When you look at who gets the right

swipes and who receives messages on the

apps, it's the most popular people. I

mean, folks have claimed that it's one

of the most unequal markets in the

world, but regular acquaintance is not

nearly so dramatic. I don't think the

influence of attractiveness ever goes

away, right? There's always going to be

an unlevel playing field to some extent,

but the more that people spend time

together getting to know each other, it

reduces some of those market forces that

give the desirable people all the

advantages.

Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast,

where we discuss science and

science-based [music] tools for everyday

life.

I'm Andrew Huberman and I'm a professor

of neurobiology and opthalmology at

Stanford School of Medicine. My guest

today is Dr. Paul Eastwick, a professor

of psychology at the University of

California, Davis. Today we discuss the

science of attraction, mate selection,

and relationships. And I promise you

what you are going to hear will surprise

you. Paul's research has discovered that

much of what you've heard about how

people select partners, date, form

relationships, even break up or

repartner is simply wrong. At least when

you look at the actual data. For

example, his data show that both men and

women when given a choice select

partners that are younger than them.

Yes, you heard that right. It's not just

men. Men and women equally select

partners that are younger than them

given the choice. His data also

challenged the idea that financial

status is more important to women when

looking for male partners. Turns out

that when men are looking for female

partners, on average, financial status

is as important as it is when women are

looking for men. And somewhat less

surprising, his work shows that indeed

dating apps select for qualities that

are not the ones that research shows

builds lasting partnerships. But he also

offers solutions to those that are using

dating apps to try and find a partner.

Today's discussion is not just about

finding a partner. It's also about what

solidifies and maintains healthy

relationships over time. Again, what the

data say about that. Things like

physical intimacy being among the very

strongest predictors of relationship

stability. As well as both partners

feeling that no matter who else might be

attractive to them, that their partner

has unique qualities that no one else

can match. So whether you are in a

relationship or not, looking for a

relationship or not, today's discussion

gets into social bonding of all sorts

and repeatedly throughout today's

episode both as it relates to single

people looking for a partner, people who

are already partnered, we talk about the

importance of activities that are done

with other people, could be other

couples or other single people, etc. And

that this is critical for those wanting

to meet a partner and it turns out to be

critical for maintaining a healthy

long-term relationship. We'll talk about

what the data say about that. Super

interesting. So today is not just about

the real data of how people rate

attractiveness, find partners, and the

glue that keeps people happily together.

It's about the real life data and the

actions that anyone can take that help

you build and sustain excellent romantic

and other types of relationships. Before

we begin, I'd like to emphasize that

this podcast is separate from my

teaching and research roles at Stanford.

It is however part of my desire and

effort to bring zero cost to consumer

information about science and science

related tools to the general public. In

keeping with that theme, today's episode

does include sponsors. And now for my

discussion with Dr. Paul Eastwick. Dr.

Paul Eastwick, welcome.

>> Thank you so much for having me. A lot

of theories out there, a lot of

speculation about attraction, dating,

romance, and relationships, which are

separable things. Of course, we'll talk

about all of them. But one of the

semi-dominant themes in the public

narrative and indeed on many podcasts is

is kind of anchoring to evolutionary

theory which to put it really coarsely

sort of a market-based theory. You know

people even say I married up or uh you

know and people but quantitative

measures on people they're a six they're

a seven they're a 10 in this but a four

in that. You know, as a neuroscientist,

I hear that and I immediately go to, and

again, this is just purely theoretical.

>> Oh, this sounds very limbic. This is

very much of like the hypothalamus. This

is very much like the kind of thing that

you might expect under conditions of

like um low food availability,

>> low mate availability, a lot of weapons

and a few and very few laws, you know,

to to regulate violence or something.

Meaning men will will harm each other in

order to get access to mates. women will

um be deceptive. This is the whole idea.

And you step back and you go, well,

that's not the world we live in now. We

have a forebrain. We can make choices.

We can be strategic in the direction of

benevolence. We can think about

kindness. And so to me, it seems we need

a revision or at least a better

understanding of what's actually true in

2026 and forward. So, if you would, what

are your thoughts about what is not true

based on the data

>> and perhaps what is true about this

quote unquote evolutionary model of

dating relationships and so on. The

marketplace ideas, I think they

definitely have their place and it deres

from a a sensible evolutionary

perspective like what you're describing.

I think it describes well what happens

in initial attraction settings when

people are really meeting for the first

time. There's this class demo that I do

in my undergraduate classes. A lot of

people use this demo and what you do is

you have a bunch of your students put a

number on their foreheads and they sort

of hold it up so that they can't see it

but other people can. and you tell the

students your goal is to pair up with

the highest value person that you can

and you don't know what your number is,

but I'm going to count to five and then

I want you all to stroll around the room

and try to make mating offers to folks.

And what you see is that the people who

have been randomly assigned a low

number, they start to panic because what

happens is that nobody will talk to

them.

>> And this is random. uh you know

otherwise it would be very unethical and

also who would decide but

>> but people don't like it. I mean if you

get a low number

>> it's not an enjoyable experience

>> and I think there is a parallel to what

people are experiencing as they're

growing up or maybe even if they're a

little older and they're going to a

party and they haven't met anybody

there. So this is an analogy

for how people internalize and you know

act upon something that we call mate

value and it's it's like what you

describe. It's supposedly linked to

traits that reflect your core

desiraability like maybe your physical

attractiveness but it could be other

related traits too. It could be things

like the size of your bank account or

your status.

What we tend to see is that when people

are meeting for the first time, this is

um a reasonable faximile of how people

behave.

But interesting things tend to happen

when people get to know each other over

a little bit more time. What then tends

to happen is that that agreement that is

required for that study to work. That

study only works because you can read

the numbers on people's foreheads. But

if I were to blur that number, we

wouldn't see as much pairing up. It

wouldn't be as sad and as difficult for

the people with low numbers. And in real

life, that's kind of what tends to

happen. We stop agreeing about who the

eights are and who the fives are. And

people might on average say that you're

a six, but if I've gotten to know you

over time, it means there's a chance I

think you're a nine. There's also a

chance I think you're a three. And so

that increase in idiosyncrasy and

variability, I think, is a really

fortunate thing. And it's the thing

that's going to allow a lot of partners

to find each other uh even if they're

not consensually the most desirable

people. Consensually meaning in the eyes

of others.

>> Right. Right. Right. Right. So even if

on average people think uh you're kind

of middling with enough time people are

more likely to find okay but okay you

all think I'm a five but she thinks I'm

a 10. And then what you're kind of

crossing your fingers for are these

moments where and I think she's a 10

too. And it's this uh level of sort of

disagreement or the emergence of what we

might comp call compatibility that I

think is it's been missing from the

evolutionary narratives, but I think it

plays a core part in explaining how

couples get together as well. Wow. Um so

many things come to mind. Uh the first

thing that comes to mind is the

question, you know, who and what are

others looking at? Yeah, it seems like

one of the more I want to use the word

immature, but let's say less evolved,

not in the evolutionary biology context,

but kind of like life maturation sense,

like less evolved aspects of self is

when

>> we are not thinking about what we

actually like and don't like,

>> but we're paying a lot of attention to

what other people like and dislike as a

barometer of what we should do or not

do. Now, of course, that can be very

informative in healthy ways, but when it

really comes down to it, it's a

potentially very toxic aspect of human

nature, right? So, what I what I hear

you saying is that at some point there's

this kind of um dating, romance, and

relational maturity that people come to

where they're really able to sense what

they actually like and they're able to

put the blinders up to how other people

are necessarily behaving. like are does

everyone like this person? Do they not

like this person? And the the words that

come to mind, two words are junior high,

>> like the junior high school dance for a

number of reasons is kind of the first

time, you know, most kids are starting

to hit puberty or somewhere in puberty

at that phase. And so there's a lot of

recognition of others and

>> kind of like who is cool, who's not

cool, who's getting attention, who's not

getting attention seems to surface first

in junior high.

>> Yeah.

>> And admittedly, we're all pretty

immature in junior high. Yeah. Exactly.

>> [laughter]

>> So, has this been looked at in in a

structured way? For instance, are there

adults who are um good

>> at ignoring what you you know what the

consensus is? And are are they able to

find mates and and set up relationships

more readily than people who are paying

a lot of attention to what other people

like and don't like? Yes, I'm I am sure

that there's considerable individual

variability in how people react to

what's going on around them. Sometimes

you see this phenomenon called mate

choice copying. But what that

essentially means is that you know you

kind of look to see who's attracted to

somebody in my uh you know is everybody

attracted to this person? Well, there

must be some signal there. I'll sort of

follow that.

I totally agree. It it's a very junior

high way of thinking about this whole

process. But I think a lot of what is

happening is that if people are spending

time together and I I often go back to

thinking about what is it like when

we're hanging out in mixed gender groups

if you're heterosexual.

So we're spending time together and

maybe for whatever reason I happen to

spend more time with this person. we

find something interesting to chat

about. I see her reacting in situations

that other people don't get to see. And

so the particular time that I spend with

her ends up being the material that I

use that causes my opinion to diverge

from everybody else's. So everybody else

might be like, "She's not all that

great." And I think, "But you weren't

there when we were hanging out talking

about, you know, some family challenges

that I had. I'm trying to put myself

back in like what were the things we

would have been frustrated about in high

school. But you know talking about like

problems at school or problems with

other friends like she was supportive

and listened to me and then I was

supportive and I listened to her and

that reciprocity through a unique

experience with another person. A lot of

times this is where initial attraction

comes from. It sounds a little squishy.

It doesn't sound like the sexy form of

attraction that we often think about,

but what we see in our work is a lot of

times this is how it happens. It it

takes a little while, but attraction can

form when two people spend that time

together sort of pulling unique things

out of each other. I'd like to take a

quick break to acknowledge one of our

sponsors, David. David makes protein

bars unlike any other. Their newest bar,

the Bronze Bar, has 20 gram of protein,

only 150 calories, and zero gram of

sugar. I have to say, these are the best

tasting protein bars I've ever had, and

I've tried a lot of protein bars over

the years. These new David bars have a

marshmallow base and they're covered in

chocolate coating and they're absolutely

incredible. I of course eat regular

whole foods. I eat meat, chicken, fish,

eggs, fruits, vegetables, etc. But I

also make it a point to eat one or two

David bars per day as a snack, which

makes it easy to hit my protein goal of

1 gram of protein per pound of body

weight. And that allows me to take in

the protein I need without consuming

excess calories. I love all the David

Bronze Bar flavors, including cookie

dough, caramel chocolate, double

chocolate, peanut butter chocolate. They

all actually taste like candy bars.

Again, they're amazing. But again, they

have no sugar and they have 20 gram of

protein with just 150 calories. If you'd

like to try David, you can go to

davidprotein.com/huberman.

Right now, David is offering a deal

where if you buy four cartons, you get

the fifth carton for free. You can also

find David on Amazon or in stores such

as Target, Walmart, and Kroger. Again,

to get the fifth carton for free, go to

davidproin.com/huberman.

Today's episode is also brought to us by

Lingo. Lingo is an everyday wearable

that tracks your glucose 247. Glucose

drives a lot of key processes that

support energy, body composition, and

long-term health. When glucose is

constantly spiking and crashing, that's

where we can start to see metabolic

dysfunction. And over time, that can

even progress to pre-diabetes. Right

now, about 115 million adults in the US

have pre-diabetes. Most don't know it,

and a higher percentage of men have it

than women do. Often, there aren't clear

symptoms of pre-diabetes early on, so

people don't tend to look into it. But

the fact is that metabolic health is

shaping how your body functions every

day, whether you feel it or not.

Tracking your glucose with Lingo can

help you see how food, activity, and

stress impact your glucose throughout

the day. I personally have used Lingo,

and it's been an invaluable tool for

improving my metabolic health. If you

would like to try Lingo, Hubberman Lab

listeners in the US and UK can save 10%

on a 4-week plan. Just visit

hellolingo.com/huberman

for more information. Terms and

conditions apply. Again, that's

hellingo.com/huberman.

>> It's interesting. I'm thinking about um

movies.

>> Yeah.

>> And um admittedly, I haven't seen that

many romantic comedies, but there's some

very there's some pretty awesome I've

seen a few of them. Uh but there's some

awesome movies about this issue.

>> Yeah.

>> And I'll offer some examples that will

date myself, but

>> that seem to fall into at least three

bins.

>> One is

you're awesome. I'm awesome. Let's get

together. All right. Nowadays, I think

regardless of music taste, I think the

kind of uh like royally celebrated

couple is not a royal couple.

Incidentally, I would say it's like the

Taylor Swift

>> Kelsey couple. People like people are

like they're both winners. They're both

super attractive. They're both super

successful. And you know whether you

like the Chiefs or you don't, whether or

not you like her music or you don't,

you're like, you're like they're like

badass winners pairing up

>> and it's very hard to say anything

except like, wow, they totally quote

unquote belong together, right? There's

a sort of So there's that pairing and

you can find that in movies and uh all

the like ' 80s like um uh John Hughes

movies centered around this like um and

then broke that model. We'll go back to

that. The other one would be Yeah. the

breaking of that model. the like the

it's this is very 80s but the kind of

like the athlete you know pairs up with

the nerd right okay now we nowadays we

have athlete nerds and so it doesn't

work quite as well

>> and then the third model is the like

well you're screwed up and I'm screwed

up but we're really good people

>> like you get true romance

>> the movie True Romance which is an

amazing movie right you know she was a

>> you know not by her own choice

apparently like she she's like I've been

a prostitute for three call girl for

three days and he's

Well, I you know, someone paid for you

to be on this date with me. They fall in

love. They leave their

>> professions, right? And they go and they

go on this sort of semi-rime spree um

that really uh demonstrates their

immense love and devotion to one

another. And the whole notion is like

you're so cool. They both think the

other person is super cool, don't care

about their past, and kind of enjoy the

fact that they're both kind of from

>> uh hard scrabble backgrounds. So then

there's that. And what's so different

about that kind of model compared to

like today where I hear because I so I

don't have a lot to offer about personal

experience on apps many years ago but

it's been a while is this notion that

like everyone you hear this everyone's

competing for the same small number of

people.

>> So it seems like even those those three

cliche models that are presented in a

number of movies they exist. It's like

since when did is everyone thinking that

they're supposed to pair up with the

same small number of people? This is

like ridiculous. That's like saying

everyone's supposed to like the same

>> top three songs even though you might

not even like that genre of music.

That's that's um insanity.

>> Yeah, the apps absolutely pull for this.

So when you look at who gets the right

swipes and who receives messages on the

apps, it's the most popular people. I

mean, folks have claimed that it's one

of the most unequal markets in the

world. I mean, it's basically a

kleptocracy. The extent to which Yeah,

kleptocracy, right? The extent to which

it's skewed, right? That there's like,

you know, the rich, quote unquote, who

have all the, you know, who who get all

the all the the right swipes at the top.

But regular acquaintance is not nearly

so dramatic. So, you know, one example

that I like to use is that if our job

was just to evaluate whether somebody

standing in front of us was hot or not,

and it was somebody that we like

interacted with briefly

and we're making just simple binary

judgments, you and I are going to agree

about like 2/3 of the time. So that's

that's better than 50/50, but it's far

from 100%. I I think actually that would

surprise a lot of people. There's a

reasonable amount of disagreement there.

That's already starting to set the stage

for us not necessarily pursuing the most

appealing person because if there's

disagreement, that means there's a

chance that, well, you're going to go

for this person, I'm going to go for

that person, and it it levels out the

playing field somewhat. I don't think

the influence of attractiveness ever

goes away, right? There's always going

to be an unlevel playing field to some

extent, but the more that people spend

time together getting to know each

other, it reduces some of those, you

know, uh th those market forces that

give the desirable people all the

advantages.

>> Yeah. The reason junior high school

seemed so dreadful in my memory. I mean,

I had a good time in junior high school,

but it it was largely, at least for me,

the fact that people in my peer group,

cuz it was a pretty broad age range,

were were still um among the guys were

hitting puberty at different rates.

>> Yeah.

>> So, like a game of soccer that at one

time was pretty even with respect to who

could play well, like suddenly you're

playing against what felt like a grown

man. There's actually a kid in our town

who I don't want to give up his name who

I think he went on to I don't ever think

he became a professional soccer player,

but he was just

>> he was like fully developed by the

eighth grade. He was like facial hair

and he was fast and he had like legs

like tree trunks and he could move and I

mean it was just

>> completely dangerous to have him out on

the field with the rest of us, right?

And he was

>> respected, adored, admired like and it

was very context dependent. This was the

other thing I was going to say. I think

you and I are both scientists. So,

coming up, you spent a lot of time in

labs.

>> Yeah.

>> I never forget there was a romance in a

neighboring lab um that none of us

understood. Like none of us understood.

>> That's funny.

>> And I remember asking my friend who was

in this pairing and he said the

attraction for him, although she was

also attractive, but the the the hook

was her prowess at aloquotting. So

there's a thing you do with antibodies

and labs where they come in and you have

to put them into the little things so

that you know you freeze out a little

bit and apparent

>> really hard.

>> Yeah. You get good at it. But apparently

like he walked in one day and she had a

bunch of these little tubes stuffed

between her fingers and she was just

aloquotting really quickly while talking

and from that moment he was just like

smitten.

>> That's beautiful.

>> And I'll say they both never heard an

example this good. I was like her

aloquatting process like it or prowess

and I thought to myself like is this

like tapping into something? They they

actually have children. He's his

professor. They have children together.

They seem very happy. I think anyone

would say they're both attractive

people. But their pairing seemed like

>> not predictable by any other external

metrics. And the fact that something so

specific was the hook.

>> Yeah.

>> And that opened up into what turned out

to be a long-standing marriage with kids

is kind of wild. It is.

>> But is this uncommon? Because what you

described before is kind of like this,

like there's something unique that makes

it feel like there's a special

attraction that indicates something that

opens up to a special discussion and

then there's this

>> kind of um intimacy, right, that they

share

>> around aloquading that was spawned by

aloquading. I don't recommend folks run

out and learn how to aloquat in order to

like this is not a strategy. Um

[laughter] but that's the thing.

>> Thematically it might be, but um so what

are your thoughts on something like

that? Okay, this is an incredible

example and I think if if we're talking

about couples, I think most people would

find this idea intuitive that if you

know I ask somebody what is what is it

that you love about your wife or what is

it that you love about your husband? You

know, you're going to get a bunch of if

you get them talking for long enough,

you'll get some idiosyncratic details.

You'll get some stories. I mean, maybe

if they're really forthcoming, they'll

give you the in jokes and they'll

explain the moments that made them feel

something special for this person.

I think what I'm suggesting is that

those moments, the the the creation of a

narrative with another person, it goes

back earlier than we think. And that a

lot of times what we're doing when we're

trying to figure out if we're into

somebody, yes, we look at how they look

visually and we we take in all that

information and it matters a lot. But

we're also talking with them, forming

little stories. If you have a little bit

of good banter, that means when I see

you at the party next week, I'm going to

want to sit next to you and see if we

can recreate that moment. And that's

often where attraction is coming from. I

think that's why the apps are so hard

because it turns it into an interview

where you're trying to impress other

people with your traits. And again,

traits are important, but it's like it

it's not the life of the thing. The life

of the thing is the little stories and

moments that two people are sharing and

and that's I think something that that

people can be doing more with.

>> I'd like to divide this process that we

call dating, romance, relationships,

etc. into some pieces that may or may

not be the right way to segment it. So,

so please um change any of what I'm

about to, you know, toss out. We're

talking about impressions.

>> Yeah.

>> That either seed or don't see desire for

more time. So, interest

>> and then that I'll just broadly separate

with compatibility over time.

>> Yeah.

>> So, let's spend some time on impressions

that lead to desire. Which ones are

meaningful? Which ones aren't? Which

ones can be a bit misleading? I think

most people are probably more intuitive

about those if they're really honest,

like what they find, who they find

attractive,

>> who they'd be willing to admit they find

attractive if you remove all the other

social inputs.

>> Yeah.

>> And so on. But the compatibility over

time piece is the one that is really

hard. If you just look at the statistics

on marriage, let alone the statistics

on, you know, other relationships.

>> It's not a bleak picture, but the

numbers don't play out into if people

get together and make the commitment.

Most of the time it works out. It

unfortunately doesn't seem to be that

way or maybe who knows fortunately but

so impressions leading to desire given

that many of the people listening to

this will they'll be thinking about

their own history with their current

partner or are seeking a partner or

maybe not. What do the data say about

what people are picking up on as really

valid cues that drive real desire as

opposed to the

>> the BS about like, well, everyone else

thought they were great or the great on

paper kind of thing. The early phases

especially are just naturally filled

with a lot of uncertainty. And I think

this is a bummer for a lot of people

because it can feel like you're really

into somebody or like they're really

into me and then it turns on a dime. So

part of that is about like searching for

signals trying to resolve the

uncertainty. And the problem is that

it's not like, oh, if I get sufficient

evidence that you're smart, that's going

to do it. Or if I get sufficient

evidence that you're really good at

aloquotting, that's going to do it. What

people are, I think, trying to do is

they're trying to figure out like, do I

feel enough of something for you that I

want to continue this that I want to

keep going? Yes. And but I don't want to

act like cuz sometimes when people think

about the spark, what they think is,

"Oh, it's got to be there right away and

I've already got to be feeling 100 for

this person, right? I got to be at the

top of the scale." That actually isn't

what happens on average. Typically, if

you if you look at what most

relationships look like and you look

back at the beginning, the the typical

first impression is middling. That's how

we feel at first. Middling. Just kind of

I don't know, middle of the sky. That

seemed all right. You know, it was fine.

And then we interacted again.

>> Not bad, not over the top.

>> Not bad. Not Not over the top. And as we

spend a little more time together, oh,

like actually I find him pretty funny or

I think he's really smart or um you

know, I really like how good a listener

he was. And I think what people are

often trying to do is get enough moments

that fit enough of these different trait

categories that they think, well, you

know, whatever other people say about

this person, like with me, he seems like

a pretty sensitive guy. with me, he

seems pretty witty. With me, you know,

like I actually think he's really hot

when he does XYZ. And so if you

accumulate enough of those, then you

find yourself, you know, it's like you

keep coming back. So that's how I think

about it is this like slow accumulation

of information.

Sometimes people will encounter things

like like the ick where there's one

moment and then they tip over the edge

the other way into feeling like I can't

be with this person.

>> Is that typically women who feel that

about men? I mean do men describe that?

>> I think yeah men have those experiences

too. It is pretty underresarched. And

one of the reasons why is because this

whole phase I'm talking about is

remarkably hard to study because we as

researchers we're very good at how do

you feel about somebody if you're

looking at a picture or if you've hung

out for like four minutes. I mean that's

what a lot of the initial attraction

paradigms look like. I like those

paradigms. I study those paradigms

myself. And then it's very easy to

recruit couples and then see what

happens to them. what explains why their

relationships stay together and why they

fall apart. But this period and it's

it's my favorite thing to think about

and it's also one of the most mysterious

is Yeah, but what happened from like

minute 10 to you know day 30 where now

you were really determined to be in a

relationship with this person and and

that's a typical amount of time. it it

usually doesn't happen instantaneously

that people know right away, hey, no,

this is it. I want to be with this

person. It's that slow accumulation. And

when we look at it, it's it's almost

like you've got a window of uncertainty

and it's slowly collapsing to a stable

impression that people have of this

person as they gather a little bit more

information and a little bit more

information. And what you just hope for

is that as two people you're collapsing

to a fairly stable impression that is

both very positive of each other. And I

think a large part that's how people get

together

>> and hopefully accurate too.

>> Yeah. So the accuracy part is

interesting because I mean you know I'm

a psychologist. I'm a social

psychologist and so social psychologists

are big into well your perception is

your reality and boy do you see a lot of

evidence especially in relationships

that people are biased when it comes to

their romantic relationships

>> in what sense

>> it can happen in ways like you know

everybody kind of agrees that your

partner's a jerk but you genuinely don't

think they're a jerk and when they're

with you they don't seem like a jerk so

any kind measure I would take your

perception of, you know, your partner

versus everybody else's perception. You

would seem to be horribly positively

biased

for your partner.

The question is whether you're wrong and

I land on the side of I mean from your

perspective you're not

to argue that it would be better to

listen to the consensus that your

partner is a jerk kind it's sort of like

um you're arguing for like a sleeper

effect like there's wisdom in what other

people know that you don't see.

The evidence for that is actually not

not great. It's it I'm it it could be

and I'm sure it happens sometimes, but

what usually happens in relationships is

that people's own impressions and

perceptions tend to be the major driver.

Now, that can go in the other way, too,

because we might all agree this person

would be the most amazing partner to be

with, and yet you've now gotten to the

point in this relationship where you

don't see it anymore, and you can't

unsee the negative things you've seen.

And so, that relationship can be very

hard to salvage. The statement has been

made by someone I know and trust about

all things in life, all things in life,

not just relationships, but certainly

including them, that

If people just treated

their taste in people, in music, in art,

in experiences the same way they treated

their taste in food, everyone would be a

lot better off.

>> Meaning,

if one has the impression that they

really like something, they really like

this person, then just go for it. I

mean, unless there's some sort of danger

they're not aware of, right?

>> Okay. Okay. And which and we'll talk

about consensus, communicating danger,

separate separate issue, but it crosses

into this online dating thing based on a

lot of conversations I've had with young

men and women. But music, you hear it,

you either like it or you don't. We

don't tend to have a hard time defending

our stance on those things. But when it

comes to relationships, it's almost like

we're many people are walking around

with a little or a lot of that junior

high narrative in their in their mind.

>> Not necessarily be with somebody that

they can't stand because everyone else

thinks they're great. I think that's

pretty rare. Probably happens, but it's

pretty rare. But at these early stages

that you study, that they're navigating

that process in a way where they're not

in tune with their own taste. they're

integrating all this other information

in a way that's not helpful. It's not

protecting them. In fact, it's it's just

clouding the signal. It's noise,

>> right? In the signal to noise model,

like it's noise. It's just pure noise.

>> And as a consequence,

>> people are wasting their time and other

people's time.

>> Yeah.

>> And I don't believe everyone's trying to

waste each other's time. It just seems

that we're conditioned to do this. Yeah.

And I will say it does take a pretty

strong

person to say, "Listen, I know that's

what you see. I know that's what they

say, but like this person's great. Like

they're right for me." And when people

do that in general, people tend to back

off.

>> And of course, there's

>> Shakespeare about this, right? But that

tends to be cultural pressure of like,

"No, you two can't be together or the

parents don't want her or one set of

parents." I mean some of the greatest

romances have been born out of that fu

to the to the elders to the community

but this is a little different. Yes. You

know, it's a tricky thing to navigate

because I I think one of the best

situations to end up in is where you're

in a relationship and let's say it's a

new relationship and your friends around

you basically think, you know, we're

happy for you and we're going to

celebrate you and, you know, we're going

to celebrate this relationship. We

support you. We just wouldn't be

terribly interested in this person

ourselves. That's the ideal, right?

Where it's not exceptionally

competitive. You're not worried about

your friends trying to poach your

partner away, but at the same time,

they're supportive of the relationship

because that support from friends and

family, it is important. Like, it

certainly shapes how people feel.

there's a way to navigate that that

doesn't make it a you know like I'm glad

you I'm glad you like my girlfriend but

like don't like her too much please. You

want to kind of try to find that balance

there. And that's a tricky thing. I mean

I think this is a lot of what people are

trying to navigate in adolescence.

They're trying to figure out like how

can I be part of a friend group and have

a romantic relationship and navigate the

complexities that come with that. I

mean, I vividly remember these like

junior high, early high school

experiences

of dating somebody, but also your

friends are into this person. And

actually, it was a relationship where my

girlfriend at the time broke up with me,

starts dating my best friend. We're all

friends now. It's all fine now. And it's

like at this moment that I discover

evolutionary psychology, that I discover

this narrative. And it just felt like

such a double-edged sword cuz how

wonderful is it to think about how

people have been navigating these

challenges, ex-girlfriends breaking up

with you for your best friend. This has

been happening for tens of thousands of

years. Like I'm not alone. I'm not the

first person to experience this. And

then to also read at the same time, oh

my god, this reflects something true

about my deep underlying value. This is

kind of scary. So those two things

together, weirdly, were what got me

hooked on this. The the feeling like

evolutionary psychology is fascinating

and really bleak at the same time.

>> Yeah, I agree. Uh I was going to say

brutal. I'm sorry you had to go through

that. Although I'm glad you're all

friends. I think it happens. It's all

good. probably not to everyone, but I I

can remember similar experiences where

you're just like, "Oh man, what a gut

punch." And part of the maturational

process is um

>> realizing like, okay, they might be

better suited and they'll be someone for

me. And

>> honestly, they were better suited for

each other.

>> All right. All right. I have a question

about the science or how to study these

sorts of things. So, if I set aside my

science hat and I say, "All right,

>> you can study this stuff, but wait,

>> if we're talking about a a kind of

unique hook, like let's just assume the

person the people are within the range

of attractiveness. Again, I hate this

quantitative thing, but they think the

other person's attractive, they're they

they're dating because they want to find

someone, right? They're not resistant to

commitment. They're looking for for a

partner. And the number of histories

that people are bringing to that is

infinite or near infinite. So let's say

the hook is listen one person had a hard

past based on um an abusive household.

The other person is really gentle. They

had a great past and and the person

feels very safe in that. Right? We

always think about the trauma bond,

right? Which is an unfortunate thing

that does seem to happen. But it could

also be both people had difficult pasts.

you know, parents with addiction issues

or mental health issues and they can

relate. Okay, that's one example. The

other is uh we both value X, we both

value Y. And so the the unique glue,

>> yeah,

>> is near infinite, right? So the question

I have and this isn't a challenge, it's

just a genuine um curiosity is how do

you study this process then? Because

what are the universals of what is it

what people define as some kind of um

like lock and key that they didn't know

they were looking for that that lock and

key combination and then they go oh this

feels unique and the reason I asked this

is because I want to frame the the

science but also I want to know to what

extent being aware of what's critical to

oneself is important in this process.

>> Does that make sense? There's a lot of

words there, but basically like how well

one knows themselves can often help lead

to better choices in in partner choice.

>> And so people go know like gosh, I I

really really would like someone that I

could feel understood around this or

feel really safe around this or make

them feel really safe around that. With

any relationship, it's almost like you

have to hold these two seemingly

contradictory truths at the same time.

One is that

>> no two people in the history of the

world have experienced what we're

experiencing right now. And yet there

are broad general principles that we can

point to that can explain some of the

dynamics of every romantic relationship

that has ever existed. So when it comes

to broad principles, I love the

attachment framework. I mean, what's

fascinating about attachment is that

this is just as evolutionary as all the

other evolutionary theories you've heard

about online. It's just a different

evolutionary theory. But this

perspective suggests that we are

creatures that form bonds with each

other. We essentially crave closeness,

intimacy, support. We thrive when we get

it. We're more likely to recover. We

sleep better. We get all of these

benefits from close attached

relationships.

But for some people or at some points in

their lives, we can struggle to have

those kinds of relationships sometimes

because we become too anxious about

them. We need them a little too much. We

become uncomfortable in our own skin or

we tip the other way. We become very

avoidant. We become overly independent.

We become convinced that we really don't

need anybody else.

These are broad attachment dynamics that

people will go through their whole lives

having to navigate. A lot of people have

probably heard about like the you can

have an anxious attachment style or an

avoidant attachment style and all of

that is true. But one thing we know

today from studying more couples and

getting better at studying couples over

longer periods of time is you realize

that boy people's attachment

orientations really can change. So

somebody can come into a relationship

with an avoidant trauma-filled past, but

with enough time with the right kind of

person, again sharing their unique bond,

which maybe science will never crack,

but they know all about it.

That person will start to become less

and less avoidant with time. They'll

become more secure. They'll get more of

those physiological benefits out of the

relationship. they'll get more of the

support related benefits out of the

relationship and that can in effect turn

somebody into a more secure person. So

the these are the attachment lessons

that I often point to and I think

they're they're useful for at least

helping me remember that tension between

like yeah anxiety and avoidance. Two

very broad processes that are always

happening behind the scenes and yet the

way it unfolds for any one particular

couple. It's always going to be this

weird unique combination of stories and

in jokes and little moments that

scaffold up to hopefully, you know, help

somebody become more secure eventually.

I'd like to take a quick break and

acknowledge our sponsor, AG1. AG1 is a

vitamin mineral probiotic drink that

also includes prebiotics and adaptogens.

I discovered AG1 way back in 2012, long

before I ever had a podcast, and I've

been taking it every day since. The

reason I started taking AG1 and the

reason I still take it every day is

because AG1 is, to my knowledge, the

highest quality and most comprehensive

of the foundational nutritional

supplements on the market. AG1 is

designed to support things like gut

health, immune health, and overall

energy. And it does so by helping to

fill any gaps that you might have in

your daily nutrition. I get asked pretty

much all the time, "If I could only take

one supplement, what should that

supplement be?" And my answer is always

AG1. It has just been so helpful for

supporting all aspects of physical

health, mental health, and performance.

If you would like to try AG1, you can go

to drink AG1.com/huberman

to get a special offer. For a limited

time, AG1 is giving away a free bottle

of their new Omega-3 co-enzyme Q10

product. Omega-3 and co-enzyme Q10 are

known to support cardiovascular health,

cellular health, and energy, generally,

brain health, and much more. I

personally take them both every day.

Again, go to drinkaga1.com/huberman

to get a free bottle of the new Omega-3

co-enzyme Q10 with your first AG1

subscription.

Seems to me that barring um again like

an emotional or physical safety issue,

>> the less that couples are talking to

other people besides a trained

>> therapist, if they choose to do that,

maybe not even doing that about their

relationship, probably the more

protected their relationship is. So

that's interesting.

>> The the darts of uh envious people.

>> Um

>> the unhelpful positive comments from

people, right? Because there could be

instances where a relationship is really

flagging and and

>> someone doesn't disclose that and they

they don't really understand what's

going on and were they not to share that

then, you know, everyone's getting all

this positive input and they think,

well, I think this is just how it's

supposed to go.

>> So there's the suffering and silence

piece. Y

>> we want to I I don't think that's good.

But there's the kind of um going out for

external assessment piece. And as I say

this, I you know it's it's funny because

we the year at UC Davis and I did my PhD

there. I was just remembering like when

you pick projects in graduate school,

you get some consensus about what's a

good project. But so much of becoming a

good scientist is kind of learning to

put up the middle finger and just keep

going as the the sort of pressure test

of doing science is people going, "Well,

that's is that really that interesting?"

And you don't really know how much to

pay attention to it. And it kind of pays

to be a little bit bulldogish and just

go, "Yeah, I don't know like and just

ignore it and just keep going." I can

say this is also true in any kind of

creative endeavor or public facing life.

Like it doesn't make good adaptive sense

to pay too much attention but nobody

wants to be the person that like steps

in it or does something really stupid.

But in relationships when if something

feels good

>> maybe

>> we shouldn't be going out and getting

you know putting our finger in the wind

to get input. So it's fascinating

because I mentioned earlier that right

the the extent to which you feel at

least like the people around you have

your relationships back that's a useful

thing but I think that probably isn't

happening through a process of

yeah like pseudotherapy I want to talk

to my friends about my relationship or

at least to the extent that that is

happening I bet you're right that has

some real risks. I think probably the

good version of this process or the one

that I would advocate for comes from

research looking at like couple friends

or like double date nights. So, I'm not

asking you for input on my relationship,

but in effect, I'm asking you and maybe

your partner to experience our

relationship in real time by hanging out

together, the four of us. And so that

can often feel like validation without

explicitly asking for it. And I think

that can often be a very good thing. And

there's research showing that, you know,

generally couples who feel like they

have couple friends and are embedded in

networks like that that that generally

tends to go well on average. Um so yeah,

I would think about it that way. It's

like you can feel that you have the

support of the people around you without

directly asking

for their assessment of your

relationship because the reality is

other people don't know. And this is

hard as a judge because when I encounter

couples and I have friends who are in

relationships, it is so tempting to look

at that relationship and think like,

well, man, like she shouldn't have done

that or I don't know if if I were her, I

wouldn't stand for this. But I'm not in

that relationship. So unless you are a

therapist and they're coming to you for

therapy, I find it useful to try to

resist that impulse because a

relationship is this vast deep store of

information that two people have and

often we're not privy to what's really

going on there.

>> I'm going back to junior high school

again and I can remember at this one

game I hope this isn't dramatic.

>> No, no, it's not. Not at all. But we had

this uh all girls school in our in our

town, Castilea School, which was a

boarding school. And so their dances

were the best because they'd invite

people from other schools, but all the

>> guys were really excited to go, right?

Cuz the numbers were really like worked

out really well in our favorite women

and and and boys and girls in our

school, right? Would go to these dances.

But that means you just have like an

outsized pool of so everyone got someone

to dance with at some point. This is

what mattered in the seventh grade,

right? But there were these people I had

to say there were these individuals who

were not going through the admittedly

like tense challenge of

>> first dance, first slow dance. This was

before phones and it was tense then too.

>> And they weren't doing any of that. What

were they doing? They were running

around telling people about who was

doing what and who was doing that. And I

remember thinking at the time, I mean,

I'm no psychologist then or now, but

thinking like they're avoiding the whole

thing. Yeah, this is like going to a

soccer game and instead of playing

soccer, they're like critiquing people

from the sidelines cuz it's a lot easier

to do that than to actually get out

there and risk and risk miss, you know,

like being the goalie that lets the the

winning shot through. And I remember

thinking like these people are really uh

really corrosive.

>> Um, one or two in particular, I don't

know what ever became of them.

Hopefully, they're doing well in their

lives. They got over this. But

>> those people exist throughout life.

>> Yeah.

>> Meaning they're rarely the people that

are happy in their own relationship

life. Now, I have to say it's probably a

Y chromosome link disorder, but I assume

that my friends who are in male friends

who are in relationship.

If they're still in the relationship

that it's going great.

>> That's funny.

>> There's not a lot of feedback. Like

there's not a whole lot of feedback

exchange. That said, if something were

really like really off, I assume that

they would bring it up, but probably not

to me. like there's I do think that

there's probably a sex difference here

and these things are changing now, but I

think that there's not a lot of sitting

around talking about how well or poorly

the relationship is going. And so like,

you know, you ask about somebody's

spouse like, "How are they doing?" And

they go, "Yeah, great." Like we did this

this weekend. There's not a whole lot

of, "Yeah, we we had this one moment of

exchange that was kind of sticky. Can I

get your input on it?" Like that's not

happening. That's just not happening. At

least not in my life. I'm glad you

brought up these gender differences

because I think you're hitting on one

that at least again as a relationships

researcher I would sit here and say I

think this is the big one. And the big

one is that women generally are better

at cultivating social support from all

corners of their lives, not just their

romantic partner. Whereas for men, it's

largely their romantic partner. That's

where they're getting most of their

support, intimacy needs met. Probably

the person who at least for a while is

mostly in their corner. And this is why

you see across the full range of the arc

of a relationship that men are always a

little bit more eager than women.

>> Eager in what sense?

>> Eager in in all the ways. I want to be

in this relationship in the first place.

I'm more likely to say I love you first.

I'm more I'm more likely to want to be

exclusive. I'm more likely to want to

take things to the next level.

>> Men are more willing to do that.

>> Men's counter current to all this stuff

about men being non-committal.

>> Yeah. Right. So like I don't uh I don't

this is what there's like new review

papers on this that are really

compelling and it's like kind of the

same effect size across the board which

is how we talk about you know how big is

the sex difference? You know, it's it's

mediumsiz, but it's just right there all

the way through through breaking up. Who

who wants who's more likely to want to

break up? It's women who are more likely

to want to break up. Men are more likely

to be thinking about their exes.

>> And the the not while they're in a

relationship.

>> Right. Right. Right. Not while they're

in a relationship. Right. Now it's over.

>> That's the meme. You know, I went

online. The meme is like, who's he

thinking about? Who's Okay. Yeah.

Exactly. The reason put forward for

this, and I find it very compelling, is

that

That's because men just don't quite have

their social lives put together in the

same way that women do. Meaning they

don't have a lot of male friends or

here. By the way, I want to put up a

disclaimer at the beginning. I should

have said this to make the conversation

more fluid. We're framing everything in

the context of heterosexual pairings,

but I I think it's fair to assume that

this would also extend to homosexual

pairings.

>> I think it would

>> in in many ways. But

>> men have friends. Yeah,

>> I realize activity based friendships

are, you know, kind of the the dominant

theme.

>> Men not getting having connection in

other things.

>> You know, is it could it be that the

like the connection that I feel to my

male friends and co-workers is is very

deep.

>> They're important to me. They're like

family to me by now. We spend so much

time together.

>> So, it feels connected.

>> It's just but it's a very different kind

of um I don't ever think of the word

intimacy. I think of trust.

>> Yeah.

>> And I'm not trying to just, you know,

like be, you know, put up a wall to my

whatever feminine traits I happen to

harbor, you know, like I I I'm I'm cool

with that. I'm good with the idea that I

have emotions and that I have needs and

stuff, but I but I think it it just

makes good intuitive sense to me that if

I have something that I'm really that I

want input on that's of a more like has

a more of an emotional undercurrent that

I would bring that to my romantic

partner. So, here's the question I would

pose and I would be clear. I'm not a

therapist. I'm a scientist. But I would

I would ask you this.

If something went wrong, do you feel

like you have a sense that there are

other people in your life and not your

partner but other people that you could

go to if you needed to?

>> Definitely.

>> See, that is the essence of social

support. It's actually not literally do

you take people up on it. It's do you

kind of have a vague sense that people

are around and that's the part that

matters. That's the part that gives us

the health and well-being benefits. It's

like a bank account you never have to

dip into. It just gives you the sense to

dip into it.

>> Yeah. [laughter] Right. Right. There you

go.

>> Luckily, it's a vast account. I try not

to make too many withdrawals on it.

>> Yeah.

>> So, just the feeling that it's there is

really the core component. And I think

there are a lot of men, not you and not

me, but a lot of men out there that

don't feel like they have that social

support bank account,

>> like a close male friend or female

friend or female friendly platonic or

family for that matter. I mean, you

know, who's who's more likely to like

lose touch with siblings? I I I'm

willing to bet that that's more likely

to be men, too. So, I think this is part

of like the modern challenge of

masculinity that that that worries me

that I point to like I want to help men

at least have that sense. I think they

can cultivate it through all the

activity- based things that you describe

and like I did that myself throughout my

20s and 30s. Like I could not count the

number of kickball and softball teams

that I participated in. And I did that

not because I wanted support. I don't

think I ever got emotional and cried in

front of any of those guys, but I knew

they were there and that if I ever had

to go to that, I I could. You I'm

talking about memes and internet themes

and I have to be careful doing that

because I don't want to put too much

weight on the uh the direction of those

things and what they really mean. And

the science is what I'm interested in.

But, you know, I think um most guys

would probably say that that scene in

that movie, The Town, where uh Ben

Affleck walks in and says, you know,

listen,

yep, we got to do something. People are

going to get hurt. We got to do this.

And you know, like, and you can't talk

to anybody. And his friend's only

response is who's driving.

>> Yeah.

>> Is is kind of like the essence of what a

lot of men want and kind of idealize

male friendship as. Like, are we got to

go bury a body or create one? And

there's it's just that it's the loyalty.

It's the trust. A lot's encapsulated in

that. It's a bad quote unquote badass

scene, right? But they're about to do

something real bad. I recommend that,

right? That's not the friend test you

want. I know people have used that as

the friend test and they paid dearly for

it. Right. But the point is that friends

who aren't going to ask too many

questions that they can hold in the

center of their um mind without any long

preamble that your friend needs

something and you'll do whatever it is

that they need because you love them.

>> I think that that's what's the deeper

layer of it.

I'm realizing there I have this like

sense that there's a a big contradiction

not in the scientific literature but in

the public perception

>> which is this I feel like one common

narrative these days is

>> look men failed they just failed like

they didn't step up right they weren't

committal you know we have to take care

of them they live much longer in a

relationship we die much earlier

>> that's one narrative that you hear a lot

about. It's a scary narrative, right?

>> Because you also hear the narrative,

yeah, like women are just uh very

extractive. They'll trade up. You know

how unfortunately your friend dated your

uh then they you they broke up. She

broke up with you first.

>> Right. Right. But, you know, a lot of

the things that come into play like the

Coldplay concert affair that got went

viral was about this woman and you know,

and a lot of it was pointed at her, him

too, but you know, it was like

>> a lot was made of this thing that does

happen.

>> Yeah.

>> That there's this notion like, well, who

would actually pair up with their, you

know, their female friend? A woman

pairing up with a female friend's

husband or brother. There's a lot of

that. And you never know how much of

this is being these narratives are being

fed. So, I feel like now we're at this

point that seems to be resolving a

little bit, but we've been at this point

where there are these two camps and I

saw something on um Twitter X some time

ago and it just like stopped me in my

tracks which said the way you destroy a

society is to get the men and the women

to hate each other and maybe I would

just underwrite distrust each other.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. And so

>> we need to move through this. I'm not

actually asking you to solve it but what

do the data say? For instance, if we

were to look at dating apps and I ask,

do you think that the dynamics on dating

apps, the algorithms, which are clearly

designed to make the company's money?

>> Yeah.

>> Do you think those are more femaledriven

algorithms or maledriven algorithms? Not

meaning who runs the companies. We know

the answer to that

>> for the most part. The question is, do

you think that the apps are trying to

optimize for more women to come to them

or for more men to come to them and stay

there? Because the theory is always kind

of launch in the opposite direction. And

if that wasn't clear, um I'm just

wondering who's who's got the power. My

understanding now again, the dating apps

are hard to decipher because like these

companies don't share data with us. I've

worked with some matchmaking companies

data. They're more interested in

generally in collaborating with

scientists because they've they got to

make people on dates happy. They don't

work on engagement, they work on happy

dates, right?

>> So, they're more interested in talking

to scientists.

>> But I think when your goal is getting

users and getting engagement,

>> what you're probably trying to do is

bring more women in because my

understanding is that there's more men

on the apps. Yeah, I think so. I what I

don't know and I don't know if anybody

knows other than the people at these

companies is like okay but how many of

those apps are in use and how many

people you know regular users I'm not

sure. So you got to bring more women in

but again engagement is the goal right I

mean that's what the apps want you

spending time on it and then they want

you to get the fancier features. So is

that going to be more geared toward men?

It it might be, but I'm kind of

speculating here. I expect that when

you're trying to create an app for

heterosexual men and women, you're going

to have to somehow marry those two

challenges. And look, one of the bigger

gender differences that we see in the

whole realm of sex and relationships is

in swiping behavior. the fact that women

will swipe yes on like 5% of the men

they see, but men swipe yes at about

50/50. But that fits the kind of

evolutionary quote unquote narrative

like men being less selective, wanting

to spread their

>> their DNA, this kind of thing. I mean,

>> to my mind, that whole thing around like

men want to spread their DNA. Okay. Like

I believe in in evolutionary biology,

sure, but there's a lot of modern

features that make like accountability

for offspring and things like it's not

like men can run around just having kids

with anyone and and afford all of that,

right? It's I mean, you know, we were

talking earlier the sort of like two

models. There's like the there's like

the Genghask Khan ideal within this

evolutionary

>> biology model and then there's, you

know, kind of like where are we now? I

mean, I don't think anyone

with the exception of some very wealthy

people who who have kids with lots and

lots of people and clearly can afford

it,

>> I don't think anyone's thinking they're

going to go out and just have kids with

as many people as they possibly can,

>> right?

>> And so what what's so interesting about

these gendered dynamics is that from my

perspective, they tend to get the

largest the biggest gulf between men and

women in the situations that are the

weirdest. So, for example, we this is

and this is a real study. You recruit

confederates. So, that means it's

somebody who's working for the

experimentter. And then uh they go

around campus and they ask people, "I've

noticed you around and I find you very

attractive. Would you like to go to bed

with me?" And when you do this, you find

that men are about 20 times more likely

to say yes to that request than women.

Very few women say yes to this request,

but a reasonable number of men do. All

right. But the thing about that

experiment, and that experiment is very

valuable, and it's very influential, and

I love at least that it was real, that

people were actually out in the world

doing something, even if it's a little

wild and uh probably a little scary,

especially for the women. But if you do

this one little tweak and you say,

"Yeah, okay, but how about like the last

time that happened to you in real life,

like in a context where you knew people

and then you look at the gender

difference, it's not 20 times more, it's

two times more."

>> What do you mean?

>> It's like the last time somebody you

know, like among a group of friends like

ask like, "Hey, do you want to go hook

up?" How much more likely then are men

to say yes than women? And men are still

more likely, but they're only twice as

likely rather than 20 times as likely.

>> So, this is not my belief, but the

cynical um incel types on the internet

or the just cynical guys will say will

say, "Oh, that's because women are

sleeping around more than they used to

when the first experiment was done." I

don't believe that's true. But I can

tell you that would be their reflexive

response. Like like there's so there's

this ammo there these arrows that each

side holds. one side holds the

>> guys aren't stepping up. They're not

they're not managing their own lives,

let alone making themselves somebody who

would be attractive as a a partner who

could listen and do and take help take

care of somebody because the notion of

taking care is something we can talk

about. the guys are saying, "Well,

they're just all extractive, you know,

that and there's deceptiveness there,

and they'll trade up in a at a moment's

notice, you know, and and so

>> I mean, I don't want to feed the flames

of distrust, but the data you just

provided, what do they what is the

conclusion? Like, so that's the result,

but but in that paper, what's the the

authors, you know, we the authors

therefore conclude that?" So I would I

would conclude this

>> that approaching strangers

is especially in a romantic or sexual

context is very very tricky, very

challenging and it is a weird modern

skill because we actually evolved in

environments where you didn't actually

meet that many strangers. So if some

people are adept at that, God bless. But

for most of us, we had to get to know

people over time. We needed that long

process to make a good impression on

somebody because most of us are like not

all that hot and [laughter] not so

appealing that people fall for us the

moment we see them. And so that is what

I would tell these hypothetical incels

is I think part of the problem is that

you're locked into a way of thinking

about sex and romance that it's about a

pickup line or it's about an initial

impression. I think women are more

interested in casual sex when it's

somebody that they like kind of know and

have been friendly with for a while and

have had like some good banter with. And

if you surround yourself with people,

not just women, but also men, and you

meet friends of friends, you're going to

find more opportunities that way. So,

it's like a shift in the mindset that we

have about how it is we meet people and

how it is we get to know them. and that

hitting on strangers is like low yield,

very difficult. Spending time with

friends, it's time consuming, although

it's enjoyable in and of itself. It's a

timeconsuming approach, but it's

ultimately going to be better for more

people. Uh, you know, on on average, at

least in light of the apps, social

media, this divide, I I'm very grateful

that you're bringing up this notion of

spending time in small groups. Yeah,

probably around certain activities.

Could be pickle ball, could be a

barbecue, could be I mean that's how

people used to meet. You know, sometimes

there's work adjacency. I mean, I think

that one of the reasons the coal play

thing went so viral is that the woman

was head of HR. So there were a number

of things that were ethical violations

independent of like they tried to kind

of rescue it like but they were in love

and there were marriages were failing

and people were like there are

violations down the line on this right

you know in laboratories

>> many people cuddled up in laboratories

you know my adviserss were always like

really adamant that no one should do

that I listen interesting oh yeah

>> so they try to lock it down I mean in

graduate school I I worked alone in the

lab but my graduate adviser actually uh

suggested I not even date within our

graduate program this is peerto-peer I

was a graduate student and for the most

part I I obeyed but I was so focused on

work and and I guess it happened with

like you'd go to meetings you meet other

graduate students so it was really

peerto-peer

>> in my post-doal laboratory my adviser

was like vocal to everyone like no

dating in the lab and of course there

are certain married couples nowadays

with kids

>> several of them in fact that met in the

lab just by proximity interest and who

knows aloequading prowess who knows

>> somebody out there an incredible aloquat

that never got to attract somebody to my

knowledge this by the way folks again

this is not a way to attract a mate

[laughter] unless you're a molecular

biologist perhaps but I think that

there's real value in this in this

because unlike our earlier discussion

where other people's input

>> um be can be kind of toxic to the

process of understanding and really

getting in touch with one's sense of

taste I like this person I don't this

feels safe it doesn't feel safe and I'm

not using by the way the safe language

to be politically correct like some

people feel emotionally unsafe because

it's just like like if there were a

stressful circumstance, they would

dissolve into a puddle of their own

tears. That's a different version of it,

right? I think we all kind of like flit

to the the extremes. But that's that's

another aspect.

>> But this is a context in which you can

get a read of how someone behaves, their

values, their reflexive levels of

kindness or lack thereof with other

people.

>> Yeah.

>> You get a lot of data.

>> Yeah.

>> In a in a setting that

>> you're hopefully enjoying yourself in

any way. That seems very very valuable.

>> So we're talking 80s movies and 90s

movies already. So I'm gonna throw out

Say Anything.

>> Oh yeah.

>> Do you remember Say Anything?

Absolutely. So the John Cusack lead

character um asks out the Ioni Sky

character, but where they go on their

first date is absolutely fascinating.

They go to a party. So, they are clearly

going together, but they don't spend the

whole party like attached to each other

and they're not interviewing each other

like they met on an app. They're

actually kind of watching each other as

they float through these various groups.

And sometimes they're talking to other

folks about the fact that they're kind

of on a date right now and how is it's

going, but they're also talking to each

other. And it's kind of a beautiful

depiction of this old kind of lost art

of you're dating, but you're also with

other people seeing how uh they behave.

And and one of the moments where I sky

sort of you can see are starting to fall

for John Cusack is when he's actually

looking out for some of the other folks

there like you know taking their keys

away so they don't drive. And I I think

that that idea of like watching how we

behave around other people can be very

powerful.

>> So one of his unique qualities was that

he's protective of other people and

responsible and he put other people's

safety ahead of his own desire to go out

and drink that night or something.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. I forgot that scene.

>> I'm I I That's a perfect segue to what I

was going to say next, but I'm brought

to this mildly traumatic experience in

high school where I didn't go any go to

any high school dances early in high

school. I was like really in the

skateboard community, just really

focused on that. And then uh it was my

junior year of high school.

>> Um the now woman, then young woman,

girl, whatever, uh asked me that. It was

the Satie Hawkins dance where the the

girls asked the boys. This was very

oldfashioned, right? Like I've heard

this. It already assumes, right, that

the guy that the guys always ask the

girls, which was pretty much the

standard.

>> We go and um she was a year older and

extremely beautiful, super kind. It

ended up being a very long-term

relationship. But I remember going and

she had something back then where her

hands would get really cold.

>> She had this thing where it was a cold

night. And so she went into the

bathroom. She said, "I'd have to like

warm my hands." She was in there a

really long time. And I'm standing out

there and people are coming up to me and

they're like, "What are you doing here?"

Like, "Why are you at a dance?" And I

said, "So and so invited me." And no one

believed me. They was like, "There's no

chance." And I have to say, it was the

most mortifying thing. [laughter] And I

kept waiting for this moment where she

would come out of the bathroom and like

vindicate me. And they all kept like

dissipating before she came back. She

eventually came back. And I just

remember thinking like, oh man, like

nobody even and I thinking like I'm

either completely outclassed, like

completely outclassed or like this is

one of the best opportunities that ever

landed uh in my lap and I'm going to I'm

going to pursue this with everything

I've got. So I went with the second

thing and anyway, we uh

>> this is John Cusack enter.

>> It was it was brutal. Like I had to sit

there and like you know and like no one

believed me. They actually thought like

I just like snuck in or something like

that. Anyway,

the John Cusack example is a really good

one because his character in that movie

is a little awkward along certain

dimensions. He's certainly not as um

quote unquote ambitious in the typical

sense, although he wants to be a great

kickboxer. Kickboxing sport of the

future, right? It's a great scene

between him and and her dad where he's

explaining what he's going to do in life

and and not in any kind of uh fluent way

>> and her family clearly has other plans

for her. But it gets to this thing that

I had written down because I want to ask