78:02] require the ability to speak. Now, he's [78:04] not aphasic, you know, um but you know, [78:08] it's [78:09] >> it's more about like [78:11] >> what he does. And when we've had [78:13] conversations on this podcast in the [78:14] past about kind of relationship glue and [78:16] things like that, it's like it's like, [78:18] oh, that they always like, you know, [78:20] >> one person always seems to like make the [78:22] bed by the time I'm back from the [78:23] bathroom in the morning and you're like, [78:25] "No, my turn." And they they or the [78:26] other person always sets out the coffee [78:28] or some it's these the little thing [78:30] phenomenon. Rarely is it like sometimes [78:33] it's a note but rarely is it like [78:36] >> yeah I love the way you know he strings [78:38] together uh you know sentences or [78:42] something like I love the way that I [78:43] love the way that um you know she [78:46] describes this thing you know so [78:48] >> it's often about actions at least in the [78:50] in the observing the qualities of the [78:52] positive qualities of the male partner [78:54] and that's very kind of [78:55] >> stereotypical [78:57] >> but I think that it just it's it's a [78:59] kind of window in my mind into the [79:01] difference between the quote unquote [79:04] exploration and courting process, [79:06] although the courting process, what [79:08] people do arguably matters more than [79:10] what they say, [79:11] >> and the kind of long-term thing, [79:15] >> the the consistency of of the stability [79:18] of the relationship over time. [79:20] >> So, I wish that, you know, it's it's a [79:21] shame that these apps don't select for [79:23] uh action. The only way to do that would [79:26] would be something where you would say, [79:28] "Okay, if you're going to sign up for [79:29] this app, you know, we're going to ask [79:31] you to go on at least three dates with, [79:33] you know, anybody that you match with, [79:35] and we want to see you dating in these [79:37] very different circumstances where the [79:40] point isn't always to just talk at each [79:43] other. That also you like you got to do [79:46] things together." I wish there were [79:47] dates that were like assemble this IKEA [79:50] furniture. [79:50] >> Don't people still go for like a hike or [79:52] go to a show? [79:52] >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's that that's good, [79:54] too, cuz at least it's it's talking and [79:56] interacting, but a different kind of [79:58] talking and interacting. I want I want [79:59] like physical challenges. Get out of [80:01] this escape room, stuff like that. [80:03] Anyway, I'm not actually handle. [80:05] >> Yeah, right. You're right. Yeah. So, you [80:07] got to be witty, but also not panic. [80:09] >> Do you suggest that? Is it is it like a [80:10] first date? [80:11] >> I don't know. Maybe third date. [80:12] >> Okay. [80:13] >> Third date sounds good for escape. I [80:15] want to be clear. I've never I've only [80:16] done the the escape room board games. [80:18] >> You're just throwing people under the [80:19] bus just to see what happens. Get to [80:20] that date. Yeah. No, no, I'm just [80:22] kidding. But like you know events that [80:24] sporting events I mean things that are [80:26] um uh that are exciting that you're [80:30] doing together but also facilitate [80:32] interaction I think can be really good. [80:35] It is very very hard though to simulate [80:40] the patterns of what would it be like to [80:43] be in a long-term relationship with this [80:45] person and the 4,000 daily [80:48] responsibilities that come with that. [80:51] And I think even when we are really [80:54] crazy about somebody early on, we try to [80:58] forecast what that's going to be like as [80:59] best we can, but we really don't know. [81:03] And I think the like the beautiful thing [81:06] but also the challenge that a lot of [81:08] relationships have is you know what you [81:10] do is you know like you just described [81:12] like okay it becomes my job to set out [81:14] the coffee and it becomes your job to [81:16] mow the lawn and we create this very [81:19] elaborate structure that guides not just [81:23] our day-to-day lives and the crap we [81:25] have to do but it also guides how we [81:28] communicate when we communicate what we [81:30] communicate about. If we create a [81:33] business together, [81:36] that can create a relationship that [81:37] starts to feel like more transactional, [81:40] that's maybe less warm, has less [81:42] opportunity for connection [81:45] as opposed to creating a relationship [81:47] that builds, you know, time for fun [81:50] activities together, for fun [81:52] experiences, or again, I recognize like [81:55] people are stressed and often working [81:56] multiple jobs, but at least when we are [81:58] interacting, are we able to interact [82:00] about the fun, silly things that brought [82:03] us together in the first place. Um, I [82:06] think it's it's very challenging to do [82:08] these things. When people go to couples [82:10] therapy and the couples therapy is [82:11] effective, it's usually because [82:15] therapists are able to help couples [82:19] essentially like rewind all the bad [82:21] patterns they've created and go back to [82:23] when things were good. uh rediscover [82:26] what it was that they really appreciated [82:29] about each other and like recreate their [82:31] relationship from there in a new way. [82:33] But yes, many of these things are [82:35] they're just deeply deeply hard to [82:37] forecast. [82:39] >> Yeah. And there's always the natural [82:41] desire to want to know if one's time and [82:44] energy is well spent. I mean it's really [82:47] in some sense the most um important [82:51] investment is time and energy of I mean [82:54] and uh it's kind of all we have it's all [82:56] we have and that's very evolutionary in [82:59] its core. You talked before about this [83:01] kind of crystal ball question or um [83:04] probing for particular disclosures that [83:07] people are willing or not willing to [83:09] make as a [83:10] >> as a perhaps better indication of [83:12] whether somebody is interesting or [83:15] appropriate. Yeah. [83:16] >> For you. I realize however that the [83:19] notion that there's a like a question or [83:21] a set of questions that would say green [83:23] light [83:24] >> is that's not true. That just can't be [83:28] true. There's probably some answers that [83:29] are red light. Everyone, you know, knows [83:31] red light. Hopefully, they're paying [83:33] attention to that, but they it's the [83:35] yellow it's the yellow but it's the [83:37] yellow lights and not knowing what [83:38] questions to ask to see if there's a [83:40] sort of green light path forward. Tell [83:43] me what those questions are. Like, [83:45] phrased differently. If two people are [83:47] on a date and they have only a few [83:49] minutes, it's kind of a speed dating [83:51] type situation and they need to make a [83:52] good assessment as to whether or not [83:54] they genuinely would like to spend more [83:56] time with the person again. [83:58] uh what what are the questions they [84:00] should ask? [84:01] >> All right. So, I like the questions that [84:03] are a little bit more offbeat. You know, [84:05] what people tend to do on speed dates is [84:07] they they want to find common ground [84:10] quickly. You know, if it's college [84:12] students, maybe we're going to talk [84:13] about their major. Uh do we share a [84:14] major? No. Uh like pivot. Uh where are [84:16] you from? And they'll try to find [84:18] something that they can bond over [84:23] and that can work very well. But I think [84:26] the core of what we want in an initial [84:29] interaction with somebody is to take [84:31] away something that feels like it was at [84:33] least a little different than all the [84:35] other interactions that we have. And so [84:38] sometimes what that means is going a [84:42] touch deeper than people are comfortable [84:44] with. Now in in 4 minutes it's tricky if [84:49] you have a little bit longer like a [84:50] regular evening length date. I really [84:53] like the 36 questions test. Like this is [84:56] the sometimes it's called the fast [84:58] friends procedure, but these are [85:00] questions like, you know, what's one [85:02] thing that you've never told somebody [85:04] that you've always wanted to tell them [85:05] and what's stopping you? Or [85:07] >> people answer that. [85:08] >> Yeah. I mean, after if you've been [85:10] hanging out with somebody for 60 to 90 [85:13] minutes, that is a pretty good way to [85:17] elicit real depth and give like both [85:21] people a chance to do some reciprocal [85:23] self-disclosure cuz that's what people [85:25] want. That's what people connect over is [85:27] like I've like I feel like I've just [85:30] heard you. Maybe it's true, maybe it's [85:32] not, but I feel like you've just told me [85:34] something that you haven't told most [85:36] people and maybe you haven't told [85:38] anybody. I vividly remember falling for [85:42] somebody when that moment happened. It's [85:45] like I really you are telling me this. I [85:48] I don't I don't think you've ever told [85:50] anybody this before and it is such a [85:54] rush. I I think like I don't know, man. [85:57] The internet, it's like convince us all [85:59] we care about is like sex and hotness. [86:01] There is nothing like the rush of having [86:04] somebody tell you something that they've [86:05] never told anybody else. And again, this [86:08] is like the stuff that gets [86:09] relationships researchers excited [86:10] because this is what we see in our data. [86:12] Responsiveness, closeness, like building [86:15] trust and all of that stuff. Now again, [86:17] four minutes is really hard. Four [86:19] minutes you just got to get a little [86:21] nugget of something that you want to [86:22] build off later. And maybe that is your [86:25] hometown and maybe it is like, "Isn't [86:27] this a weird experience that we're only [86:29] going to get to chat for 4 minutes, but [86:31] whenever there are roots to go for a [86:34] little bit more disclosure, I usually [86:36] advise that that people go for it. It it [86:39] it will pay off on average, even if it [86:42] can feel kind of awkward in the moment." [86:44] Do you think there's uh more excitement [86:47] if one gets the sense that the other [86:49] person is um taking a bit of a risk in [86:53] disclosing it? Not like I've been dying [86:55] to tell somebody this and there's never [86:56] been opportunity. Thanks for giving me [86:58] the opportunity and [86:59] >> you know I whatever. I always, you know, [87:02] wanted to come back in my second life as [87:04] a guppy or something. I I don't know. [87:05] I'm picking a trivial example on purpose [87:08] cuz it's not true. Much better tropical [87:10] fish. Big tropical fish enthusiast. much [87:12] better freshwater discus. Much better [87:14] fresh owned by me cuz it would be have a [87:16] really good life. Um take really good [87:18] care of my freshwater discus. But in all [87:21] seriousness, does that mean that people [87:23] are walking around harboring, especially [87:26] single people are harboring [87:29] parts of themselves that they're craving [87:31] intimacy, you know, that that's of the [87:34] exchange things that they've never told [87:36] anyone that they wish they could tell [87:37] someone, feel safe enough to tell them. [87:39] Is that what you're talking about? you [87:41] know, creating a real moment of intimacy [87:43] early on. That's not physical intimacy. [87:46] It's [87:47] >> I don't even know if it's emotional [87:48] intimacy. It's like it's like human [87:50] connection, right? It's like I'm a [87:53] person that's had particular experiences [87:55] and you're a person that's that's had [87:57] particular experiences and we have these [87:59] like narratives and stories about [88:01] ourselves. [88:02] >> Again, the science historically has been [88:04] so focused on traits and I get it. Like [88:07] I and I understand the evolutionary [88:08] focus on traits, but man, humans are [88:11] stories, right? We're narratives and we [88:14] want other people to be privy to that [88:17] narrative and then maybe eventually be a [88:20] part of it. So I think that that is [88:23] often what can be very powerful. Now for [88:25] people who are single and they like want [88:27] to be in a relationship, I do think that [88:31] it can be that sense that they're [88:33] lacking. A lot of people are single and [88:35] are very very happy with their single [88:37] lives. And I also understand that a lot [88:39] of people if they're single and they're [88:40] dating. [88:42] Look, there's a lot of reasons to be [88:44] cautious. Forming a relationship is a [88:46] low base rate event. It doesn't happen [88:48] all that often. [88:50] >> And it's time costly. It can be [88:51] financially costly. It's energetically [88:54] costly. Exactly. It's very [88:55] energetically. [88:56] >> Exactly. Like we don't go around forming [88:58] relationships with everybody. But I I [89:00] also happen to think that like once the [89:02] ball gets rolling, the pull can be very [89:04] strong. And part of that pull is this [89:08] this desire to have somebody kind of see [89:11] me, get me, understand me. I might be [89:14] talking about securely attached people [89:15] on average, right? There's always going [89:17] to be that avoidance pull too, like [89:19] people need to self-protect to some [89:22] extent, but the sort of desire to open [89:25] up and have somebody like really get [89:26] you, it's it's so core to the [89:29] relationship science worldview and and I [89:32] think it says a lot about like who we [89:35] are as a species and like how we form [89:37] mating relationships. [89:39] You've said in um so many words uh [89:43] before uh that men and women essentially [89:45] want the same things. [89:47] >> Yeah. I think that's going to hit some [89:49] people square in the face and they're [89:50] going to say that is so not true. Men [89:53] just want blank. Women just want blank. [89:55] >> I I'm like on this campaign lately to [89:58] try and defang [90:00] >> the trolls. Yeah. [90:02] >> That seem to have like it's like it we [90:05] were in high school. Let's leave junior [90:06] high school. Let's go to high school. [90:08] And there were like a bunch of like [90:09] really awful people. Let's evenly [90:12] distribute it between the sexes. Let's [90:13] just do that for fairness sake. Yeah. [90:15] >> And they're like constantly pointing out [90:17] how [90:18] >> these people are always bad and [90:21] extractive and these people are always, [90:23] you know, uh, cold and avoidant and like [90:25] and and if those narratives were just [90:27] constantly like posted on the walls and [90:29] like and talked about in the uh over [90:32] lunch and whispered in the hallways, it [90:34] would be very poisonous to the whole [90:37] environment. And that's kind of what the [90:38] internet is. and then the traditional [90:41] news, but also some podcasts, not this [90:43] podcast, but will kind of amplify these [90:45] narratives because they feel juicy. They [90:48] feel uh and they get clicks. [90:50] >> And I think we all have an innate desire [90:52] to avoid danger. So, we like know where [90:55] where this stuff is. But when you step [90:57] back, you go, right? Like most people [90:59] are pretty well-meaning. Most people are [91:00] looking for good partnership. Nobody's [91:02] perfect, but uh where people make [91:05] mistakes. Most people are like looking [91:06] to at least modify their behavior over [91:08] time. Like it's all reasonably [91:11] benevolent, but then there are these [91:13] like [91:14] >> kind of nasty characters out there [91:16] >> and we give them so much credit and we [91:19] give them so much power [91:20] >> and they just plain suck. [91:22] >> Yeah. [91:22] >> So [91:23] >> men and women want the same things. [91:25] Let's shut them up for a second and ask [91:27] what the data say. This was one of the [91:29] first things I studied when I started [91:31] looking at attraction like almost 20 [91:34] years ago now. And in part because I [91:37] found the gender differences [91:38] fascinating. It was very clear for [91:41] decades and decades that if you ask men [91:43] and women about the qualities they want [91:45] in a partner that you'll see these [91:47] differences show up pretty routinely and [91:50] they are differences that then in the [91:52] hands of nefarious characters online get [91:54] spun out into exactly the narrative that [91:56] you're describing. But the basic data on [91:59] what men and women say they want, it's [92:02] there. Men will say they care about [92:04] attractiveness in a partner more than [92:06] women. And women will say they care [92:07] about earning potential in a partner [92:09] more than men. Now, I'm phrasing that in [92:12] a particular way. And I'm I'm saying [92:15] what people say they want because I'm [92:18] critiquing the experimental paradigms [92:21] that were used. It usually had people [92:24] rating a bunch of traits on scales. And [92:27] as a psychologist, I have no problem [92:29] with that. I'm very interested in [92:30] people's subjective experiences and I [92:32] use scales all the time. But we wondered [92:36] that's different than or it might be [92:40] different than what happens when you're [92:42] meeting people face to face and you're [92:45] reacting to a set of people who might be [92:48] very attractive or of middling [92:50] attractiveness or not very attractive at [92:52] all. And that to me seems closer to [92:55] capturing what people actually want. [92:57] Like if you meet 10 women, how much does [93:01] their attractiveness drive your desire [93:05] to date them? How much does [93:06] attractiveness affect whether you want a [93:09] second date with them or not? So, we ran [93:11] speed dating studies to try to capture [93:14] exactly this phenomenon. I'll make it [93:17] about earning prospects because it's [93:18] really the same the same thing. So, we [93:21] have these men and they go speed dating [93:23] and some of these women are very [93:24] ambitious. They're going to be lawyers [93:25] and doctors. Others are a little bit [93:28] less ambitious. And what you'd see is [93:30] that the men tended to like the women a [93:33] little bit more to the extent that they [93:34] were ambitious. It wasn't a huge driver [93:36] of their liking, but it was definitely [93:39] there and it was definitely positive. [93:41] But then when we flipped it and we [93:43] looked at what the women were drawn to, [93:45] not what they said, but what they were [93:47] drawn to, they also tended to like the [93:49] ambitious men a little bit. And the [93:52] magnitude of that preference was [93:53] identical. And it's been 20 years of [93:56] this where we've looked at ongoing [93:58] relationships. We've looked at um you [94:01] know 40 something countries throughout [94:03] the world. That narrative uh plays out [94:06] every time. There's no gender [94:08] differences in the extent to which these [94:11] traits appeal to men and women when [94:14] they're evaluating like real people [94:16] they've actually met. Online is [94:18] different. What people say they want is [94:20] different. but real people that you've [94:22] at least met face to face seems to [94:25] dramatically reduce the power of the [94:27] gender differences and the appeal of [94:28] these traits. [94:30] >> Fascinating and runs countercurrent to I [94:32] think what many people including I have [94:34] heard out there. [94:35] >> Yeah. But but I think the like I think [94:37] the key lesson here is like [94:41] >> believe your subjective experience when [94:44] you're interacting with somebody and [94:46] you're getting to know them. And maybe [94:47] that subjective experience is like, [94:49] "She's hot, but I am not feeling this." [94:51] And maybe that subjective experience is [94:53] like, you know, I know that maybe to [94:56] some people he looks like he doesn't [94:57] have his life together, but I really see [94:59] a spark there. [95:02] If you trust that experience, I think [95:05] that's likely to go better. [95:08] And we don't have an experience to go on [95:10] like that when it's online. When it's [95:12] online, it's very easy to put people in [95:14] boxes, put people in groups, and then [95:15] make the groups fight each other. And I [95:18] too am very distressed about all the [95:20] heteropessimism. [95:22] >> Yeah. Right. That's It's not my term, [95:24] but it's one of my favorite terms. [95:25] >> Do you know who coined it? [95:26] >> I know the year is like 2019, but I [95:28] forget the author. Yeah, look it up. [95:30] >> Great term. Heteropet. Right. It's like [95:33] men and women can't get along. How could [95:34] they get along? They've got different [95:36] interests and different priorities. [95:38] Look, in the close relationships realm, [95:40] it's not true. And that's the realm I [95:43] know. Men and women, they want the same [95:45] things out of their relationships. Yes, [95:48] there are gender differences and like [95:50] the thresholds for sex and especially [95:52] early on that can be that can be really [95:55] messy. Um, but overall I see a lot of [95:59] similarity and a lot of potential for [96:01] these the bonds that men and women form [96:04] to do great things for people and women [96:06] and women and men and men and any [96:08] gendered combination that you want to [96:09] come up with. Um, I think we're pair [96:13] bonding creatures. We get a lot of joy [96:15] and a lot of fulfillment out of that. [96:17] And I want to see men and women find a [96:19] way to make it work again. [96:21] springboarding off of the heteropesses. [96:23] Yeah. term, which is great because it [96:25] encapsulates so much even though what it [96:27] encapsulates is definitely not great. [96:29] Yeah. The term I'm about to use is gonna [96:31] sound um [96:33] >> like it means something uh it doesn't. [96:35] But is there any research on [96:37] homopessimism, which is not the same as [96:39] homophobia? Homopim meaning I'm not [96:41] aware because I happen to be [96:43] heterosexual, but I have homosexual [96:44] friends, men and women. I'm not hearing [96:47] them talk a lot about how dating culture [96:49] is much worse [96:51] >> now. [96:51] >> I hear this too. [96:53] >> But [96:54] >> then again, uh sample size isn't that [96:56] great here. [96:57] >> So I don't know because a lot of the [96:59] same things apply in terms of like apps. [97:02] Uh sure cultures vary. Yeah. [97:05] >> But there are some constants in this [97:07] picture. Um so in any research yours or [97:12] others research about um homosexual [97:16] dating and couples is there pessimism [97:19] guys saying well guys these days and [97:21] women saying in uh yeah lesbian women [97:25] let's just you know for lack of a better [97:26] term um saying [97:28] >> women these days [97:29] >> I don't think that's out there nearly to [97:32] the same extent. I think some of the [97:35] like interesting components that you see [97:38] out there is look the apps I think did [97:41] they did a lot of good in the world for [97:43] people who you know just felt like their [97:46] social networks had no options in them [97:48] but especially for people who might have [97:51] been living in places that were [97:52] genuinely unsafe for gays and lesbians [97:55] and might have helped them to find [97:57] romantic partners. So like um I always [98:00] want to be the first one to give the [98:02] apps credit for that for providing those [98:04] kinds of opportunities. [98:06] Classically speaking, what you tend to [98:09] see is that, you know, I've talked a [98:11] little bit about the the time frame as [98:14] people form relationships in the first [98:16] place. And that sometimes we get locked [98:17] into this idea that it's like, oh, it's [98:19] going to happen in an instant and and [98:20] now you're together. But the reality is [98:22] it's often an elongated process. That [98:26] process has tended historically to be [98:29] even longer for folks who are gays and [98:32] lesbians forming same gender [98:33] relationships. And I think part of that [98:36] is something that you you might even [98:38] call like a bigotry tax because if you [98:42] lived in a place where it was like [98:44] vaguely dangerous to admit your same-sex [98:48] attractions, you got to be really [98:51] careful before you start disclosing how [98:55] you feel about somebody because [98:56] rejection doesn't just mean rejection. [98:58] Rejection is maybe actually carries [99:00] other threats and stigma and all of [99:02] these other things with it. [99:03] >> Loss of jobs. Exactly. We've seen [99:04] examples of that like it's sort of again [99:07] it plays on stereotypes but um I'm I'm [99:09] going to assume some of it is true. Uh [99:11] like in in Mad Men, right? There's a [99:14] disclosure and then it doesn't go well. [99:16] >> Right. Right. [99:17] >> Yeah. It doesn't go well. [99:18] >> I love the movie Call Me By Your Name. [99:20] >> I don't think I've seen it. [99:22] >> Yeah. It's it's it's about 10 years old. [99:23] It's it's Luca Guadanino and and he's a [99:26] fabulous director, but it's about two [99:29] men who get together over the course of [99:30] a summer. young men who find it's it's [99:33] one of Timothy Shalamé's earlier movies [99:37] >> and one of the things they come to [99:38] regret is that like we didn't disclose [99:41] our feelings sooner but it's it the [99:43] movie was taking place in the 1980s so [99:46] you had to be really careful with [99:50] whether you were going to be upfront [99:51] about how you were feeling about [99:53] somebody. wasn't uh in a place where you [99:56] can't be fully confident that you're [100:00] have a sense of safety, it could be [100:02] really dangerous. So that's an important [100:03] difference that we see and I think the [100:04] apps were really good at helping people [100:08] to uh to come together in that sense. I [100:11] have a question about um financial [100:14] stability and level. [100:16] >> Yeah, [100:17] >> you mentioned there aren't real big [100:19] gender differences there. Earlier we [100:21] were saying scientists are always uh [100:23] doing the opposite of improv. Instead of [100:24] yes and they always say yeah but you [100:27] know what yeah but what about it's it's [100:30] a it's in our training [100:31] >> income level on its own or amount of [100:34] money that somebody has in my mind is [100:37] somewhat informative. [100:39] >> What's more informative is having the [100:42] additional data point of where they [100:44] started out. Oh, interesting. [100:45] >> Because people with money who um didn't [100:49] have to work very hard to get it, [100:51] >> it's a different picture. Now, some [100:53] people might say like, "Who cares?" And [100:55] I will make the argument that some [100:56] people some people who had to make a [100:58] work very hard to make their money [101:00] >> often times are still in the working [101:02] hard mode. The the the the twist in the [101:05] in the high level of income thing like [101:08] that. The additional question that's [101:09] useful is how much free time do you [101:10] have? [101:11] >> Yeah. A lot of the people I know who [101:13] have a lot of money, they don't have a [101:14] lot of free time. So, if people pair up [101:17] with them thinking that they're going to [101:18] feel very financially secure and have a [101:20] lot of stuff, that might be true. [101:22] >> But, um, how often they're going to see [101:24] their partner or the the co-parent of [101:27] their kids is an important question. And [101:28] this extends both ways. like so many of [101:31] these attributes that in the abstract [101:33] sound really good to us, but then when [101:35] you actually put it in a person that [101:37] also has all these other attributes and [101:39] things going on, you realize like, wait [101:40] a minute, their cutthroat ambition [101:42] actually wasn't that great, right? [101:44] Because it means that they're never [101:46] around. I think for this reason [101:49] it can be very challenging especially if [101:51] you're looking at long-term [101:52] relationships to take things like like a [101:55] person's um income level and use that to [101:58] forecast like for example how their [102:01] partner is going to feel about them. I [102:02] mean, we've done some of this work, [102:04] indeed some of the work looking at [102:05] gender differences and like the reality [102:07] is like a person's objective income, it [102:11] has very very small effects on how their [102:14] partners feel about them. The bigger [102:17] effects are things like, you know, if [102:19] now we scaffold up and look at like [102:22] socioeconomic status. So, do you have [102:23] the resources to get by as a couple? [102:26] That can be very challenging for people. [102:29] I've seen numerous examples of uh [102:32] couples where the man loses his work [102:35] >> and if he's not able to get stable work [102:38] again reasonably soon. [102:40] >> Yeah. [102:40] >> In most of the [102:41] >> this isn't a peer-reviewed study. Most [102:43] of the examples I can think of um the [102:46] couple eventually dissolved [102:48] >> and it wasn't necessarily for a lack of [102:52] enough resources. Families were able to [102:54] help etc. Um and of course we could talk [102:56] about depression. We could talk about [102:59] some other thing that might have [103:00] happened or many things that happened, [103:01] but is there a sex difference there? The [103:04] part that I find the most intuitive [103:06] about these examples is that when a man [103:09] loses his job like that, and I love that [103:12] there are other resources around, so we [103:14] know that that's not the exact problem. [103:16] My guess is that the challenges are [103:20] coming more from his like genuine [103:23] troubling like loss of identity, loss of [103:26] self. what am I going to do with myself? [103:28] And less maybe not zero, but less about [103:32] his uh partner thinking, oh, now he's no [103:36] longer a provider. And that's just [103:39] generally my bias from what I see in the [103:42] science, which is when tragedies befall [103:44] us, they affect our perceptions [103:47] especially strongly. So this guy is [103:49] going to feel this pretty hard that he's [103:52] lost his job. [103:54] Stepping back and looking at the broader [103:56] picture of the data, it used to be true [104:00] that marriages were more fragile when [104:03] the woman earned more than the man in [104:06] the marriage. But this stopped being [104:08] true in the '9s. So that gender [104:11] difference doesn't exist anymore. And I [104:14] think it's it's easy to surmise. I don't [104:17] know if the sociologists who studied [104:19] this have drawn exactly this conclusion, [104:20] but it's easy to posit that what's [104:22] happening there is that people in [104:25] general have gotten more comfortable [104:27] with the gender imbalanced [104:28] relationships. And in the '9s, we were [104:30] still getting used to this idea. [104:33] Um, today, [104:35] even if the average couple, the man [104:37] earns more than the woman, you do see [104:39] that because there is a gender [104:40] difference in the in income levels on [104:42] average. But in education, it's flipped [104:45] now, right? women, at least in younger [104:48] couples, the woman is more likely to be [104:50] educated than the man. [104:51] >> More educated or or educated period. [104:53] >> More educated than the man in the [104:55] relationship, right? So, so women are [104:57] earning more of the, you know, uh, [104:59] higher degrees. So, if there's a [105:02] mismatch, probably the woman has more [105:04] education than the guy. [105:07] That's not a risk factor [105:10] relative to if they were the same level, [105:13] relative to if, you know, he were [105:15] higher. It just doesn't really seem to [105:18] be doing anything. I know we can like [105:20] get really nervous about like what does [105:21] it mean for men's desiraability if [105:24] they're not ambitious. Like I get that [105:27] if men are not out there like making [105:29] things of themselves, I'm not worried [105:31] about the women getting a better [105:33] education than them. I think it's [105:36] important for men to have a sense of [105:37] purpose. I think trade schools can be [105:40] awesome, but the mismatches in the level [105:43] of education and in the level of income, [105:46] those don't spell a problem. We just got [105:48] to get like men feeling good about [105:50] themselves again. [105:51] >> And the data say they're not. [105:53] >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's what you [105:55] see. I mean, the data that concern me [105:57] the most are that men and I think [105:59] especially low SCEs men, they're the [106:02] ones that feel like their social [106:04] networks are gone. They don't know where [106:06] to go to get any kind of companionship. [106:09] So, if they're really feeling that acute [106:12] sense of loneliness, of lack of [106:14] belonging, you know, among like real [106:16] people in their lives, um that's the [106:20] thing I worry about because then that's [106:21] going to affect your sense of self. [106:22] that's going to affect, you know, all of [106:24] your ambitions and in really bad cases [106:28] might, you know, push people to some of [106:29] those nastier corners of the internet. [106:32] I'd like to take a quick break and [106:33] acknowledge our sponsor, Function. [106:36] Function provides over 160 advanced lab [106:39] tests to give you a clear snapshot of [106:40] your bodily health. This snapshot gives [106:43] you insights into your heart health, [106:44] your hormone health, autoimmune [106:46] function, nutrient levels, and much [106:48] more. They've also recently added access [106:50] to advanced MRI and CT scans. Function [106:53] not only provides testing of over 160 [106:56] biomarkers key to your physical and [106:57] mental health. It also analyzes these [107:00] results and provides recommendations for [107:02] improving your health from top doctors. [107:04] For example, in a recent test with [107:06] function, I learned that some of my [107:07] blood lipids were slightly out of range. [107:10] As a result, I decided to start [107:11] supplementing with nattokinise, which [107:13] can naturally help reduce LDL [107:15] cholesterol. And it did. In a follow-up [107:17] test, I could confirm that this strategy [107:19] worked. My blood lipids are now back [107:21] exactly where I want them. Comprehensive [107:23] lab testing of the sort that function [107:25] offers is just so important for health. [107:27] I mean, how else are you going to know [107:28] what's going on under the hood? And [107:30] while I've been doing blood work for [107:31] years, it used to be timeconuming, [107:33] complicated, and expensive. In fact, I [107:35] used to spend thousands of dollars per [107:37] year trying to get this kind of data. [107:39] And the data, frankly, were not all that [107:41] good. But now with Function, it's [107:43] extremely easy and affordable. A [107:45] function membership is only a dollar a [107:47] day, $365 a year. And if you think about [107:49] the information it provides and the [107:51] health challenges it helps you avoid and [107:53] the proactive things that it can do for [107:55] you to enhance your health, I truly look [107:57] at it as a savings. To learn more, visit [108:00] functionhealth.com/huberman [108:02] and use the code hubman for a $50 credit [108:05] towards your membership. Again, that's [108:07] functionhealth.com/huberman. [108:10] in the kind of classic pure [108:12] stereotypical narrative, you know, men [108:14] who were slightly older [108:17] had more resources. [108:19] >> Yeah. [108:20] >> This isn't always true. [108:22] >> But there's this what apparently based [108:24] on your work is a uh myth that women [108:28] desire older men. Uh men desire younger [108:31] women. [108:32] >> Yeah. [108:32] >> Your work points to the possibility that [108:35] there is no gender differences in [108:37] attraction to younger partners. [108:38] >> Yeah. And look, let me say that this is [108:40] I think one of the more tenant [108:42] >> and it's a big and it's a big sample [108:43] size 4000. [108:45] >> I'm like so and uh I'll weave a quick [108:48] anecdote. There's this guy at the gym [108:51] that I sometimes go to. [108:53] >> He's probably in his like 70s or [108:54] something and he's in [108:55] >> what great shape. He's retired. He made [108:58] money. He's enjoying life. He's got [109:00] grandkids. He's like he just seems like [109:02] I don't know him that well, but it seems [109:03] like he's really got it together and [109:04] he's really loving life. And I always [109:06] say, uh, what brings you here every day? [109:09] You know, I figured it would be like, [109:10] why it just feels so good. And he just [109:12] always says the same thing. He always [109:13] just says, I don't want to lose my wife [109:15] to a younger guy. And I always laugh and [109:17] I go, [109:18] >> then like I know a lot about the contour [109:20] of his life. And maybe there's something [109:22] he's not disclosing, but you know, [109:24] anyone would say like this guy's just [109:26] totally got it made. He's in and he's, [109:28] you know, I again I don't know the [109:29] details of his life and I shouldn't, but [109:32] I know enough about it that, you know, [109:34] he's checked off all the boxes three or [109:36] four times and then had the wisdom in my [109:38] opinion to not just keep working like a [109:40] maniac and just spend time with his kids [109:43] and grandkids and his wife. But he [109:45] always answers the exact same way. How's [109:46] it going? He goes, "Pretty good. Just [109:47] don't want to lose my wife to younger [109:49] guys. So, I'm here again today." [109:50] >> Let me tell you about this study. And [109:51] look, again, I'm a scientist and [109:53] sometimes the data I'm like, "Huh? You [109:56] don't say. I didn't see this one coming. [109:59] I mentioned this earlier. So, we [110:00] partnered up with folks who do [110:03] matchmaking. So, these are people who [110:06] are paying for a service [110:09] because they want to be in a long-term [110:11] relationship. [110:12] And so, they will set people on dates [110:15] and they've got a whole pool that [110:16] they're working with. And within that [110:18] pool, the men who are searching for [110:20] dates are older than the women by about [110:23] four years on average. Okay? So that's [110:26] that's what they've got to work with. [110:28] And they set people up on these dates. [110:30] And so most of the time the woman is [110:33] going to be younger than the man, but [110:34] there's a range. Sometimes the woman is [110:36] much younger than the guy. And sometimes [110:38] the woman is the same age as the guy. [110:40] And sometimes the woman's even a little [110:41] older than the guy. All right? So what [110:45] you'd expect to see is that if men are [110:48] looking for younger women and women are [110:50] looking for older men, then when we look [110:53] at how the age of the partner affects [110:56] whether you want to go on a second date [110:57] with this person, [111:00] it should be the younger folks appeal to [111:02] the men more and the older folks appeal [111:04] to the women more. But that wasn't what [111:06] we saw. We saw that the younger folks [111:07] appeal to the men more. And by the way, [111:09] it's not a huge effect. It's not like [111:12] the gross stereotype that's out there. [111:14] Men are a little bit more interested in [111:16] the women to the extent that they're [111:17] younger, but it's not gigantic. Women [111:19] are doing the same thing. They're a [111:21] little bit more interested in the [111:23] younger guys. They don't say that on [111:26] paper. In fact, sometimes they're like, [111:28] "Don't set me up with the younger guys." [111:29] And then they do and they say, "Huh, [111:31] that was interesting. I enjoyed that. I [111:33] enjoyed that date. I would like to see [111:35] him again." [111:36] >> Are the stated reasons um similar in any [111:39] way? For instance, are both groups [111:40] saying less less baggage? That would be [111:42] kind of a cliche answer, but we could [111:44] place that on either side. [111:45] >> I don't know. And I would love to know. [111:48] I think sometimes when women are when [111:50] they downrate like whether they care [111:54] about attractiveness or something. I I [111:57] think sometimes they are like kidding [111:59] themselves a little bit that they [112:01] actually do appreciate a younger guy [112:04] who's maybe is fit and in shape or they [112:06] don't fully appreciate how exciting it [112:08] would feel to be sitting across the [112:11] table from a guy like that. I mean, this [112:12] is my best uh my best guess. And what's [112:15] so fascinating about this data set is [112:18] that look, they're trying to create [112:19] these couples, but you know, you only [112:22] create a couple a fraction of the time. [112:24] Much of the time the people don't really [112:26] hit it off, but in the couples that get [112:29] created, the guy was four years older [112:31] than the woman. And in the couples that [112:32] don't get created, the guy is four years [112:34] older than the woman cuz that was what [112:36] they had in the sample to begin with. So [112:39] we look around and you see that age [112:42] difference. That age difference is real. [112:44] And I'm sure it means something [112:46] important. And data like this just make [112:49] me think something else is going on [112:51] here. Whatever is creating this age [112:55] difference, it's at least it's not, you [112:56] know, a age difference in in how people [112:58] sort, it's not happening on date one. [113:02] It's not happening at the initial [113:03] attraction phase. Maybe it's happening [113:06] earlier who puts themselves in the pool. [113:08] Maybe it's happening later. I don't [113:10] know. She's going to date this younger [113:12] guy like once or twice, but then she's [113:14] going to be done with him and she'll, [113:15] you know, settle down with somebody [113:17] who's a little older. [113:18] >> She said she's done with him. [113:19] >> Yeah. Right. Exactly. Right. But Right. [113:21] But it could go the other way, too. [113:22] >> Well, what I've heard before, uh, cuz [113:24] I'm 50, I have some, uh, female friends [113:26] who are dating, and they'll say that [113:29] they do date younger guys, but then the [113:31] deal breaker is if the guy says he wants [113:35] >> kids. Kids, that's tough. [113:36] >> And then [113:38] >> the So the agreement is to move on based [113:41] on that. Often this is a common [113:43] reasonably common thing. Yeah. Actually [113:45] hear about this more and more these [113:47] days. [113:47] >> Yeah. And I think um one thing that that [113:51] online dating affords is if you've got [113:54] something like that that's exceptionally [113:56] important to you, there are [113:58] opportunities to filter on it. Um we [114:01] haven't talked about this too much yet, [114:02] but but you can get into a whole line of [114:06] research and studies on, you know, oh, [114:08] if people are filtering for things in [114:10] the abstract, does that match what's [114:12] ultimately going to appeal to them when [114:13] they meet face to face? We find that [114:15] generally speaking, these things tend to [114:17] be pretty uncorrelated. So what people [114:19] think they want doesn't match up with [114:22] what they actually end up liking once [114:24] they meet somebody face to face. But you [114:27] can argue that sometimes that's not a [114:29] good thing. If somebody really wants [114:30] kids, shouldn't it be within their power [114:34] to craft a pool of partners who also [114:37] want kids to give them that opportunity? [114:39] Like that seems like a reasonable [114:42] humanistic thing to do. And so to the [114:44] extent that the apps are able to do that [114:46] or these services are able to do that, I [114:48] think that's uh that's ultimately a good [114:50] thing. I think [114:51] >> click like want kids or not. [114:53] >> Yeah, I think I think often I think I I [114:55] think you can I in in some apps that [114:58] might be like a special feature you have [114:59] to pay for things. These things get [115:01] complicated. [115:02] >> Who knows if the news is accurate uh [115:04] because it's not real data. It's sort of [115:05] whatever the news decides to shine a [115:08] light on. this idea that um more young [115:10] people are going to church with which is [115:12] a values plural uh indicator like [115:15] >> you know people can most churches are [115:18] open to whoever shows up but the [115:20] assumption is that people are there uh [115:22] for certain reasons that they're either [115:24] trying to build on or or have certain [115:27] values [115:28] >> that are sort of family children uh [115:33] >> values morals adjacent if not central [115:36] right I think people know what I'm [115:37] saying I mean sure bad people can show [115:38] up at church, but but the idea is that [115:40] somebody's taking the time uh to get [115:43] dressed up on a Sunday morning and go [115:45] and listen to someone else speak and a [115:47] lot of people are meeting that way now. [115:49] Are there any data that that's a [115:50] response to the kind of like wild west [115:53] of [115:54] >> um of online dating and you know social [115:58] media and and just the general culture [116:00] of like everybody it's kind of the the [116:02] culture of everybody. I mean even in [116:04] high school there were subgroups. Some [116:06] people moved between subgroups, but [116:08] it's, you know, it the the vastness of [116:11] the internet and social media, [116:14] >> even if you state your preferences about [116:16] what you do and don't want to see on [116:18] social media is like it's a flood. I [116:20] mean, I see people and things on there [116:21] from way back when that like they're not [116:23] bad people. I have no interest in what [116:25] they're doing now. And then occasionally [116:26] I see people I'm like, "Oh, no way." And [116:28] reconnect. So, but it's a it's a fire [116:30] hose. [116:30] >> Yeah. And you need some way to reduce it [116:33] to something manageable. I mean, again, [116:35] we we evolved in an environment where we [116:38] knew like 50 other people, you know, [116:40] that's like your group. You you probably [116:41] knew more than that. Maybe you know, [116:43] like 150, some nearby groups, but that's [116:46] all ages and all genders and everything [116:48] else. It's a small number of potential [116:51] partners for you, but you had reasons to [116:55] interact, structures that were going to [116:57] put you in contact with each other. And [116:59] to the extent that church is fulfilling [117:01] a function like that, I think that's [117:03] great. And in fact, I think that's [117:05] exactly what's missing. And if church [117:06] isn't your thing, there's like a million [117:09] other things that people can do in any [117:11] kind of modern urban context that are [117:14] going to be helpful along those lines. I [117:16] mean, you can join any kind of inter [117:18] mural sports team. I mean, [117:20] >> improv class. [117:21] >> Exactly. Yeah. So, I think the improv [117:24] classes are amazing because not only is [117:27] it a chance to interact in a group over [117:30] a a period of time where you don't get [117:33] to opt out if you don't love somebody [117:35] right away, but also you're like [117:37] practicing being vulnerable and in, you [117:41] know, being responsive and things like [117:42] that. So, I think these things are all [117:44] wonderful. Are people doing it because [117:47] they're trying to limit the pools to the [117:49] folks that they think will fit what [117:52] they're looking for? I'll bet you some [117:54] people are doing that. I'll bet that, [117:57] you know, if somebody's like, I really [117:59] want to be with somebody else who's [118:00] active, so I'm going to join a running [118:02] club. Or, yeah, I want to be with [118:04] somebody who shares my value, so I'm [118:05] going to join church. I think that's [118:07] great. If I'm like being buzzill [118:10] scientist, [118:12] I'd probably sit here and be like, it [118:14] probably actually doesn't matter. Like, [118:16] join the church, join the running club, [118:18] join all these things. Like, you're [118:20] probably know more or less likely to [118:22] find somebody that you're going to click [118:24] with. [118:25] >> It's more about getting yourself in a [118:26] small group environment. [118:27] >> Exactly. Exactly. But I'll be the first [118:29] to say like when it comes to like the [118:31] base rates of these things, like if your [118:34] if your goal was, you know, in 90 days I [118:37] want to be in a relationship, what are [118:39] the things I should do that give me the [118:41] best likelihood? I'm embarrassed to say [118:43] my field can't answer that question. I [118:45] can't tell you, you know, use two apps [118:48] and use these two apps and go to church. [118:50] Don't join kickball cuz they're a mess. [118:52] I was a kickball player, so I'm allowed [118:54] to say that. Uh but you should join the [118:56] running club. We can't answer questions [118:59] like that. So, in the absence of that [119:02] kind of specificity, my answer is always [119:04] just be around people on repeated [119:07] occasions. [119:08] >> I'm not trying to provide push back [119:09] here. I'm not qualified to do it. I'm [119:11] going to I'm from a totally different [119:12] field. But I feel like there's certain [119:15] small group smallish group environments [119:17] like church. But there there could be [119:18] other examples like for instance like a [119:20] hiking club or rock climbing or [119:22] something like that where [119:24] >> there's kind of a um this shouldn't be [119:26] the reason uh people do it and the only [119:28] reason people do it but let's say um [119:30] people pair up as a consequence of time [119:32] there [119:33] >> that the culture of that thing provides [119:36] additional opportunities to uh grow the [119:39] relationship with peers right because [119:41] there certain things like you join an [119:42] improv class great like big my sister's [119:44] really into drama and theater still does [119:46] theater classes for her own her own [119:48] enrichment. But like but if you meet [119:49] someone there, it's not like the the the [119:51] culture around it um sort of cultivates [119:53] the evolution of the relationship. Like [119:55] whereas in like church like you might [119:57] even get married in that church in the [119:59] context of a of a hiking club, like you [120:01] might be out with the other couples that [120:03] you meet or or single people that you [120:05] meet for many years. Like you can sort [120:07] of it's it's a community that that can [120:09] grow over time. certain things here I'm [120:11] showing my ignorance around improv [120:13] classes but certain things like a [120:15] pottery class or pickle ball or [120:16] something like [120:17] >> it doesn't just at face value present a [120:21] sort of trajectory of like [120:22] >> that's right [120:23] >> I'm sounding really nerdy here but kind [120:24] of like a a set of maturational stages [120:27] that it that you can continue to like be [120:29] in the relationship there does that make [120:32] sense really stumbling for the words [120:33] here no totally this by the way is a [120:35] great reason to not meet people at work [120:39] >> not meet people at work. I'm not trying [120:40] to like throw a cold blanket on people [120:42] who decide to meet people at work, but [120:44] often times often times that the [120:46] relationship doesn't necessarily [120:48] flourish in the context of the work [120:50] environment. It's not like the work [120:51] environment makes the relationship grow. [120:53] I've seen more things split over time if [120:55] both people work there. Often times they [120:56] have to move to separate buildings, [120:58] >> right? [120:58] >> Um just for a variety of reasons, but [121:01] it's not like the culture encourages it. [121:03] Whereas there are certain things that [121:04] are a bit more since you were talking [121:07] for a moment there like an evolutionary [121:08] biologist like we evolved in small [121:09] villages and small groups where [121:11] >> you know you had peers and elders that [121:13] that provide this positive reinforcement [121:15] on relationship. You know it's kind of [121:17] an interesting thing like no matter how [121:19] evolved we are or progressive we are. [121:23] >> I don't know many women that ask men to [121:24] marry them [121:25] >> in 2026. I'm sure they're out there, but [121:28] it's still the [121:30] >> tacid assumption that men are going to [121:32] do the asking. [121:33] >> Yeah. [121:34] >> Just saying. [121:35] >> Okay. So, how progressive are we really? [121:37] Right. It's also true that when people [121:40] get married, most of the time they stand [121:42] up in front of other people and state [121:44] their vows. This is not like, you know, [121:47] uh, you know, under the bed sheets, I [121:49] promise. I promise I This is like a [121:50] public disclosure. These days it ends up [121:53] on Instagram, [121:54] >> you know. So, you know, there's clearly [121:57] a feedback that comes from being part of [122:00] a larger structure that reinforces [122:03] relationships over time. [122:05] >> Yeah. And it can be a big [122:06] >> You promised, you didn't just promise to [122:07] me, you promised to the whole world, [122:09] >> right? [122:10] >> And that can be an important source of [122:11] support, too, because then it's that at [122:14] least the subjective sense like these [122:16] people have our backs, right? if we run [122:19] into hard times, [122:21] >> there's a community that's going to be [122:23] there and support us. [122:25] >> And then I think you're right on the [122:27] initial attraction side, having a sense [122:30] that we're part of this larger [122:33] collective that there's something about [122:35] that that that feels good and provides [122:37] structure that like that can help keep [122:40] moving things forward. And you're right [122:42] that the workplace context is [122:44] particularly tricky because many [122:46] workplaces don't want to encourage that [122:50] kind of thing. And it's going to often [122:51] happen anyway. And probably the smartest [122:54] workplaces are the ones that allow for [122:55] the possibility that peers are going to [122:57] get together and have structures in [122:59] place that that will be able to keep the [123:02] personal life appropriately personal and [123:04] then you know deal with the fallout if [123:05] the if the fallout happens. One place I [123:08] trained might have been UC Davis. All [123:10] the junior faculty of which there were [123:12] many of them when I first joined there [123:13] were a large fraction of couples in the [123:17] department or who had spouses in other [123:19] departments [123:21] >> I think more than 80% of those couples [123:23] ended up divorced now wow [123:25] >> now we can't there are a lot of [123:27] variables there fortunately most of them [123:28] are on good terms um I can't say they [123:31] ended up with other people in the [123:32] department that didn't happen [123:34] >> but you know I watched and was like whoa [123:37] like this is interesting uh you know [123:39] this didn't I want to say didn't end [123:41] well cuz I think they're all happy now [123:43] but there does seem to be some [123:45] additional stress uh of that. So I mean [123:48] this gets to a question you've actually [123:49] studied which is this notion of um [123:52] >> similarity. [123:53] >> So maybe we should talk more about that [123:54] because it's more data driven uh [123:56] question which is perceived similarity [123:59] matters more than actual similarity. [124:02] What is perceived similarity? So [124:04] perceived similarity is this general [124:07] sense like we have a lot in common. [124:09] There are a million things that we could [124:11] talk about. We share the same values and [124:15] attitudes and preferences about things [124:17] in general. But notice the way I'm [124:20] describing it. I'm not tethering it to [124:22] any particular attitude or value or [124:25] preference or anything else because it's [124:27] so free floating. I as the perceiver get [124:31] to attach it to whatever I want and that [124:36] uh affords people to have a certain [124:39] amount of motivated reasoning so that [124:41] when they like somebody a lot they will [124:44] find the similarities there. They will [124:48] really come to think that what really [124:50] matters is that we love Japanese cinema [124:53] and that we you know that we share the [124:56] same politics. Whereas for another [124:57] couple, uh, you know what, we have [124:59] different politics, but that doesn't [125:01] really matter to us. [125:02] >> Does anyone say that nowadays? [125:03] >> No, people still do. I mean, look, we [125:05] what you see in the political matching [125:07] data is that the odds that people ofo, [125:11] you know, diametrically opposed [125:13] preferences, the odds they're going to [125:14] get together in the first place are [125:15] very, very low. But among the mismatches [125:19] that do exist, it actually doesn't [125:21] predict satisfaction all that much. And [125:23] I think this is why because you just [125:25] compartmentalize it. If we match, it's [125:27] important. If we don't match, oh, who [125:30] cares? Does anybody care about that? [125:31] Right? So much motivated reasoning. So, [125:35] this is why if what I wanted to do was [125:39] take two people who had never met and [125:41] assess everything I could about them and [125:43] then figure out whether they were going [125:45] to be a match or not, ba based on [125:47] whether they were similar, I really was [125:50] probably going to be no better than a [125:51] coin flip at figuring out whether or not [125:54] they were going to click. That's actual [125:56] similarity. I take things that are true [125:58] about you without the ability for you to [126:01] engage in motivated reasoning and I say, [126:03] "Okay, you're an 83% match on all the [126:07] things I could assess. You two should [126:09] like each other." When we've done [126:10] studies like that, you you basically get [126:13] a coin flip every time. Well, this is [126:15] why the apps seem totally useless [126:17] because if you were just pair up, well, [126:19] you want this and you want this, I want [126:20] that, too, and I want that, too. You're [126:22] telling me that it's as good as chance. [126:24] It's as good as chance. And look, if [126:26] there's evidence for similarity on [126:28] anything, it could be in the realm of [126:31] like demographics, [126:33] socioeconomic status kinds of things. I [126:36] I've seen like unpublished data, but [126:39] promising, but even then, those effects [126:41] are so small. So, I'm, you know, we're [126:43] going from a 50/50 coin flip to like [126:46] 5347. These are small effects across the [126:49] board because we get all of this [126:52] motivational latitude. When we really [126:54] like somebody, we find the things we [126:56] have in common. We focus on those. We [126:59] convince ourselves those are the most [127:00] important things in the world. And the [127:02] thing is, who am I to criticize them [127:03] because the people in the happiest [127:05] relationships, that's what they're [127:06] doing. They're exhibiting those kinds of [127:09] biases. And it's like stupid human [127:12] tricks, but it like kind of works. [127:14] >> You want to hear something really scary? [127:16] >> Yeah. Uh, you probably know this [127:17] already, but I was shocked. Uh, let's [127:19] just say someone I know who would know [127:22] um told me that the biggest dating app [127:27] in the world by an enormous margin is [127:30] >> it's not Tinder, [127:31] >> Instagram. [127:33] >> Oh, [127:34] >> and this was actually very much in [127:37] parallel [127:38] >> to the the algorithm favoring [127:42] communication by direct message. People [127:45] will say like social media isn't social [127:47] anymore. It's not about like seeing what [127:48] people are doing. The real dynamics, the [127:52] real time spent, and you'll notice how [127:55] you get rewarded and what gets served up [127:57] in the algorithm. Rewarded meaning like [127:59] what what posts do better than others. [128:02] >> If there's a strong correlate to [128:04] communication about that through direct [128:06] message, it's a dating app that's kind [128:09] of cloaked for many people as a social [128:12] media app. But of course, I use it to [128:13] teach neuroscience, right? And and other [128:15] things. And this will be on Instagram. [128:17] So, I mean, I'm a big fan of of [128:19] Instagram and other social media [128:20] platforms for teaching and learning. And [128:21] I say that sincerely, but the majority [128:24] of the time spent now is not scrolling. [128:28] It's it's getting to communications that [128:32] move to real world and then feed back [128:35] >> Yeah. [128:35] >> to social media. So, I found that um [128:37] interesting. So, I'm imagining a [128:39] question uh because you study questions [128:42] people ask them on dates. And we used to [128:43] be able to say, [128:44] >> if you were on a deserted island, [128:47] >> who would you want to be there with? [128:48] Like, who's the one person that you [128:49] could stand being with or perhaps even [128:51] really enjoy being with, assuming you [128:54] have all the resources? [128:55] >> Now, I think the question should be, [128:57] >> who's the one person that would get you [128:59] to not engage with anyone else in in the [129:02] world? In other words, set down what you [129:04] called, and I've never heard this [129:06] before, the derivation of alternatives. [129:09] >> This is an interesting term. So, in some [129:11] ways, like committed partnership is [129:14] about setting aside the idea that there [129:16] might be somebody better for us. [129:18] >> And I would argue, again, I have strong [129:22] positive feelings towards Instagram. Um, [129:25] I really do. Uh, it's a a fun and great [129:28] platform when used in, you know, [129:29] moderation. Yeah. But it's the opposite [129:32] of the deserted island. And a former [129:34] guest on this podcast who happens to be [129:35] a divorce lawyer, um, James Ston, has [129:38] talked about the fact that many, many, [129:39] many of the divorces that he um, [129:42] >> litigates, no, that he that he's [129:45] involved in. Yeah. That he helps resolve [129:47] uh, win for his clients started with uh, [129:51] a [129:52] >> innocuous communication on his starts [129:55] with a like. starts with a like, starts [129:57] with a conversation, starts with a ends [129:59] up in the corner of a grievance or a or [130:01] a a commonality that's sensed and then [130:04] the derivation of alternatives emerges [130:07] and eventually the relationship [130:08] dissolves. [130:09] >> We think about how people handle [130:10] alternative partners. If you're in a [130:12] purportedly monogous relationship, this [130:14] is a challenge that relationships are [130:16] going to face and [130:19] I sort of see these like twin streams [130:21] happening at the same time. So [130:25] what you see in general is that for [130:28] people who are in relationships and [130:30] especially if they are happy in that [130:32] relationship, [130:34] any alternative partner that you can [130:36] throw at them, [130:38] they will tend to think that that [130:40] alternative partner is pretty weak [130:43] sauce. They think that person is less [130:46] desirable than any other metric you [130:48] might want to come up with for how [130:50] desirable that person actually is. [130:52] That's what we mean by deriggation of [130:53] alternatives. It's like they're coming [130:55] in up here, but because I'm partnered [130:58] with you and I'm happy with you, I see [130:59] them as less desirable than they [131:01] actually are. Side note, that's why this [131:04] one of the reasons why the marketplace [131:06] metaphor starts to break down because [131:09] people actually start to become bad [131:11] barometers of what is quote unquote [131:13] good. You stop seeing this alternative's [131:16] actual value because you're so happy [131:18] with the person that you have. Okay. So, [131:21] this is a good thing and this is a real [131:23] defense mechanism that people have. [131:25] >> Is it a defense mechanism or I mean, but [131:28] it's protective of healthy monogous [131:31] relationship. [131:31] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean it in the [131:33] best Yeah. You know what? That's so [131:35] funny because in our jargon we say [131:37] defense mechanism. I mean that in the [131:39] best possible mechanism. [131:40] >> Yeah. Protective mechanism. Right. Yeah. [131:42] You're defending the relationship. [131:43] That's so funny. I'd like forgotten. [131:45] >> We've had a few too many uh [131:46] psychologist. Right. Of course. that has [131:49] a negative connotation for some people, [131:50] not for me. Okay? So, it's a protective [131:52] mechanism, but at the same time, people [131:55] also do this thing that you might call [131:58] like playing with fire, but it's more [132:00] like, you know, playing with what really [132:02] seems to be a harmless book of matches. [132:05] And I just I'm just messaging these [132:07] people. Well, what's the big deal? This [132:08] isn't going to go anywhere. Uh I'm just, [132:11] you know, we're we're we're chatting a [132:14] little bit. This isn't going to go [132:15] anywhere. And things escalate. Sorry to [132:17] interrupt, but um and you know, one of [132:20] uh [132:21] >> our former guests on this podcast who's [132:22] immensely popular in the dating [132:25] relationships and romance sphere is [132:26] Esther Prell, and I don't want to put [132:28] words in her mouth, but I think the [132:30] perception about some of her messaging, [132:32] whether accurate or not, is that there [132:35] can be some value to, you know, in in [132:37] her first book, I think, and I haven't [132:39] read it, but um the the excerpt that was [132:42] uh relayed to me was this notion like, [132:44] oh, like someone isn't feeling as much [132:46] chemistry in a relationship. So, like [132:47] the woman, this wouldn't happen nowadays [132:49] most likely, but goes to a bar and like [132:51] flirts a bit and then like some some [132:53] sense of of um sexual confidence is [132:56] restored and then her husband is then [132:58] attracted to her differently again. And [133:00] you know, I've heard the more crude [133:01] phrase, doesn't matter where you get [133:02] your appetite as long as you eat at [133:04] home. This is more of the 1950s60s [133:06] variety. By the way, none of these [133:08] statements come from me, although my [133:10] mouth is saying them. These are things [133:11] that you hear out there, right? [133:13] >> Yeah. [133:14] directly uh in opposition to what you're [133:17] saying, which is not to say that what [133:19] you're saying is wrong. I just think [133:21] that there was a there was about a 20 or [133:23] 30 year period there where people kind [133:26] of assumed that monogamy could thrive. [133:28] >> Yeah. [133:29] >> Despite the inputs and monogamy could [133:32] thrive perhaps even better if people [133:34] acknowledge this aspect of self that is [133:37] still attracted other people. They talk [133:38] about it. what you're talking about is [133:40] really a more of a protective cloak [133:42] around the commitment. I do sense people [133:45] are veering back toward that what you're [133:48] describing. You know how I think about [133:49] it is is the protective cloak [133:52] um that that's sort of there as a [133:54] baseline but then signals will get [133:57] through some sometimes sometimes cuz [133:59] you're messing around on Instagram but [134:01] sometimes because you went to the bar [134:03] with your friends and there was this [134:05] cute guy who was chatting you up and the [134:08] evidence there too I interpret I think [134:11] the way a stair would interpret it and [134:13] and what you see in the data also [134:16] suggests something like a protect ive [134:18] mechanism again it's playing with fire [134:21] but if you look in studies where they [134:23] ask people have a sexual fantasy about [134:26] your partner now how much sexual desire [134:28] do you feel for your partner it has gone [134:30] up great that's pretty straightforward [134:33] now please have a sexual fantasy about I [134:36] don't know whoever's in second place [134:39] that's not your partner [134:41] then you start having sexual feelings [134:43] for that person and you start having [134:46] sexual feelings for your partner at the [134:47] same time. So, it's exactly the metaphor [134:50] that you're describing that when we feel [134:53] a sense of attraction, it can rebound [134:55] onto our partner. And by the way, it [134:57] doesn't happen in the reverse. Okay. So, [134:59] the partner, your current partner, [135:02] again, for most people in happy [135:03] relationships, holds a special position, [135:06] you might say, where even when there is [135:09] a little bit of a threat, and I've [135:10] noticed somebody, it it rebounds [135:13] somewhat. I don't advise that people go [135:15] out and do this. You're saying it [135:18] rebounds like it's a it's a fuel for the [135:20] relationship the way that Esther and [135:22] other people have talked about that's a [135:23] real thing. [135:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. I mean it [135:26] recent studies I can point to one or [135:28] two. They're all like within the last [135:29] few years. [135:30] >> This is going to be very uncomfortable [135:32] for some people to hear that their [135:34] partner may come home immensely [135:36] attracted to them because they had some [135:37] sort of interaction during the day of [135:39] either being attracted to someone or [135:42] receiving signals of attractiveness. [135:43] Right. Where I am a thousand% with with [135:46] Estair is that the danger, the problem [135:49] is not that your partner was sexually [135:51] attracted to somebody else. The problem [135:54] is usually in the escalation. It's yeah, [135:57] but now are they like repeatedly hanging [135:59] out with them and having like a [136:00] conversations that they feel secretive [136:02] about or that you know if if it's you [136:04] that you feel secretive about? Those are [136:07] the warning signs because then what will [136:09] start to happen is that the protective [136:11] layer that people typically put around [136:12] their partners, it will start to erode [136:15] and that's when people are at a greater [136:17] risk of infidelity. It's usually a [136:20] process like that. The simple fact that [136:23] we can be attracted to other people that [136:25] is not a problem for the average [136:27] relationship. It's the repeated follow [136:30] through on that attraction that becomes [136:32] a problem. And that's something that [136:33] evolved in recent years that there used [136:35] to be far more transient interactions [136:38] that would never resurface again. You [136:40] sit next to someone on a plane, you'd [136:41] have a conversation. Uh there might be [136:43] attraction, there might not be, but you [136:45] develop some degree of intimacy. Some [136:46] people would disclose a lot on planes [136:49] and then you never hear or talk to them [136:51] again. Nowadays, there's almost always [136:53] an opportunity for people to follow up [136:55] and connect with people. That's what [136:57] James Ston is referring to. Yeah. when [136:59] he talks about social media being a um [137:02] an uh borrowing other person's language [137:05] here an attack vector, you know, on a [137:08] relationship and maybe that is a good [137:09] reason for people who are in committed [137:11] relationships to just get off of social [137:13] media period. But it's also a context [137:15] where people spend quote unquote spend [137:18] time with people for other reasons. [137:20] >> Yeah, it's tricky. Uh if if I I don't [137:24] recommend using that sort of process to [137:26] bolster your relationship. I guess if [137:28] you're going to do it, you know, try to [137:29] do it by watching somebody. Um, yeah. [137:32] Who's uh Yeah. figure out if you're a [137:36] man who's with a woman, just ask her [137:38] like what actor does she have the hots [137:40] for and like be kind enough to watch a [137:42] movie featuring him. Like maybe that's [137:44] that's a way to make this work. [137:46] >> Or the reverse. Yeah, sure. [137:48] >> Some of the um what appear to be the [137:50] strongest and happiest couples that I [137:52] know, I know very little about their [137:54] dynamics, period. [137:56] >> Yeah. which is kind of an interesting [137:57] thing in its own right, but some of the [137:59] people that are in that set seem to have [138:02] a pretty uh relaxed [138:04] >> rapport around, oh yeah, uh so and so [138:08] referring to their spouse really likes [138:09] that actor or actress. Like it's like [138:11] it's just kind of a thing that they [138:12] understand, but it's over there, [138:14] >> right? It's it's at a distance. Yeah. [138:17] It's not um it's not like a looming [138:19] threat. [138:20] >> It's very different if it's about [138:21] somebody that you both like know and [138:23] spend time with. It's much more [138:26] threatening in those cases. And and I [138:28] think that also is part of why that [138:30] deraggation process happens is because [138:33] that threat feels very uncomfortable. [138:36] Like even if it's your attraction, like [138:39] you kind of want to downplay it because [138:42] the thought of what would it mean if I'm [138:45] like with the wrong person or like what [138:47] would happen if this thing spiraled out [138:49] of control, it it's upsetting for most [138:51] people. I mean, we take all this time to [138:54] build a relationship up to be this thing [138:58] that we really value that's a central [139:00] part of our lives. The thought that like [139:03] it could disappear at a moment's notice [139:05] because of of a a mistake that we would [139:07] make, it it can be threatening to most [139:10] people. E even if we're imagining [139:12] ourselves [139:13] engaging in the actions that would bring [139:15] things to an end. [139:17] I heard a really scary story that may or [139:20] may not be informative. [139:22] >> I think it is and maybe you can help me [139:25] understand it. Anytime someone starts a [139:26] story with I have a friend, it gets a a [139:29] little weird, but based on an [139:31] observation I had a long time ago [139:33] >> where I was going to a gym and I had a [139:37] tr truly just platonic friendship with [139:39] this woman. uh she would go to the gym [139:40] too. Back then, not a lot of women [139:42] worked out in gyms if I'm honest. Like [139:43] like it was like not a lot of women [139:45] lifted weights. It was like something [139:46] that was kind of reserved for guys or [139:47] for female bodybuilders, but she wasn't [139:49] a bodybuilder, but she she liked lifting [139:51] weights and super fit. She's a super [139:53] accomplished athlete now. [139:55] >> She um one day when we were leaving, she [139:58] was like really upset. I was like, [140:00] "What's up?" And she's like, "All these [140:03] guys kept coming up to me." And I'm [140:04] like, "Well, that's happening all the [140:06] time." you know, she's like, "No, they [140:08] were all really unattractive." [140:11] And I said, "Okay, well, you're good at [140:14] dealing with you." Like, she was very [140:15] skilled. She's very beautiful then and [140:17] now, and so very skilled at like saying, [140:20] "Thanks, but no thanks." [140:22] >> And then she said something that was [140:23] absolutely like shocking to me that I've [140:26] shared with other female friends and [140:28] some men and they always go, "No way." [140:30] And she said, "I feel like I have to go [140:34] like flirt with a really attractive guy [140:36] now." [140:37] >> Wow. [140:37] >> And it was clear that despite being [140:40] incredibly attractive, incredibly [140:41] accomplished [140:43] and s athlete, [140:45] >> was questioning her own value, this is [140:49] very evo evolutionary biology, because [140:51] the guys that were approaching her were [140:53] in her mind very quote unquote low [140:56] value, unattractive. Ah, [140:57] >> it it like got to her, you know. Of [140:59] course, my interpretation was, "Okay, [141:01] guys, the next time a really attractive [141:03] woman walks up to you and seems like [141:05] she's chatting you up, [141:06] >> you don't know that it's actually about [141:08] you, you know, you know, like just know [141:10] that it may not be about you." Like, [141:12] like note to self. And what's wild is [141:15] that years later I observed and talked [141:19] to someone in a basically same dynamic, [141:22] >> but she's married and she said, "Yeah, [141:25] if a bunch of people hit people always [141:27] hit on this this other woman, too." [141:28] She's like, "If they do that, [141:31] >> I sort of feel like I have to go kind of [141:33] um get a clear perception again of [141:35] whether or not I could be with an [141:37] attractive guy." And now granted, she's [141:39] married to a super successful, what [141:42] anyone, male or female, would describe [141:44] as super good-look guy, [141:46] >> and they have a super stable family. And [141:47] I thought to myself, [141:49] >> "Oh my god." And I don't know that this [141:51] is unique to women. I don't know. But [141:53] it's kind of weird if you think about [141:55] it. Now, it could be their unique [141:57] insecurity, but it's like if data start [141:59] coming in, [142:01] >> let's flip it. date. If a lot of really [142:03] attractive people of the opposite sex [142:05] start talking to you, whoever's [142:07] listening to this [142:08] >> that you perhaps start to wonder if [142:11] something [142:12] >> important is going on there. There's [142:14] information there. I just would like you [142:15] to reflect on this. I've been perplexed [142:17] by it for a long time. In some sense, it [142:19] makes total sense, [142:20] >> but as a scientist, I've learned, yeah, [142:22] but [142:23] >> just like like what's really going on [142:25] here? I think the part of the story [142:28] that's the most headscratching is that [142:31] they're in relationships. So shouldn't [142:34] they [142:35] >> in the second case? [142:35] >> Yeah. In the second case. So shouldn't [142:38] they be getting the feedback [142:40] that's positive on a regular basis? [142:43] Anyway, let's for the sake of argument [142:45] just assume that she was. So she was [142:48] getting positive feedback at home and [142:50] yet the experience of having less [142:53] appealing men come up to her led her to [142:56] feel like I need to do something to [142:57] reaffirm my [142:58] >> I think it was a question am I losing it [143:00] was the was kind of the language that [143:01] came up am I losing it whatever it was [143:04] >> one of the reasons that scientifically I [143:07] am out here like questioning the [143:10] usefulness of the made value construct [143:13] is because I know that people of quote [143:15] unquote low value can have absolutely [143:17] fantastic relationships and people of [143:19] quote unquote high value can have [143:21] absolutely terrible relationship. [143:23] >> I observed that many many times. Sure. [143:25] >> There you go. So that happens all the [143:28] time. [143:29] I think one of the strongest uh most uh [143:33] like resonant things that made value [143:36] does for us or the way that we [143:37] experience it most acutely is indeed in [143:41] the attention we get from strangers and [143:43] or the junior high type scenarios that [143:46] we talked about. So that we do have a [143:50] level of attractiveness and it changes [143:52] as we age. There is a consensus out [143:55] there about how desirable we are. And [143:58] that consensus is not going to stay [144:00] exactly where it is. It's going to [144:01] shift. And you might be in a [144:02] relationship and be very happy with the [144:04] person who unambiguously [144:07] thinks you're a 10. And yet still [144:09] wonder, what does everybody else think? [144:11] Like do they think I'm a seven? Do they [144:13] think I'm a four? What has happened to [144:15] me? So I totally get that. That [144:18] experience of how am I coming across to [144:21] the world? Is it less than I thought it [144:23] was? And that the only great information [144:26] that you have is how strangers respond [144:28] to you. It's sort of a funny way of [144:31] flipping all of this stuff around [144:33] because again, as a relationships [144:35] researcher, my bias is always your [144:39] husband thinks you're a 10. You think [144:41] he's a 10. You won the lottery. Like [144:43] that's it. You did it. But I [144:46] acknowledge, yeah, there can be cases [144:48] where we still wonder about what [144:51] strangers think of us and it might [144:53] matter to our sense of selfworth and [144:55] sense of who we are. So, so I'm not [144:57] going to judge it, but it is a [144:59] fascinating flip of the way I typically [145:01] think about these things. [145:02] >> It makes me wonder whether that our um [145:06] >> notions of self and this goes back to [145:07] the what we were talking about before [145:08] the Esther Prell thing and [145:10] attractiveness that sort of boomerangs [145:11] back into the relationship. something [145:13] that's going to be uncomfortable for a [145:14] lot of people to to hear, but at at some [145:18] level all of it makes me wonder whether [145:20] um there's a healthy [145:21] compartmentalization [145:23] >> that [145:25] >> we could adopt as as a society. Which is [145:28] not to say like anyone can be attracted [145:30] to anyone and therefore commitment isn't [145:32] real. [145:33] >> Nor is it saying like okay when you're [145:34] in a committed relationship it's it's a [145:36] complete black box. Right. Right. [145:38] Because there is this thing called the [145:40] internet and there's this thing called [145:41] the human psyche and you study it and [145:43] around these issues. But maybe it's if [145:46] people understood that those are two [145:47] different things. [145:49] >> Yeah. [145:49] >> Sometimes we refer to it like as the [145:51] shiny object, [145:52] >> but that that's a an aspect of self or [145:55] it's an aspect of of wanting that's not [145:58] it's not not real. It's real, but that [146:03] maybe there's a way to compartmentalize [146:05] it so that it's has the potential to be [146:07] toxic to relationship. Yeah. [146:08] >> But acknowledging that it's real, that [146:10] it's part of our wiring [146:13] >> might diffuse some of its power. [146:15] >> Like I said, some of these couples that [146:16] are like, "Oh, yeah." Like, what's the [146:18] the phrase couples have where they're [146:19] like, "Oh, you get a it's like a hall [146:21] pass." [146:21] >> Oh, yeah. [146:22] >> Which is never going to happen, right? [146:23] She's like, you know, so and so, you [146:25] know, my wife gets a hall my I get a [146:27] hall pass with cuz basically it's never [146:28] going to happen, right? So, it's not [146:30] really a hall pass. It's a it's a it's a [146:32] hall pass that uh exists in this [146:34] alternate universe where um the other [146:36] person could actually sleep with [146:38] someone. [146:39] >> Be careful with the hall notion because [146:41] I don't know where that could lead. I'm [146:42] not suggesting [146:44] >> not a protocol I suggest. Not a protocol [146:46] I suggest. [146:48] >> But um it's kind of interesting because [146:50] uh the parallel that comes to mind is [146:53] you know if you're in Los Angeles long [146:54] enough you get to know some people who [146:56] are actors. Yeah. And from time to time, [146:58] you'll run into somebody, male or [147:00] female, who is who was a spectacular [147:02] actor, had an amazing run on a comedy [147:05] series or movies, and they're no longer [147:08] working. And it is a [147:11] >> biodal distribution. People who are [147:14] happy and content and focusing on their [147:15] life and can see that was the younger, [147:18] more attractive, [147:21] >> working, [147:22] funny, sexy, whatever. And this is men [147:27] and women versus the like tortured [147:31] I'm not getting work, the work is not as [147:34] good as it used to be. I mean there it's [147:36] like and I've seen this with people who [147:37] had uh fame young for other reasons in [147:40] sports and things like that and they are [147:42] crushed. [147:43] >> And so what you want to say is like just [147:46] realize that you have this awesome [147:49] aspect of self that doesn't live in you [147:51] right now anymore, but it's still you. [147:53] Like you got that. [147:54] >> Yeah. You know, I think there's a [147:56] similarity here. Like if people just be [147:57] like, I've got everything I need and I'm [148:00] good because yeah, that other stuff [148:01] exists and I feel good about it. Not [148:03] like I'm gonna pretend it doesn't exist. [148:04] Seems like they could be a very [148:05] functional way to move through life for [148:07] people who have this insecurity. I [148:10] totally agree. And in fact, I'll even go [148:12] a step further, which is to say, I try. [148:16] I don't always succeed, but I try to [148:18] think this way about relationships that [148:21] have come and gone, too. Because I think [148:25] there's a real tendency I mean I was [148:28] going to say in our culture but it might [148:30] be a lot of cultures to see like past [148:34] relationships that have ended and I'll [148:36] even put divorces in this category to [148:38] look back and say I failed. And I think [148:42] people reinforce this even [148:43] unintentionally. You know you you go [148:46] through a breakup a dating breakup and [148:48] people say I'm so sorry. I know what [148:50] that's like. come over and have some ice [148:52] cream. You go through a divorce and [148:54] people say, "Well, what happened?" [148:56] Because they're trying to make sure that [148:58] it doesn't happen to them because [149:00] they're interpreting it as a failure. [149:03] And boy, I think if we give each other a [149:05] little bit of grace and see it all as, [149:08] yeah, that was a thing that happened. It [149:10] was real. It mattered in that moment. [149:14] Things happened along the way. It it it [149:16] didn't work out. I changed. You changed. [149:18] like being able to accept that like all [149:21] of those things are real and have or had [149:25] value. You know, I'd love to try to [149:28] encourage people to do that. I know like [149:30] there's so many people out there right [149:31] now who are like, "Yeah, but my ex is a [149:33] dick." And I I'm with you. I totally get [149:37] that. And to the extent that there's any [149:40] ability to hold these two thoughts in [149:42] mind simultaneously, I think it's good. [149:45] >> My girlfriend and I have a rule. We [149:46] don't have many rules. One of the rules [149:48] is we don't talk negatively about anyone [149:50] else that we've ever been with. [149:52] >> We we [149:54] were very comfortable with the fact that [149:55] we've had previous relationships because [149:57] early on we realize that like in the end [150:00] like that's all about our choices. So [150:02] it's kind of a crazy argument. Um and uh [150:06] and she said something beautiful. She [150:07] said like I'm grateful to all the good [150:09] and bad things that you've had to [150:11] experience regardless of you know and I [150:13] said the same to her because the [150:15] relationship is great and we bring that [150:17] >> and I do think it was built on the [150:19] trials and tribulations and great things [150:21] you know now I'm careful to not ask too [150:23] many questions and she's careful to ask [150:25] not ask too many we we actually have um [150:27] uh selective uh ignorance around around [150:30] certain we just like I don't care like I [150:33] genuinely don't [150:34] >> go down certain lines of inquiry and she [150:36] doesn't either. And I think it's great. [150:38] >> I think it's great. I think it's uh it [150:40] sets up like a you're the we're here [150:42] now. This is time move from now forward [150:44] and where it goes we determine that. But [150:47] but histories are real [150:48] >> and I have always admired I have a few [150:50] friends that um paired up [150:53] >> very early and they went through all [150:54] these developmental milestones together, [150:56] first jobs, some even graduate college [150:59] as couples, kids, you know, all this [151:01] stuff. And there's something really [151:03] beautiful about people that you you have [151:06] a long developmental trajectory to big [151:09] milestones that they reach together. [151:10] Nowadays, people are pairing up later. [151:12] They're getting divorced and remarrying. [151:14] It's harder to build a common narrative, [151:16] >> right? [151:16] >> Is there any data about common narrative [151:20] good or bad like we went through a lot [151:23] can be building as well. Is time [151:25] together a factor? Like when you control [151:28] for everything else, is duration of [151:30] relationship [151:31] an indicator of sort of quality and [151:35] satisfaction of relationship? [151:36] >> So if we're looking strictly at [151:39] relationship duration, [151:42] honestly, on average, it tends to be a [151:46] bad sign. In other words, wait a second. [151:49] Staying together is bad. [151:50] >> Yeah. No, no, it just means that like [151:52] that over time people were the happiest [151:55] early on in their relationship than they [151:58] are today. Right. It actually kind of a [152:01] bummer. Um [152:02] >> can you just break up and get back [152:03] together a bunch? [152:03] >> Yeah. Right. Okay. [152:04] >> We don't study that. We should um that [152:07] might have some problems volunteering. [152:09] >> Yeah. But let me say this. the the [152:11] narrative, [152:13] right? The idea that we experienced a [152:16] lot, that we grew, that we faced all [152:18] these obstacles, that is huge. So, it's [152:21] so so literal time is not the best [152:25] metric to capture, I think, the essence [152:28] of what you're getting at. It's a sense [152:30] that like we were in this together and [152:31] that we had a shared story. This is also [152:34] why breakups are so hard because not [152:38] only are you often losing a source of [152:41] support, perhaps for men it might be [152:43] more likely to be their only source of [152:45] support. Not only um do you have to face [152:49] the possibility of getting back out [152:51] there, but you're also losing the [152:54] continuity with yourself. you're losing [152:57] the stories and the narratives that [152:59] you've built with this other person and [153:01] all of those memories and all of those [153:03] components. [153:04] >> Well, I think that's why it can feel [153:06] like a failure because there's this [153:09] understandable and I think very [153:10] desirable wish that the [153:13] >> it's like a novel. It's going to have a [153:14] beginning, a middle, and an end [153:16] >> and the end is death. [153:18] >> Like we're going to till death do us [153:19] part. That is written into the script, [153:21] right? And so I think if it ends early, [153:23] I think a lot of people don't know how [153:25] to integrate it into their life story. [153:27] >> Yeah. [153:28] >> The evolutionary biology part, which [153:30] seems very real to me, [153:31] >> is that all we have is time and energy. [153:35] Yeah. [153:35] >> And when we invest, [153:38] >> time is running. There's no doover, [153:40] right? [153:41] >> You know, there's no doover. So I think [153:43] that people carry a lot of resent about [153:45] the time lost. [153:46] >> Yeah. and and the energy and the [153:47] investments that you put into it. But [153:49] and I think I think it's useful to think [153:52] about those investments as being about [153:54] like self and story [153:58] and that to the extent that you can use [154:02] it as an opportunity to like whether [154:05] it's like reinvent or recreate or you [154:07] know you preserve some of the parts of [154:08] yourself from the prior relationship but [154:10] maybe not all the prior parts of [154:12] yourself. there are some things that [154:13] you'd rather let go. To the extent that [154:16] you can hold on to the good parts of the [154:19] story, the parts that you want to [154:21] remember, that you want to keep, it' be [154:22] so painful when you're going through the [154:24] breakup in the first place that I think [154:26] a lot of times people just want to like [154:27] take all of it, put it in a box, and get [154:29] rid of it. Definitely throw away the [154:31] photos at some point. [154:32] >> Yeah. Yeah. Although, although now [154:34] everything's, you know, in the cloud, [154:36] it's very, very challenging. [154:38] Hypothalamus versus forebrain. Does the [154:41] good primitive stuff, [154:43] >> meaning, [154:44] >> yep, [154:44] >> sexual attractiveness, outweigh the [154:47] ability to think about how great someone [154:49] is? Ideally, there's both. [154:51] >> Yeah. [154:51] >> But the good lover beats stated [154:54] preferences model. [154:56] >> Yeah. [154:56] >> Is something that, [154:57] >> okay, [154:58] >> you've talked about before. In other [155:00] words, is the real glue in a long-term [155:04] relationship [155:06] some form of physical intimacy that in [155:09] or put differently, can we think and [155:11] talk our way perhaps to ourselves? [155:14] >> Yeah. [155:15] >> Forward through a relationship that [155:17] doesn't have that physical intimacy. [155:19] Usually, you will see that things like [155:21] sexual satisfaction or sexual desire for [155:23] your partner are going to be pretty [155:26] tightly related to how you feel about [155:29] the relationship in general. It's an [155:33] important component. I wouldn't say it's [155:35] an essential component or even the [155:38] central component for many people, but [155:41] for other people it certainly can be. [155:44] And I again I do believe in the church [155:48] of Esther Pel which is that there are [155:51] ways of recultivating [155:53] sexual feelings about somebody that [155:55] actually our sexual feelings about [155:56] somebody. It's not like a switch where [155:59] it's just on or it's off and we know [156:01] just when we look at them that sometimes [156:03] it's about the things we're talking [156:05] about the time we spend together or the [156:07] time that we spend apart and that that [156:10] can be rekindling in various ways. So I [156:12] think the key thing for me is not to [156:16] engage in fatalism about the sexual [156:21] desire component. That when like the [156:23] when the passion fades in a [156:26] relationship, [156:27] that doesn't mean that it's gone [156:29] forever. It might not be something that [156:32] you feel like every day at 7:00 p.m. [156:35] anymore. It might be the kind of thing [156:38] that that comes to the four in certain [156:40] circumstances or when you're not totally [156:43] exhausted. [156:44] I think that's okay. And a lot of [156:46] relationships can absolutely thrive [156:49] under those circumstances. And you can [156:51] push it to extremes, too, where it's [156:53] like, "My partner hasn't been sexually [156:55] attracted to me in, you know, years and [156:58] years." Like, that's going to be tough. [157:00] And part of the reason that's tough is [157:02] because you don't have the sexual [157:03] intimacy. But also part of the reason [157:04] it's tough is cuz it's making me feel [157:06] terrible about myself. So these things [157:09] all like cascade in various negative [157:11] ways, but I think they can also be be [157:14] helped in ways too that you know that [157:16] engage some of these more, you know, the [157:19] parts of our brains that at least we're [157:20] more uh aware of and and have some [157:23] agency over. [157:25] >> So is it true that sexual attractiveness [157:28] that rating the person's uh a person [157:30] rating their partner as a quote unquote [157:32] good lover is [157:34] among the strongest predictors of how [157:36] positively they feel about their partner [157:39] because that's that I I really [157:40] appreciate your answer, but I I want to [157:42] make sure that if that's true, that [157:44] comes comes through because what I'm [157:46] hearing is yes, it can those feelings [157:49] can uh wax and wayne and yes, life [157:51] circumstances and raising kids and job [157:53] and stress. Yes. Yes. And yes, I think [157:56] uh everyone including me acknowledges [157:57] that. But this idea that it's not [158:01] important after a certain stage or that [158:04] a really healthy romantic relationship [158:06] can exist without that. What I'm hearing [158:08] is the data [158:10] >> point in the other direction. [158:10] >> No, that is absolutely correct. the the [158:13] subjective sense that and that's exactly [158:15] the wording that we use the subjective [158:18] sense that like this person that I am [158:21] with or or this person that in that [158:24] study we have people who are in [158:25] relationships but we also have people [158:27] who are reporting on like just folks [158:29] that they're initially attracted to. But [158:31] in both it actually doesn't really [158:33] matter. In both cases, feeling like this [158:36] person is a good lover or likely to be a [158:39] good lover in the case of the attraction [158:40] scenarios is a very very good sign for [158:44] how positively you feel about the [158:46] relationship in general and whether you [158:48] want the relationship to continue it. [158:51] But again, it's that it's that [158:52] subjective sense and that's that's kind [158:54] of where I'm getting to this component [158:56] of like if if I start to feel like [159:00] you're not a great lover, like that's [159:02] going to rebound. So that then you don't [159:04] feel desirable and it's going to sort of [159:06] cascade in all of these negative ways. [159:08] >> All seems to converge on it's an [159:10] important feature of romantic [159:11] relationships to cultivate protect from [159:15] you know Yeah. And you describe some to [159:17] me surprising um [159:20] >> you know I I I think for some reason it [159:22] it makes total sense and yet it's [159:23] surprising that this kind of energy from [159:25] the outside can [159:27] >> provide positive support to the [159:28] relationship. Um, but Esther said it, [159:31] excuse me, has said it and others have [159:33] said it. So, [159:35] >> very interesting. Final question. Sounds [159:37] like a game show. Final question. Um, [159:40] >> billion dollar question. [159:41] >> Your course on this topic and related [159:43] topics is incredibly popular for obvious [159:46] reasons. It's super interesting topic. I [159:48] mean at at the end of the day like our [159:50] species evolved through these dynamics [159:52] you know it it wasn't all like you know [159:55] club the the lion you know gather food [159:58] make it was there was a lot of dynamics [160:00] I always chuckle when people say like [160:02] you know stress is a holdover from when [160:04] we were being hunted by saber-tooth type [160:07] no that's complete like nonsense it was [160:10] also there for when your spouse went [160:13] hunting for the day or gathering and you [160:15] didn't know if they were going to come [160:16] back or they came back after sundown [160:17] when normally They're there at sundown [160:18] and it's for when your baby was sick. [160:19] Like this notion that like stress was [160:21] only about pation. Like so it's just so [160:24] stupid. I'd like to uh have words with [160:26] whoever came up with that. It's so dumb. [160:28] It makes no it's not true. [160:30] >> What are the questions that students are [160:33] asking most often nowadays? Because I [160:36] realize that as a, you know, 50-year-old [160:38] male, uh, I suffer from a number of [160:40] different delusions about relationships [160:43] as it is for people in their 20s. [160:47] uh 30s now. Um and maybe for everybody [160:52] because we're all in our own experience. [160:54] But I think even though the college [160:56] classroom is not a perfect sample by any [160:58] stretch presumably there a lot of [161:00] different people in there. [161:01] >> Yeah. [161:02] >> Men, women, right? Some are most are [161:05] probably straight, some are gay on [161:06] average 2%. Like you're going to get a [161:08] lot of questions. What are the big [161:09] questions that that people seem to want [161:11] answered that [161:14] you're just hearing over and over again [161:16] that are both in the direction of like [161:19] this is a challenge but also like what's [161:21] going right out there? Is anything going [161:23] right? [161:23] >> I think most of the questions are about [161:27] like like there is often an assumption [161:29] that like [161:31] >> yeah but these days [161:34] it's so screwed up like that's what [161:36] they're saying. [161:36] >> Yeah. like the I mean you just have this [161:39] undercurrent. It's almost like and I [161:41] worry about this sometimes that when I [161:43] teach the science on these topics [161:46] there's a general sense of okay but that [161:48] this is science from the before times [161:50] like what like today [161:53] when the the apps have have controlled [161:56] everything and like nobody goes out [161:58] anymore like what are we supposed to do [162:02] and sometimes I fall back on the well [162:07] look like these these groups and things [162:09] like we were talking about these clubs. [162:11] They're still out there. You can still [162:12] get out there and meet people. [162:14] >> Activities. [162:14] >> Yeah. Activities like through these [162:16] avenues. They tend to work pretty well. [162:19] And at the same time, I have to [162:21] acknowledge that the generations are [162:23] going to change and these folks [162:26] experiences will be different than the [162:29] experiences that my generation had. So I [162:33] think in many ways this ends up being [162:35] the challenge to like to convey the [162:38] science to folks but also do it in a way [162:40] that shows that you're being responsive [162:42] and aware of the fact that any [162:44] generation feels like but things have [162:46] changed now and sometimes it takes a [162:48] while to know like what has really [162:50] changed. I do think that these students [162:53] go out less often. I think they drink [162:55] less often. I think they are they aren't [162:58] spending time socializing in the same [163:00] way and they're interfacing more with [163:01] technology that's probably helping some [163:04] people and it's probably really making [163:06] it hard for some other people and so um [163:09] you know I try to like live the example [163:12] of hey like I spent time hanging out [163:14] with people in groups and it was hard [163:16] and I got rejected and you know my high [163:18] school girlfriend dumped me but I ended [163:20] up doing okay and um I hope that other [163:24] people can like resonate with that [163:26] message in my glasses. [163:27] >> Love it. And I'm also hearing um perhaps [163:31] don't just sign up for something, but be [163:33] the person who organizes it. [163:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. I love this. I love this. [163:36] >> Like you can throw a picnic or a party [163:39] and uh [163:40] >> when I was a graduate student at Davis, [163:42] uh I often didn't make it cuz I was in [163:44] lab, but um every Friday there was a [163:47] pickup beach volleyball game. [163:49] >> Oh, that's fantastic. And then people [163:50] would go to uh there was a Thai [163:53] restaurant that was that was also a bar. [163:56] >> That night sometimes ended the next [163:58] morning. There was a tattoo shop right [164:00] across the street that closed called [164:01] American Graffiti. [164:02] >> Oh yeah. [164:03] >> Yeah. That some people got tattoos. [164:06] Do not recommend and definitely don't [164:08] get tattooed drunk. Probably don't even [164:10] get Do what you want. But um but but it [164:13] was every Friday and there was only one [164:15] rule which is that you had to at least [164:18] attempt to do the kind of like bump set [164:22] approach to beach volleyball. You [164:23] couldn't just hit it across [164:25] >> and it didn't matter how bad you were, [164:28] you know, [164:29] >> you had to do the three [164:30] >> and then everyone would go Thai food. [164:32] >> Some people would have [164:34] >> drinks if they drank. Somebody would [164:35] have a lot of drinks they definitely [164:36] drank. [164:37] >> It's just a really cool thing. Anyone [164:39] could come. [164:39] >> Yeah. Things like that happened a lot [164:42] and it took like zero planning. It was [164:44] an email that basically just went out [164:46] and no one person was in charge. It was [164:48] just kind of in the collective. Yeah. [164:50] >> They did uh like cooking competition [164:52] things where [164:54] >> you'd meet at someone's house and [164:55] everyone would have to bring like a [164:57] particular dish and then everyone would [164:58] try them. And I had no time in graduate [165:01] school. I was working all the time. I [165:02] would make time for these things [165:03] occasionally and they were a lot of fun. [165:05] Like these things are super easy to do. [165:07] Yeah, [165:07] >> you don't have to have any real athletic [165:09] ability or cooking ability, trust me. [165:11] Um, it I just feel like there's so much [165:14] opportunity for that, but the barrier [165:17] must be really there for people if [165:19] they're not doing these things cuz I [165:21] think it was just reflexive. [165:22] >> Technology [165:24] has a pull. [165:26] >> Um, and we can say it's the phones. Um, [165:30] but we could also say that it's whatever [165:32] is on your TV. I mean, there's lots of [165:34] reasons these days for people to stay in [165:37] that just weren't there 20 to 30 years [165:40] ago. I'd hope that the message would [165:43] resonate like you know gang like like [165:46] these whether it's the entertainment [165:49] companies or the apps they're they're [165:51] trying to keep you away from real [165:54] socialization. Young people, don't you [165:56] like rebelling and stuff? Rebel against [165:58] this, you know. Exactly. Like form these [166:01] groups. go out and meet people again in [166:03] person. I think it's coming back. [166:06] >> I I really do. I I think the pand I [166:08] think it's like it was like a long [166:10] pandemic hangover where we we just kind [166:13] of forgot this part of our social [166:16] architecture, but but it's coming back. [166:18] It it didn't go anywhere. We're still [166:20] social creatures and we also have these [166:23] great frontal loes. And even if you [166:24] don't feel like going out and [166:26] interacting with people, you can kind of [166:28] nudge yourself to do it. Um, and I I [166:30] think uh I think that's pretty [166:32] fantastic. Thank you so much for the [166:34] work you do. It's very brave. It's very [166:37] brave because it runs right up against [166:39] some long-standing theories of which I, [166:42] you know, I I still think very highly of [166:44] of a good fraction of the evolutionary [166:46] biology and psychology literature. I now [166:49] have to filter it through these new [166:51] findings. Um, but you've created your [166:54] own new field basically. uh which is of [166:57] course why your book which we'll provide [166:59] a link to um and your work is is so [167:02] popular and and it I love the optimism [167:04] that it shines into every interaction. [167:06] I'm sure people picked up on that that [167:08] you're not a doom and gloom guy, you're [167:10] a solutions guy. Really appreciate your [167:13] time here. Um many people will thank you [167:16] both those in relationship. you learn [167:18] some things to, you know, armor your [167:20] relationship, understand your [167:22] relationship better yourself, and uh and [167:24] for those who are who are seeking [167:26] partners or who are just observing the [167:28] world around them and are content where [167:29] they're at, um they're going to benefit. [167:31] So, thank you so much. Really appreciate [167:33] you. [167:33] >> Thank you so much for having me. [167:36] >> Thank you for joining me for today's [167:37] discussion with Dr. Paul Eastwick. To [167:39] learn more about his work and to find a [167:41] link to his book, Bonded by Evolution: [167:43] The New Science of Love and Connection, [167:45] please see the links in the show notes [167:47] caption. If you're learning from andor [167:49] enjoying this podcast, please subscribe [167:50] to our YouTube channel. That's a [167:52] terrific zerocost way to support us. In [167:54] addition, please follow the podcast by [167:56] clicking the follow button on both [167:58] Spotify and Apple. And on both Spotify [168:00] and Apple, you can leave us up to a [168:01] five-star review. And you can now leave [168:04] us comments at both Spotify and Apple. [168:06] Please also check out the sponsors [168:07] mentioned at the beginning and [168:08] throughout today's episode. That's the [168:10] best way to support this podcast. If you [168:13] have questions for me or comments about [168:14] the podcast or guests or topics that [168:16] you'd like me to consider for the [168:17] Huberman Lab podcast, please put those [168:19] in the comment section on YouTube. I do [168:21] read all the comments. For those of you [168:23] that haven't heard, I have a new book [168:25] coming out. It's my very first book. [168:27] It's entitled Protocols: An Operating [168:29] Manual for the Human Body. This is a [168:31] book that I've been working on for more [168:32] than five years and that's based on more [168:34] than 30 years of research and [168:36] experience. And it covers protocols for [168:38] everything from sleep to exercise to [168:41] stress control protocols related to [168:43] focus and motivation. And of course, I [168:45] provide the scientific substantiation [168:48] for the protocols that are included. The [168:50] book is now available by pre-sale at [168:52] protocolsbook.com. [168:54] There you can find links to various [168:56] vendors. You can pick the one that you [168:57] like best. Again, the book is called [168:59] Protocols, an operating manual for the [169:01] human body. And if you're not already [169:03] following me on social media, I am [169:05] Huberman Lab on all social media [169:07] platforms. So that's Instagram, X, [169:09] Threads, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And on [169:12] all those platforms, I discuss science [169:13] and science related tools, some of which [169:15] overlaps with the content of the [169:16] Huberman Lab podcast, but much of which [169:18] is distinct from the information on the [169:20] Huberman Lab podcast. Again, it's [169:22] Huberman Lab on all social media [169:24] platforms. And if you haven't already [169:25] subscribed to our neural network [169:27] newsletter, the neural network [169:28] newsletter is a zerocost monthly [169:30] newsletter that includes podcast [169:32] summaries as well as what we call [169:33] protocols in the form of 1 to three-page [169:35] PDFs that cover everything from how to [169:38] optimize your sleep, how to optimize [169:39] dopamine, deliberate cold exposure. We [169:41] have a foundational fitness protocol [169:43] that covers cardiovascular training and [169:45] resistance training. All of that is [169:47] available completely zero cost. You [169:49] simply go to hubmanlab.com, go to the [169:51] menu tab in the top right corner, scroll [169:53] down to newsletter, and enter your [169:54] email. And I should emphasize that we do [169:56] not share your email with anybody. Thank [169:58] you once again for joining me for [170:00] today's discussion with Dr. Paul [170:01] Eastwick. And last, but certainly not [170:04] least, thank you for your interest in [170:06] science.