WEBVTT - Dating

0:00:02.120 --> 0:00:05.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm Jessa, and this is deeply human why we do

0:00:05.840 --> 0:00:08.640
<v Speaker 1>the things we do, and we are gathered here today

0:00:09.000 --> 0:00:11.720
<v Speaker 1>to talk about love. We spend a lot of time

0:00:11.760 --> 0:00:13.960
<v Speaker 1>trying to find it, but we might be better off

0:00:14.000 --> 0:00:17.479
<v Speaker 1>trying to build it, less wiping and more second dates.

0:00:23.200 --> 0:00:26.000
<v Speaker 1>Can you hear me very well? Okay, I'm going to

0:00:26.040 --> 0:00:29.280
<v Speaker 1>ask some questions about dating. If you could think of

0:00:29.320 --> 0:00:31.880
<v Speaker 1>a character in a movie that would serve as a

0:00:31.960 --> 0:00:34.440
<v Speaker 1>rough model for a good match for me, who would

0:00:34.440 --> 0:00:38.320
<v Speaker 1>it be? Oh, my goodness, the first thing that comes

0:00:38.320 --> 0:00:44.760
<v Speaker 1>to mind is Indiana Jones because of the adventurousness. I

0:00:44.800 --> 0:00:48.320
<v Speaker 1>would totally date Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. Of course

0:00:48.320 --> 0:00:52.800
<v Speaker 1>you would. And he's got the physical thing. He's not

0:00:52.840 --> 0:00:58.840
<v Speaker 1>afraid of getting dirty. He's swashbuckling. That's my mom, Sylvia.

0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:02.240
<v Speaker 1>She's very a professional in public and kind of goofy

0:01:02.320 --> 0:01:05.560
<v Speaker 1>when it's just us. We talked on the phone most weeks,

0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:08.600
<v Speaker 1>sharing little updates about our lives, comparing notes on the

0:01:08.600 --> 0:01:11.280
<v Speaker 1>world around us. I happened to be on the dating

0:01:11.319 --> 0:01:13.800
<v Speaker 1>market at the moment, and I've been thinking a lot

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:17.959
<v Speaker 1>lately about romantic matching. What it is that attracts people

0:01:18.000 --> 0:01:22.280
<v Speaker 1>to one another? And fixes them together. I still remember

0:01:22.319 --> 0:01:25.319
<v Speaker 1>when my mom was dating after my parents divorced. She

0:01:25.440 --> 0:01:28.120
<v Speaker 1>met her new husband through a personal ad that was

0:01:28.200 --> 0:01:30.600
<v Speaker 1>online dating, when the Internet was still made out of

0:01:30.720 --> 0:01:35.280
<v Speaker 1>paper in a previous era of American history, my mom

0:01:35.400 --> 0:01:37.000
<v Speaker 1>might have been the person to set me up with

0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:41.399
<v Speaker 1>a guy. But times have changed. Now we're dating online,

0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 1>which is seriously expanded the dating pool, and we're marrying later,

0:01:46.120 --> 0:01:51.000
<v Speaker 1>which means we're treading water longer. The contemporary dat sifts

0:01:51.040 --> 0:01:54.920
<v Speaker 1>through way more candidates to find her special somebody, and

0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 1>as we'll learn, the numbers matter more than you might think.

0:01:58.880 --> 0:02:02.000
<v Speaker 1>When you looked at me little, did you have any

0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:05.520
<v Speaker 1>idea of the sort of partner that I'd end up with? Like?

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:07.720
<v Speaker 1>Did you think about that about me dating? When when

0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:10.440
<v Speaker 1>I was like, I think a parent always thinks that way,

0:02:11.080 --> 0:02:12.919
<v Speaker 1>Even when I took a look at the four year old,

0:02:13.080 --> 0:02:16.240
<v Speaker 1>this was a curious mind. And I think when I

0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:19.519
<v Speaker 1>think about your dating, I can only imagine that it

0:02:19.520 --> 0:02:23.960
<v Speaker 1>would be someone who would be equally curious. I think

0:02:24.000 --> 0:02:27.240
<v Speaker 1>that being a physical person, the physical strength of the

0:02:27.240 --> 0:02:30.480
<v Speaker 1>person you're with actually matters. What do you mean, like

0:02:30.480 --> 0:02:34.799
<v Speaker 1>like someone I can't win in an arm wrestling match. Yes,

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:37.960
<v Speaker 1>someone who could pick you up and twirl you around. Okay,

0:02:38.040 --> 0:02:41.560
<v Speaker 1>just for the record, I'm like a hundred and forty

0:02:41.600 --> 0:02:46.080
<v Speaker 1>five pounds and five tents. That narrows it down. There

0:02:46.080 --> 0:02:48.120
<v Speaker 1>are a lot of guys out there like that, though.

0:02:48.600 --> 0:02:50.040
<v Speaker 1>Do you know what Tinder is? Do you know what

0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:52.680
<v Speaker 1>the app tender? Next time we have lunch, do you

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:56.040
<v Speaker 1>want to like drive my Tinder app and you can

0:02:56.040 --> 0:02:58.920
<v Speaker 1>swipe left or right and you can tell me, Oh, sure,

0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:04.040
<v Speaker 1>that would be kind of fun. We're looking for a

0:03:04.080 --> 0:03:08.760
<v Speaker 1>companion for chemistry, a partner for good times and for bad,

0:03:08.800 --> 0:03:13.160
<v Speaker 1>for Netflix and for chilling, someone with whom were really compatible.

0:03:14.000 --> 0:03:17.240
<v Speaker 1>But what exactly is compatibility and how much of it

0:03:17.320 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 1>can we expect to find in a partner. Years ago,

0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:24.040
<v Speaker 1>I was talking with my best friend Jacqueline about this stuff,

0:03:24.480 --> 0:03:28.120
<v Speaker 1>and our exchange has haunted me ever since. She told

0:03:28.160 --> 0:03:31.880
<v Speaker 1>me someone we both know was going through this big breakup,

0:03:32.360 --> 0:03:36.520
<v Speaker 1>and Jacqueline asked him what happened, and he told her

0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:40.360
<v Speaker 1>he and his girl had really tried to make it work.

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:44.480
<v Speaker 1>He said, man, we were so close to being a fit.

0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:53.680
<v Speaker 1>We were, but we just couldn't do him. Not long afterwards,

0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:57.000
<v Speaker 1>another friend of ours announced that he'd asked his girlfriend

0:03:57.000 --> 0:04:00.600
<v Speaker 1>the big question, the one posed on bended knee. When

0:04:00.680 --> 0:04:04.320
<v Speaker 1>Jacqueline asked him, ah, so how do you know she

0:04:04.440 --> 0:04:09.080
<v Speaker 1>was the one? He responded, We just fit. We match

0:04:09.200 --> 0:04:16.800
<v Speaker 1>like on everything. Two couples, both feeling well matched and

0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:20.440
<v Speaker 1>the exact same grade, flunked one guy out of dating

0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:23.000
<v Speaker 1>and landed the other in a second ring suburb with

0:04:23.040 --> 0:04:26.600
<v Speaker 1>two kids and a joint checking account. So how good

0:04:27.080 --> 0:04:31.039
<v Speaker 1>is good enough? How much can we ask for? What

0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:34.800
<v Speaker 1>should we settle for? I spoke to someone who studies

0:04:34.920 --> 0:04:38.640
<v Speaker 1>choice and decision making to figure out exactly how people

0:04:38.720 --> 0:04:42.200
<v Speaker 1>set their standards. Barry, Yeah, do you mind if I

0:04:42.240 --> 0:04:45.560
<v Speaker 1>call you Berry? Not at all. The expert with whom

0:04:45.600 --> 0:04:48.520
<v Speaker 1>we are now on a first name basis is Barry Schwartz,

0:04:48.640 --> 0:04:51.280
<v Speaker 1>a professor of psychology at the Business School at the

0:04:51.400 --> 0:04:56.200
<v Speaker 1>University of California, Berkeley. He's particularly interested in how you

0:04:56.240 --> 0:04:59.039
<v Speaker 1>behave when you're in environments where you have a bunch

0:04:59.080 --> 0:05:02.360
<v Speaker 1>of options, like the serial aisle and the supermarkets, say

0:05:02.520 --> 0:05:07.000
<v Speaker 1>or you know, tender. Intuitively, most of us are likely

0:05:07.040 --> 0:05:10.400
<v Speaker 1>to think, Hey, more options to choose from means I'll

0:05:10.400 --> 0:05:12.400
<v Speaker 1>be more likely to get just what I'm looking for.

0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:15.960
<v Speaker 1>But as Barry explains in his book The Paradox of Choice,

0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:21.080
<v Speaker 1>that's not always the case. Most Western industrial societies believe

0:05:21.760 --> 0:05:27.440
<v Speaker 1>that since freedom is good and choice is essential to freedom,

0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:30.960
<v Speaker 1>that choice is good, and that the more choice people have,

0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:33.760
<v Speaker 1>the more freedom they have and the better off they are.

0:05:34.240 --> 0:05:36.960
<v Speaker 1>Choice is good. But there can be too much of

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:39.760
<v Speaker 1>a good thing. And when you give people too much

0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:42.600
<v Speaker 1>of a good thing, instead of being liberated by it,

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:52.440
<v Speaker 1>they get paralyzed. They can't pull the trigger. Think of

0:05:52.480 --> 0:05:56.320
<v Speaker 1>your local grocery store with dozens and dozens of serials

0:05:56.400 --> 0:06:00.240
<v Speaker 1>on offer. Barry says that the process of sifting through

0:06:00.320 --> 0:06:04.120
<v Speaker 1>so many options can actually make us less satisfied with

0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:07.719
<v Speaker 1>whatever we've put in our cards. His thinking goes likeness.

0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:12.000
<v Speaker 1>While we're comparing all the potential choices, we're making note

0:06:12.040 --> 0:06:18.000
<v Speaker 1>of the best features of every option. Oh hey, this

0:06:18.080 --> 0:06:22.160
<v Speaker 1>box of frosted puff whatever is is on sale. Oh

0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:25.800
<v Speaker 1>but this one is organic. Ah, but this one has

0:06:25.839 --> 0:06:29.360
<v Speaker 1>so much niacin. I love nias. At the end of

0:06:29.400 --> 0:06:33.080
<v Speaker 1>the process, nothing can compare to the super breakfast you've

0:06:33.080 --> 0:06:36.279
<v Speaker 1>collaged in your imagination by combining the best bits of

0:06:36.320 --> 0:06:39.680
<v Speaker 1>each box. So even if you do end up making

0:06:39.720 --> 0:06:43.159
<v Speaker 1>a pretty good selection, you just don't feel that good.

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 1>And this isn't just about cereal. This applies to big

0:06:46.680 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 1>life choices too. One of the things we have to

0:06:49.600 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>fight against is adaptation. Barry has been studying this stuff

0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:58.640
<v Speaker 1>for forty five years. You have good experiences and they're wonderful,

0:06:58.680 --> 0:07:02.480
<v Speaker 1>they're spectacular for a while, and then they just become

0:07:02.520 --> 0:07:06.960
<v Speaker 1>your life. And as normal keeps going up, experiences that

0:07:07.000 --> 0:07:09.440
<v Speaker 1>are really going to knock your socks off have to

0:07:09.520 --> 0:07:12.160
<v Speaker 1>keep going up to the socks stay on, And I

0:07:12.200 --> 0:07:15.400
<v Speaker 1>don't know what you can do to get somebody's socks off.

0:07:16.040 --> 0:07:19.120
<v Speaker 1>So maybe the problem is that I've dated too many

0:07:19.120 --> 0:07:22.040
<v Speaker 1>great guys. It's weird to say it, but I don't

0:07:22.040 --> 0:07:25.280
<v Speaker 1>think that's a ridiculous idea. I've been lucky enough to

0:07:25.320 --> 0:07:29.440
<v Speaker 1>know and love some awesome dudes, and I've sometimes wondered

0:07:29.560 --> 0:07:32.120
<v Speaker 1>if I had been forced to marry one of them,

0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:34.600
<v Speaker 1>could we have made a go of it. I bet

0:07:34.600 --> 0:07:38.080
<v Speaker 1>we could have pulled off a workable partnership. But of course,

0:07:38.400 --> 0:07:41.480
<v Speaker 1>workable isn't really the standard we're going for these days,

0:07:41.560 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>is it. We want to lose our socks, We want socklessness.

0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>Barry is quick to point out there's very little empirical

0:07:49.200 --> 0:07:52.760
<v Speaker 1>evidence on this, but still I can't, for the life

0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:57.320
<v Speaker 1>of me, see why having two cereals to choose from

0:07:57.320 --> 0:08:00.320
<v Speaker 1>and the grocery is any different from having two hundred

0:08:00.360 --> 0:08:03.880
<v Speaker 1>romantic partners to choose from on a dating site. It

0:08:03.960 --> 0:08:06.760
<v Speaker 1>seems to me that all the problems that having all

0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 1>these options present in the retail domain, they present, perhaps

0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:15.520
<v Speaker 1>even to a greater degree, in the romantic domain, because

0:08:15.520 --> 0:08:18.320
<v Speaker 1>the stakes are so much higher. Barry told me about

0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:21.360
<v Speaker 1>a pretty interesting study on dating choice as it played

0:08:21.360 --> 0:08:27.760
<v Speaker 1>out in the world of speed dating. If you're unfamiliar,

0:08:27.960 --> 0:08:30.600
<v Speaker 1>speed dating started in the late nineties, and it goes

0:08:30.640 --> 0:08:33.040
<v Speaker 1>like this. An organizer gather there's a bunch of people

0:08:33.040 --> 0:08:34.959
<v Speaker 1>in a room to set them up on tiny dates

0:08:35.080 --> 0:08:37.600
<v Speaker 1>only a few minutes long. A bell rings to indicate

0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:39.319
<v Speaker 1>when you're supposed to move on to your next day,

0:08:39.360 --> 0:08:41.400
<v Speaker 1>to the next, and at the end of the night,

0:08:41.440 --> 0:08:43.640
<v Speaker 1>you submit a little sheet of paper to the organizers

0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:46.200
<v Speaker 1>to indicate who you'd like to see again. If they

0:08:46.240 --> 0:08:47.959
<v Speaker 1>also pick you, then you're set up for a real

0:08:48.080 --> 0:08:52.160
<v Speaker 1>date at normal speed. What's interesting is how the number

0:08:52.200 --> 0:08:54.760
<v Speaker 1>and range of potential daters in the room can affect

0:08:54.800 --> 0:08:58.120
<v Speaker 1>the number of matches. A two thousand eleven article and

0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:01.800
<v Speaker 1>a publication called Biology letter Is reported findings from a

0:09:01.840 --> 0:09:06.160
<v Speaker 1>study of eighty four speed dating groups. Researchers discovered that

0:09:06.240 --> 0:09:08.680
<v Speaker 1>the daters who had a wider variety of people to

0:09:08.760 --> 0:09:11.840
<v Speaker 1>choose from picked fewer people than want to see again,

0:09:12.440 --> 0:09:14.960
<v Speaker 1>and when they had a lot of really varied choices,

0:09:15.520 --> 0:09:17.880
<v Speaker 1>they were more likely to pick no one at all.

0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:22.560
<v Speaker 1>And arguably this is because with everybody you see, you know,

0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 1>the scarce person is pretty nice, but that other person

0:09:25.280 --> 0:09:27.480
<v Speaker 1>was funnier, and that other person was a little bit

0:09:27.520 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 1>better looking, and that other person seemed to be a

0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:34.679
<v Speaker 1>better listener, and so every attractive feature of everybody reduces

0:09:34.720 --> 0:09:39.600
<v Speaker 1>the attractiveness of everybody else. Confession time I tried speed dating.

0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:41.760
<v Speaker 1>Once I liked a guy with a pink dress shirt

0:09:41.800 --> 0:09:45.160
<v Speaker 1>who did not indicate liking me back. If you're listening now,

0:09:45.240 --> 0:09:48.320
<v Speaker 1>pink shirt guy, this is the glamorous podcasting life you

0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:52.360
<v Speaker 1>could have been a part of. One of the most

0:09:52.520 --> 0:09:56.560
<v Speaker 1>fascinating recent revelations about love and dating comes from the

0:09:56.559 --> 0:10:00.559
<v Speaker 1>work of Dr Helen Fisher, a researcher, a tier and

0:10:00.600 --> 0:10:03.679
<v Speaker 1>a public figure who spent much of her career studying

0:10:03.800 --> 0:10:08.160
<v Speaker 1>how we make romantic choices. Here's the study I read

0:10:08.280 --> 0:10:12.800
<v Speaker 1>that blew my mind. Dr Fisher recruited a bunch of

0:10:12.800 --> 0:10:15.720
<v Speaker 1>people who were passionately in love and put each of

0:10:15.760 --> 0:10:20.360
<v Speaker 1>them into an fMRI machine. While inside, each participant was

0:10:20.360 --> 0:10:23.440
<v Speaker 1>shown a picture of the person I loved and pictures

0:10:23.480 --> 0:10:26.800
<v Speaker 1>of somebody else as a control image. The machine tracked

0:10:26.840 --> 0:10:29.640
<v Speaker 1>brain activity throughout the session, and at the end of

0:10:29.679 --> 0:10:34.080
<v Speaker 1>her research, Helen was confident that she'd identified exactly which

0:10:34.120 --> 0:10:37.200
<v Speaker 1>parts of the human brain are involved in romantic love.

0:10:37.960 --> 0:10:42.400
<v Speaker 1>I've actually seen these regions modeled in three D, even

0:10:42.440 --> 0:10:45.080
<v Speaker 1>hopped in an fMRI machine myself to have my own

0:10:45.080 --> 0:10:48.920
<v Speaker 1>brain scanned. And let me tell you, love is not pretty.

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:53.720
<v Speaker 1>It's a curving set of nabby, mangled, sort of claw

0:10:53.800 --> 0:10:58.080
<v Speaker 1>like things clenched deep inside the darkness of our skulls.

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Nobody gets out of love alive. I mean, we're trying

0:11:01.640 --> 0:11:05.000
<v Speaker 1>to win life's greatest prize, which is a mating partner.

0:11:05.520 --> 0:11:09.400
<v Speaker 1>Helen talks with her hands. She is inexhaustibly excited about

0:11:09.440 --> 0:11:11.960
<v Speaker 1>what she does. I had thought that the hardest thing

0:11:11.960 --> 0:11:14.199
<v Speaker 1>I would do with my career would be to figure

0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:17.320
<v Speaker 1>out the brain circuitry of romantic love and attachment. But

0:11:17.400 --> 0:11:20.400
<v Speaker 1>as it turns out, it's actually not. The question was

0:11:20.600 --> 0:11:23.120
<v Speaker 1>why do you fall for him or her? Why are

0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:26.319
<v Speaker 1>you drawn to a particular person? And there's all kinds

0:11:26.360 --> 0:11:28.120
<v Speaker 1>of cultural reasons. I mean, we tend to fall in

0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:31.000
<v Speaker 1>love with somebody from the same socio economic background, same

0:11:31.040 --> 0:11:33.560
<v Speaker 1>general level of intelligence, same general level of good look,

0:11:33.640 --> 0:11:38.120
<v Speaker 1>same religious and social values, same reproductive goals, same economic goals,

0:11:38.120 --> 0:11:41.280
<v Speaker 1>your child. It certainly plays a role. Timing is important,

0:11:41.320 --> 0:11:43.840
<v Speaker 1>Proximity is important, and I would say at my age,

0:11:43.920 --> 0:11:47.559
<v Speaker 1>lighting can help you, know. So I began to think

0:11:47.559 --> 0:11:51.439
<v Speaker 1>to myself, well, maybe basic biology can pull you naturally

0:11:51.720 --> 0:11:55.559
<v Speaker 1>towards one person rather than another. There's four basic brain

0:11:55.640 --> 0:11:57.880
<v Speaker 1>systems that each one of them is linked with a

0:11:58.000 --> 0:12:08.280
<v Speaker 1>constellation of personality race, the dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, and estrogen system.

0:12:08.320 --> 0:12:11.240
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna slow a role here because this part is important.

0:12:12.679 --> 0:12:18.880
<v Speaker 1>Those four substances Helen mentioned dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, and estrogen,

0:12:19.320 --> 0:12:21.720
<v Speaker 1>They're in all of our bodies and they act on

0:12:21.760 --> 0:12:25.680
<v Speaker 1>systems in our brain, affecting the way we feel, learn, think,

0:12:25.920 --> 0:12:30.360
<v Speaker 1>and act. Helen started studying the available research about how

0:12:30.400 --> 0:12:33.960
<v Speaker 1>a person's temperament is to some extent shaped by these

0:12:34.040 --> 0:12:39.840
<v Speaker 1>four brain systems. People who are testosterone dominant, for example,

0:12:40.200 --> 0:12:43.559
<v Speaker 1>may be more prone to skepticism, People who are serotonin

0:12:43.600 --> 0:12:47.199
<v Speaker 1>dominant tend to be more religious, estrogen people may be

0:12:47.320 --> 0:12:51.040
<v Speaker 1>more verbal, and dopamine dominant people are more novelty seeking.

0:12:51.600 --> 0:12:54.640
<v Speaker 1>Helen wanted to know are there dating patterns that emerge

0:12:54.679 --> 0:12:58.480
<v Speaker 1>between these four types? How are they attracted to one another? First,

0:12:58.679 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 1>she said about designing questionnaire that could allow her to

0:13:01.960 --> 0:13:05.760
<v Speaker 1>categorize daters into their biological types. I collected all the

0:13:05.840 --> 0:13:09.920
<v Speaker 1>data from hormone studies and neurotransmitter studies and medical and

0:13:10.040 --> 0:13:13.160
<v Speaker 1>biological studies to make the questionnaire, and then I went

0:13:13.320 --> 0:13:16.760
<v Speaker 1>on to do two brain scanning studies to prove that

0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:20.600
<v Speaker 1>this questionnaire actually measures what it does. She also linked

0:13:20.640 --> 0:13:23.960
<v Speaker 1>up with match dot com and chemistry dot com, big

0:13:24.040 --> 0:13:27.640
<v Speaker 1>online dating sites, which gave her access to a huge

0:13:27.760 --> 0:13:31.200
<v Speaker 1>number of active daters. The users agreed to take her

0:13:31.240 --> 0:13:34.959
<v Speaker 1>temperament questionnaire, and then they set about matching and dating

0:13:34.960 --> 0:13:37.920
<v Speaker 1>each other, and she took note of who linked up

0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:42.480
<v Speaker 1>with whom. More than fourteen million people in forty countries

0:13:42.520 --> 0:13:46.880
<v Speaker 1>have taken Helen's questionnaire, I recently joined their ranks, answering

0:13:46.880 --> 0:13:50.920
<v Speaker 1>her fifty six questions. On one of those agreed disagree skills,

0:13:52.480 --> 0:13:59.320
<v Speaker 1>I find unpredictable situations accelerating. Yes, taking care of my

0:13:59.360 --> 0:14:02.600
<v Speaker 1>possessions is a high priority for me. I dropped my

0:14:02.640 --> 0:14:06.600
<v Speaker 1>phone every time I stand up. That's a strong disagree.

0:14:07.120 --> 0:14:12.240
<v Speaker 1>I think consistent routines keep life orderly and relaxing. No,

0:14:12.360 --> 0:14:17.760
<v Speaker 1>not so much. My answers classify me as driven by

0:14:17.800 --> 0:14:23.360
<v Speaker 1>the estrogen system. According to Helen, people like me verbal social,

0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:28.000
<v Speaker 1>inclined towards monogamy, conflict diverse, like to date test uster

0:14:28.000 --> 0:14:33.880
<v Speaker 1>our own people, logical, confident skeptics. Oh come on, really,

0:14:34.480 --> 0:14:39.480
<v Speaker 1>that's just oh hell, that is totally true. However, the

0:14:39.600 --> 0:14:44.000
<v Speaker 1>seratonin camp planners who value tradition prefer to date within

0:14:44.080 --> 0:14:48.240
<v Speaker 1>their own ranks, as do the novelty and adventure seeking

0:14:48.320 --> 0:14:51.840
<v Speaker 1>dopamine folks, who presumably take their candle at dinners on

0:14:51.880 --> 0:15:10.960
<v Speaker 1>the wing of a plane toasting Chardonnay cup with red bull. Yeah. Okay.

0:15:11.320 --> 0:15:14.800
<v Speaker 1>Going back to Barry Schwartz, our choice expert, he says

0:15:14.840 --> 0:15:18.440
<v Speaker 1>there are two distinct approaches that people might use to

0:15:18.560 --> 0:15:22.120
<v Speaker 1>guide their choosing. There are some people who, whenever they

0:15:22.160 --> 0:15:24.440
<v Speaker 1>have a choice to make, they want the best. We

0:15:24.560 --> 0:15:28.840
<v Speaker 1>call people like this maximizers. There are other people who

0:15:28.920 --> 0:15:31.920
<v Speaker 1>are not so concerned about the best. We call these

0:15:31.960 --> 0:15:35.640
<v Speaker 1>people satisficers, and it's a term that was coined by

0:15:35.680 --> 0:15:39.960
<v Speaker 1>a psychologist named Herb Simon half a century ago. The

0:15:40.040 --> 0:15:43.440
<v Speaker 1>thing about being a satisfy sir is you don't have

0:15:43.560 --> 0:15:48.240
<v Speaker 1>to examine every option. You examine options until you find

0:15:48.280 --> 0:15:51.880
<v Speaker 1>one that meets your standards. Then you stop looking and

0:15:52.000 --> 0:15:56.960
<v Speaker 1>you are satisfied with what you've gotten. Maximizers want to

0:15:56.960 --> 0:16:00.240
<v Speaker 1>make sure to score the best possible option. This is

0:16:00.280 --> 0:16:03.240
<v Speaker 1>a friend who will tour a thousand apartments before signing

0:16:03.240 --> 0:16:07.840
<v Speaker 1>a lease. Satisficers, meanwhile, have a specific standard in mind.

0:16:08.280 --> 0:16:11.360
<v Speaker 1>They wanted two bedroom and the hardward floor is a

0:16:11.480 --> 0:16:14.320
<v Speaker 1>closet big enough to record a podcast in, and as

0:16:14.320 --> 0:16:16.800
<v Speaker 1>soon as she finds a place that meets those requirements,

0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:21.360
<v Speaker 1>she's ready to move in. Satisficers aren't necessarily less choosy.

0:16:21.400 --> 0:16:23.600
<v Speaker 1>They might have a lot of boxes to check, but

0:16:23.720 --> 0:16:27.360
<v Speaker 1>generally it's the maximizers who find themselves spending a lot

0:16:27.400 --> 0:16:32.520
<v Speaker 1>of time and energy on their deliberations. Intuitively. Most people

0:16:32.560 --> 0:16:36.160
<v Speaker 1>think you should make the little decisions as a satisficer, like, hey,

0:16:36.200 --> 0:16:38.880
<v Speaker 1>this works, I'll take it, and the big decisions as

0:16:38.920 --> 0:16:43.000
<v Speaker 1>a maximizer. I'm going to spend the time and energy

0:16:43.080 --> 0:16:46.680
<v Speaker 1>on this to find the very best. But Barry says

0:16:47.120 --> 0:16:49.920
<v Speaker 1>they're wrong. You know, by the time you find your

0:16:50.040 --> 0:16:54.880
<v Speaker 1>romantic partner, you'll be in your mid fifties, and uh,

0:16:55.080 --> 0:16:57.040
<v Speaker 1>that's not the right way to go through life. In

0:16:57.080 --> 0:17:01.000
<v Speaker 1>addition to which, since we're talking about Roman Tick relationships,

0:17:01.240 --> 0:17:05.080
<v Speaker 1>there's a huge mistake I think that people make, which

0:17:05.280 --> 0:17:09.479
<v Speaker 1>is that the challenge when you're seeking a romantic partner

0:17:09.640 --> 0:17:13.960
<v Speaker 1>is one of discovery find the right person. And I

0:17:14.000 --> 0:17:19.359
<v Speaker 1>don't think it's really about discovery. I think it's about creation.

0:17:20.400 --> 0:17:24.119
<v Speaker 1>You find a compatible person and then you build a

0:17:24.200 --> 0:17:28.800
<v Speaker 1>great relationship. It's worth noting here, and Barry agrees that

0:17:28.840 --> 0:17:31.960
<v Speaker 1>we don't have to partner at all. Life has some

0:17:32.040 --> 0:17:36.240
<v Speaker 1>other pretty great prizes. But Barry has a point. If

0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:38.960
<v Speaker 1>we do want to find a companion, it'd be nice

0:17:39.000 --> 0:17:40.959
<v Speaker 1>to find that person while we've got a lot of

0:17:41.000 --> 0:17:44.080
<v Speaker 1>time left to pack around together. I know that you're

0:17:44.160 --> 0:17:48.960
<v Speaker 1>married for fifty two years as of three days ago. Hey,

0:17:49.000 --> 0:17:52.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm late with the happy anniversary. So how did Barry

0:17:53.000 --> 0:17:57.639
<v Speaker 1>meet his wife? mRNA? There's some hyper rational decision matrix. Well,

0:17:58.040 --> 0:18:00.840
<v Speaker 1>so she's probably going to be mad at me for

0:18:01.000 --> 0:18:04.720
<v Speaker 1>revealing all this stuff. But we became best friends in

0:18:04.840 --> 0:18:09.720
<v Speaker 1>eighth grade and I was romantically interested in her from

0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:14.000
<v Speaker 1>the get go, and she was not romantically interested in me,

0:18:14.280 --> 0:18:17.240
<v Speaker 1>and it took a lot of persistence on my part

0:18:17.680 --> 0:18:19.920
<v Speaker 1>to get her to change her mind. When you were

0:18:19.960 --> 0:18:24.200
<v Speaker 1>doing that, are you using methods of satisficers or maximizers?

0:18:25.240 --> 0:18:28.439
<v Speaker 1>I watched fifteen years old. Give me a break. I

0:18:28.480 --> 0:18:31.159
<v Speaker 1>don't know what the hell I was doing as to

0:18:31.200 --> 0:18:34.320
<v Speaker 1>where I ought to be looking for my partner. Barry

0:18:34.440 --> 0:18:37.000
<v Speaker 1>is not impressed by the app I happen to be using.

0:18:37.640 --> 0:18:41.080
<v Speaker 1>You are way way too good to be needing to

0:18:41.160 --> 0:18:44.640
<v Speaker 1>use Tinder. Let me say, I'll take it. I'm gonna

0:18:44.640 --> 0:18:46.120
<v Speaker 1>put that you don't have to do if it's cool

0:18:46.160 --> 0:18:48.480
<v Speaker 1>with you want my endorsements, Barry? Can I put that

0:18:48.560 --> 0:18:52.040
<v Speaker 1>on my Tinder account? I'm doing it for all if

0:18:52.080 --> 0:18:53.239
<v Speaker 1>you think it will help. I don't know. I think

0:18:53.280 --> 0:19:01.040
<v Speaker 1>it's funny, I asked Talent Fisher, our expert on love

0:19:01.080 --> 0:19:04.000
<v Speaker 1>and brain systems, who we should point out still does

0:19:04.040 --> 0:19:06.800
<v Speaker 1>work for match dot com. If there are any best

0:19:06.880 --> 0:19:10.679
<v Speaker 1>practices for online dating. The brain is not well built

0:19:10.920 --> 0:19:14.040
<v Speaker 1>to go through a hundred different choices. There's a sweet

0:19:14.040 --> 0:19:17.399
<v Speaker 1>spot in the brain between five and nine, and after

0:19:17.480 --> 0:19:20.160
<v Speaker 1>that you just end up choosing nobody. So if you're

0:19:20.200 --> 0:19:24.520
<v Speaker 1>on a dating site after you've met nine people, stop

0:19:25.040 --> 0:19:28.920
<v Speaker 1>and get to know at least one person. Better think

0:19:28.960 --> 0:19:39.840
<v Speaker 1>of reasons to say yes, no, no, okay, all knows?

0:19:39.960 --> 0:19:43.159
<v Speaker 1>So far, so far we've had one yes and like

0:19:43.359 --> 0:19:46.840
<v Speaker 1>six or seven knows. Remember how at the beginning I

0:19:46.880 --> 0:19:50.640
<v Speaker 1>asked my mom if she wanted to drive my tender account. Well,

0:19:51.040 --> 0:19:54.760
<v Speaker 1>here she is behind the wheel. Ah, he doesn't look

0:19:54.800 --> 0:19:58.160
<v Speaker 1>adventurous enough. And can you tell that from his expression

0:19:58.200 --> 0:20:01.320
<v Speaker 1>or from what he's wearing or what he's in an office?

0:20:02.160 --> 0:20:05.880
<v Speaker 1>We're in an office, I know, but I know we're adventurous.

0:20:07.160 --> 0:20:09.960
<v Speaker 1>Mm hmm. This is not a guy who I would

0:20:09.960 --> 0:20:15.800
<v Speaker 1>have paused on. But I think you should sit right because, okay,

0:20:16.960 --> 0:20:19.040
<v Speaker 1>it's a match. Do you know what that means? Mom?

0:20:19.040 --> 0:20:21.560
<v Speaker 1>That his dad is swiping from his tender accounted? He

0:20:21.600 --> 0:20:28.280
<v Speaker 1>he's sliped right on me too. I admit that watching

0:20:28.280 --> 0:20:31.760
<v Speaker 1>my parents divorce has probably made me a little gun shy.

0:20:32.400 --> 0:20:35.840
<v Speaker 1>They're both kind, sensitive people, and it hurt to see

0:20:35.840 --> 0:20:38.679
<v Speaker 1>them so damn sad, which made it seem all the

0:20:38.720 --> 0:20:42.119
<v Speaker 1>more important to choose my own match carefully. But I

0:20:42.160 --> 0:20:44.920
<v Speaker 1>don't want to set a standard for compatibility so high

0:20:44.960 --> 0:20:48.080
<v Speaker 1>that it's impossible to meet, or worse, makes me an

0:20:48.119 --> 0:20:53.080
<v Speaker 1>ungenerous partner always disappointed with her guy. So Barry's idea

0:20:53.160 --> 0:20:56.359
<v Speaker 1>that compatibility isn't only something you find, it's something you

0:20:56.480 --> 0:21:01.080
<v Speaker 1>create is compelling. How good is good enough? Isn't a

0:21:01.160 --> 0:21:04.320
<v Speaker 1>question to retire after you swipe right, or even after

0:21:04.359 --> 0:21:06.640
<v Speaker 1>you like it and put a ring on it. How

0:21:06.680 --> 0:21:10.080
<v Speaker 1>good can this get? Can be asked every day when

0:21:10.119 --> 0:21:13.200
<v Speaker 1>deciding who makes the pre dawn pot of coffee, how

0:21:13.240 --> 0:21:16.600
<v Speaker 1>the bills are paid, how the compliments are paid, when

0:21:16.640 --> 0:21:20.760
<v Speaker 1>to relent, when to insist on a difficult conversation instead

0:21:20.800 --> 0:21:23.600
<v Speaker 1>of turning off the light to fall asleep alone in

0:21:23.640 --> 0:21:27.480
<v Speaker 1>the same bed. I bet there are many potential relationships

0:21:27.520 --> 0:21:30.960
<v Speaker 1>that any two people could build together. Their decisions in

0:21:30.960 --> 0:21:34.480
<v Speaker 1>the first morning they spend together reverberate through the afternoon.

0:21:35.359 --> 0:21:38.520
<v Speaker 1>The decisions of their youth shape the partnership of later years.

0:21:39.680 --> 0:21:42.600
<v Speaker 1>Choice is not a lever we pull once, It's a

0:21:42.600 --> 0:21:57.400
<v Speaker 1>wheel that's always turning. Okay, here is my revised tender profile.

0:21:58.520 --> 0:22:04.840
<v Speaker 1>Tessa thirty nine design features five ten musician and writer

0:22:05.320 --> 0:22:10.960
<v Speaker 1>half Puerto Rican Water. I like science and milk, chocolate

0:22:11.359 --> 0:22:16.800
<v Speaker 1>and kindness, and I'm looking for a charismatic, smart, trustworthy

0:22:16.880 --> 0:22:21.040
<v Speaker 1>dude who's mostly but not completely grown up. I am

0:22:21.040 --> 0:22:28.720
<v Speaker 1>officially endorsed by Dr Barry Schwartz. Okay, so Deeply Human

0:22:28.880 --> 0:22:31.840
<v Speaker 1>kicks off of the bang big ideas about love. It's

0:22:31.840 --> 0:22:33.919
<v Speaker 1>not just who you pick but what you make together.

0:22:34.320 --> 0:22:37.159
<v Speaker 1>So if you're expecting to fall hard for someone, you

0:22:37.240 --> 0:22:40.360
<v Speaker 1>might have to help dig the hole. So happy shoveling.

0:22:43.640 --> 0:22:46.320
<v Speaker 1>In our next episode, the topic on deck is pain.

0:22:47.640 --> 0:22:50.080
<v Speaker 1>We'll be delving into why we hurt, why some of

0:22:50.160 --> 0:22:52.760
<v Speaker 1>us can't stop, and how pain might shape some of

0:22:52.760 --> 0:22:58.240
<v Speaker 1>the most important parts of our lives. Deeply Human is

0:22:58.240 --> 0:23:02.000
<v Speaker 1>a BBC World Service and American Public Media co production

0:23:02.200 --> 0:23:07.240
<v Speaker 1>with iHeartMedia. Until next time, Curiously, Yours, Dessa,