WEBVTT

00:00:12.536 --> 00:00:13.510
Thank you very much.

00:00:13.510 --> 00:00:16.084
So, yes, I'm Hannah Fry,
I am a mathematician,


00:00:16.084 --> 00:00:20.403
and today I want to talk to you
about the mathematics of love.

00:00:20.941 --> 00:00:22.681
Now, I think that we can all agree

00:00:22.681 --> 00:00:27.098
that mathematicians
are famously excellent at finding love.

00:00:27.597 --> 00:00:31.045
But it's not just
because of our dashing personalities,

00:00:31.045 --> 00:00:35.102
superior conversational skills
and excellent pencil cases.

00:00:35.544 --> 00:00:40.070
It's also because we've actually done
an awful lot of work into the maths

00:00:40.070 --> 00:00:42.462
of how to find the perfect partner.

00:00:42.462 --> 00:00:45.875
Now, in my favorite paper
on the subject, which is entitled,

00:00:45.875 --> 00:00:49.371
"Why I Don't Have a Girlfriend" -
(Laughter) -

00:00:49.371 --> 00:00:53.091
Peter Backus tries to rate
his chances of finding love.

00:00:53.091 --> 00:00:55.457
Now, Peter's not a very greedy man.

00:00:55.457 --> 00:00:57.542
Of all of the available women in the U.K.,

00:00:57.542 --> 00:01:00.955
all Peter's looking for
is somebody who lives near him,

00:01:00.955 --> 00:01:02.856
somebody in the right age range,

00:01:02.856 --> 00:01:05.480
somebody with a university degree,

00:01:05.935 --> 00:01:08.304
somebody he's likely to get on well with,

00:01:08.304 --> 00:01:10.440
somebody who's likely to be attractive,

00:01:10.440 --> 00:01:12.838
somebody who's likely
to find him attractive.

00:01:12.838 --> 00:01:15.441
(Laughter)

00:01:16.128 --> 00:01:20.239
And comes up with an estimate
of 26 women in the whole of the UK.

00:01:21.441 --> 00:01:23.602
It's not looking very good, is it Peter?

00:01:23.602 --> 00:01:26.119
Now, just to put that into perspective,

00:01:26.119 --> 00:01:29.444
that's about 400 times fewer
than the best estimates

00:01:29.444 --> 00:01:32.799
of how many intelligent
extraterrestrial life forms there are.

00:01:33.439 --> 00:01:37.676
And it also gives Peter
a 1 in 285,000 chance

00:01:37.676 --> 00:01:40.536
of bumping into any one
of these special ladies

00:01:40.536 --> 00:01:42.131
on a given night out.

00:01:42.131 --> 00:01:44.171
I'd like to think
that's why mathematicians

00:01:44.171 --> 00:01:46.915
don't really bother
going on nights out anymore.

00:01:47.332 --> 00:01:49.164
The thing is that I personally

00:01:49.164 --> 00:01:51.753
don't subscribe
to such a pessimistic view.

00:01:51.753 --> 00:01:54.342
Because I know,
just as well as all of you do,

00:01:54.342 --> 00:01:56.714
that love doesn't really work like that.

00:01:56.714 --> 00:02:01.304
Human emotion isn't neatly ordered
and rational and easily predictable.

00:02:01.872 --> 00:02:04.401
But I also know that that doesn't mean

00:02:04.401 --> 00:02:07.485
that mathematics hasn't got something
that it can offer us

00:02:07.488 --> 00:02:10.966
because, love, as with most of life,
is full of patterns

00:02:10.966 --> 00:02:15.042
and mathematics is, ultimately,
all about the study of patterns.

00:02:15.749 --> 00:02:19.925
Patterns from predicting the weather
to the fluctuations in the stock market,

00:02:19.925 --> 00:02:23.230
to the movement of the planets
or the growth of cities.

00:02:23.230 --> 00:02:25.784
And if we're being honest,
none of those things

00:02:25.784 --> 00:02:29.500
are exactly neatly ordered
and easily predictable, either.

00:02:29.500 --> 00:02:34.647
Because I believe that mathematics
is so powerful that it has the potential

00:02:34.658 --> 00:02:38.101
to offer us a new way of looking
at almost anything.

00:02:38.101 --> 00:02:41.187
Even something as mysterious as love.

00:02:41.470 --> 00:02:43.525
And so, to try to persuade you

00:02:43.525 --> 00:02:48.036
of how totally amazing, excellent
and relevant mathematics is,

00:02:48.036 --> 00:02:53.826
I want to give you my top three
mathematically verifiable tips for love.

00:02:57.290 --> 00:02:59.238
Okay, so Top Tip #1:

00:03:01.488 --> 00:03:03.811
How to win at online dating.

00:03:06.290 --> 00:03:09.593
So my favorite online dating website
is OkCupid,

00:03:09.593 --> 00:03:13.224
not least because it was started
by a group of mathematicians.

00:03:13.224 --> 00:03:15.289
Now, because they're mathematicians,

00:03:15.289 --> 00:03:16.723
they have been collecting data

00:03:16.723 --> 00:03:19.937
on everybody who uses their site
for almost a decade.

00:03:19.937 --> 00:03:22.118
And they've been trying
to search for patterns

00:03:22.118 --> 00:03:24.040
in the way that we talk about ourselves

00:03:24.040 --> 00:03:26.102
and the way that we interact
with each other

00:03:26.102 --> 00:03:27.538
on an online dating website.

00:03:27.538 --> 00:03:30.448
And they've come up with some
seriously interesting findings.

00:03:30.448 --> 00:03:32.136
But my particular favorite

00:03:32.136 --> 00:03:35.271
is that it turns out
that on an online dating website,

00:03:35.271 --> 00:03:40.480
how attractive you are
does not dictate how popular you are,

00:03:40.825 --> 00:03:44.343
and actually, having people think
that you're ugly

00:03:44.343 --> 00:03:46.803
can work to your advantage.

00:03:48.220 --> 00:03:49.898
Let me show you how this works.

00:03:49.898 --> 00:03:53.703
In a thankfully voluntary
section of OkCupid,

00:03:54.124 --> 00:03:57.467
you are allowed to rate
how attractive you think people are

00:03:57.467 --> 00:03:59.157
on a scale between 1 and 5.

00:03:59.157 --> 00:04:02.901
Now, if we compare this score,
the average score,

00:04:02.901 --> 00:04:05.786
to how many messages
a selection of people receive,

00:04:05.786 --> 00:04:07.446
you can begin to get a sense

00:04:07.446 --> 00:04:11.344
of how attractiveness links to popularity
on an online dating website.

00:04:11.344 --> 00:04:15.160
This is the graph that the OkCupid guy
shave come up with.

00:04:15.160 --> 00:04:18.838
And the important thing to notice
is that it's not totally true

00:04:18.838 --> 00:04:21.860
that the more attractive you are,
the more messages you get.

00:04:21.860 --> 00:04:24.477
OK, there's maybe a bit of a trend there,

00:04:24.477 --> 00:04:27.629
but it's got an R squared
of absolutely naff all, let's be honest.

00:04:27.653 --> 00:04:31.784
But the question arises then
of what is it about people up here

00:04:32.108 --> 00:04:35.853
who are so much more popular
than people down here,

00:04:36.305 --> 00:04:39.166
even though they have the same
score of attractiveness?

00:04:39.166 --> 00:04:43.121
And the reason why is that it's not just
straight forward looks that are important.

00:04:43.121 --> 00:04:45.922
So let me try to illustrate
their findings with an example.

00:04:45.922 --> 00:04:49.662
So if you take someone like
Portia de Rossi, for example,

00:04:50.042 --> 00:04:53.799
everybody agrees that Portia de Rossi
is a very beautiful woman.

00:04:54.957 --> 00:04:58.555
Nobody thinks that she's ugly,
but she's not a supermodel, either.

00:04:58.555 --> 00:05:02.813
If you compare Portia de Rossi
to someone like Sarah Jessica Parker,

00:05:05.430 --> 00:05:08.236
now, a lot of people,
myself included, I should say,

00:05:08.236 --> 00:05:12.239
think that Sarah Jessica Parker
is seriously fabulous

00:05:12.959 --> 00:05:15.310
and possibly one
of the most beautiful creatures

00:05:15.310 --> 00:05:18.205
to have ever have walked
on the face of the Earth.

00:05:18.205 --> 00:05:21.994
But some other people,
i.e., most of the Internet,

00:05:24.822 --> 00:05:28.763
seem to think that she looks
a bit like a horse. (Laughter)

00:05:30.142 --> 00:05:33.970
Now, I think that if you ask people
how attractive they thought

00:05:33.970 --> 00:05:36.199
Sarah Jessica Parker
or Portia de Rossi were,

00:05:36.199 --> 00:05:38.846
and you ask them to give them
a score between 1 and 5,

00:05:38.846 --> 00:05:41.999
I reckon that they'd average out
to have roughly the same score.

00:05:41.999 --> 00:05:44.780
But the way that people would vote
would be very different.

00:05:44.780 --> 00:05:47.370
So Portia's scores would
all be clustered around the 4

00:05:47.370 --> 00:05:49.767
because everybody agrees
that she's very beautiful,

00:05:49.767 --> 00:05:52.437
whereas Sarah Jessica Parker
completely divides opinion.

00:05:52.437 --> 00:05:54.637
There'd be a huge spread in her scores.

00:05:54.637 --> 00:05:57.059
And actually it's this spread that counts.

00:05:57.059 --> 00:05:59.425
It's this spread
that makes you more popular

00:05:59.425 --> 00:06:01.717
on an online Internet dating website.

00:06:01.717 --> 00:06:03.303
So what that means then

00:06:03.303 --> 00:06:05.758
is that if some people
think that you're attractive,

00:06:05.758 --> 00:06:07.522
you're actually better off

00:06:07.522 --> 00:06:11.462
having some other people think
that you're a massive minger.

00:06:12.353 --> 00:06:14.758
That's much better
than everybody just thinking

00:06:14.758 --> 00:06:17.065
that you're the cute girl next door.

00:06:17.065 --> 00:06:19.280
Now, I think this begins
makes a bit more sense

00:06:19.280 --> 00:06:22.601
when you think in terms of the people
who are sending these messages.

00:06:22.601 --> 00:06:24.932
So let's say that you think
somebody's attractive,

00:06:24.932 --> 00:06:28.636
but you suspect that other people
won't necessarily be that interested.

00:06:28.636 --> 00:06:31.284
That means there's
less competition for you

00:06:31.284 --> 00:06:34.142
and it's an extra incentive
for you to get in touch.

00:06:34.142 --> 00:06:36.969
Whereas compare that to
if you think somebody is attractive

00:06:36.969 --> 00:06:40.187
but you suspect that everybody
is going to think they're attractive.

00:06:40.187 --> 00:06:43.565
Well, why would you bother
humiliating yourself, let's be honest?

00:06:43.848 --> 00:06:46.064
Here's where the really
interesting part comes.

00:06:46.064 --> 00:06:49.954
Because when people choose the pictures
that they use on an online dating website,

00:06:49.954 --> 00:06:52.446
they often try to minimize the things

00:06:52.446 --> 00:06:55.576
that they think some people
will find unattractive.

00:06:55.576 --> 00:06:59.338
The classic example is people who are,
perhaps, a little bit overweight

00:07:00.152 --> 00:07:02.946
deliberately choosing
a very cropped photo,

00:07:04.874 --> 00:07:06.932
or bald men, for example,

00:07:06.932 --> 00:07:09.773
deliberately choosing pictures
where they're wearing hats.

00:07:09.773 --> 00:07:12.358
But actually this is the opposite
of what you should do

00:07:12.358 --> 00:07:13.874
if you want to be successful.

00:07:13.874 --> 00:07:17.840
You should really, instead, play up to
whatever it is that makes you different,

00:07:17.840 --> 00:07:22.156
even if you think that some people
will find it unattractive.

00:07:22.156 --> 00:07:25.396
Because the people who fancy you
are just going to fancy you anyway,

00:07:25.396 --> 00:07:29.965
and the unimportant losers who don't,
well, they only play up to your advantage.

00:07:30.867 --> 00:07:34.303
Okay, Top Tip #2:
How to pick the perfect partner.

00:07:34.346 --> 00:07:37.350
So let's imagine then
that you're a roaring success

00:07:37.350 --> 00:07:39.136
on the dating scene.

00:07:39.136 --> 00:07:43.494
But the question arises of how do you then
convert that success

00:07:44.299 --> 00:07:47.310
into longer-term happiness
and in particular,

00:07:47.310 --> 00:07:51.202
how do you decide
when is the right time to settle down?

00:07:51.202 --> 00:07:54.380
Now generally,
it's not advisable to just cash in

00:07:54.380 --> 00:07:56.340
and marry the first person
who comes along

00:07:56.340 --> 00:07:58.456
and shows you any interest at all.

00:07:58.456 --> 00:08:01.519
But, equally, you don't really
want to leave it too long

00:08:01.519 --> 00:08:04.840
if you want to maximize your chance
of long-term happiness.

00:08:04.840 --> 00:08:08.438
As my favorite author,
Jane Austen, puts it,

00:08:08.438 --> 00:08:10.800
"An unmarried woman of seven and twenty

00:08:10.800 --> 00:08:14.128
can never hope to feel or inspire
affection again."

00:08:14.128 --> 00:08:16.125
(Laughter)

00:08:16.971 --> 00:08:19.861
Thanks a lot, Jane.
What do you know about love?

00:08:21.336 --> 00:08:22.835
So the question is then,

00:08:22.835 --> 00:08:25.329
how do you know when
is the right time to settle down

00:08:25.329 --> 00:08:28.040
given all the people
that you can date in your lifetime?

00:08:28.040 --> 00:08:31.487
Thankfully, there's a rather delicious bit
of mathematics that we can use

00:08:31.487 --> 00:08:33.989
to help us out here, called
optimal stopping theory.

00:08:34.044 --> 00:08:35.580
So let's imagine then,

00:08:35.580 --> 00:08:37.987
that you start dating when you're 15

00:08:37.987 --> 00:08:41.678
and ideally, you'd like to be married
by the time that you're 35.

00:08:42.106 --> 00:08:43.776
And there's a number of people

00:08:43.776 --> 00:08:46.559
that you could potentially
date across your lifetime,

00:08:46.559 --> 00:08:49.842
and they'll be at varying levels
of goodness.

00:08:49.842 --> 00:08:53.326
Now the rules are that once you cash in
and get married,

00:08:53.326 --> 00:08:56.243
you can't look ahead to see
what you could have had,

00:08:56.243 --> 00:08:58.728
and equally, you can't go back
and change your mind.

00:08:58.728 --> 00:09:00.175
In my experience at least,

00:09:00.175 --> 00:09:03.034
I find that typically people don't
much like being recalled

00:09:03.034 --> 00:09:08.000
years after being passed up
for somebody else, or that's just me.

00:09:08.799 --> 00:09:11.236
So the math says then
that what you should do

00:09:11.236 --> 00:09:14.465
in the first 37 percent
of your dating window,

00:09:14.465 --> 00:09:18.358
you should just reject everybody
as serious marriage potential.

00:09:18.358 --> 00:09:20.604
(Laughter)

00:09:20.604 --> 00:09:24.101
And then, you should pick
the next person that comes along

00:09:24.101 --> 00:09:27.222
that is better than everybody
that you've seen before.

00:09:27.222 --> 00:09:28.889
So here's the example.

00:09:28.889 --> 00:09:33.325
Now if you do this, it can be
mathematically proven, in fact,

00:09:33.851 --> 00:09:36.404
that this is the best possible way

00:09:36.404 --> 00:09:40.142
of maximizing your chances
of finding the perfect partner.

00:09:40.770 --> 00:09:45.108
Now unfortunately, I have to tell you that
this method does come with some risks.

00:09:46.062 --> 00:09:49.227
For instance,
imagine if your perfect partner

00:09:50.382 --> 00:09:52.846
appeared during your first 37 percent.

00:09:53.403 --> 00:09:56.224
Now, unfortunately,
you'd have to reject them.

00:09:56.224 --> 00:09:59.015
(Laughter)

00:09:59.865 --> 00:10:01.845
Now, if you're following the maths,

00:10:01.845 --> 00:10:03.558
I'm afraid no one else comes along

00:10:03.558 --> 00:10:05.694
that's better than anyone
you've seen before,

00:10:05.694 --> 00:10:09.476
so you have to go on
rejecting everyone and die alone.

00:10:09.476 --> 00:10:12.092
(Laughter)

00:10:12.092 --> 00:10:16.352
Probably surrounded by cats
nibbling at your remains.

00:10:17.069 --> 00:10:21.258
Okay, another risk is,
let's imagine, instead,

00:10:21.258 --> 00:10:24.508
that the first people that you dated
in your first 37 percent

00:10:24.508 --> 00:10:27.875
are just incredibly dull,
boring, terrible people.

00:10:28.569 --> 00:10:31.757
Now, that's okay,
because you're in your rejection phase -

00:10:32.847 --> 00:10:35.818
that's okay,
because you're in your rejection phase,

00:10:35.818 --> 00:10:38.052
so thats fine, you can reject them.

00:10:38.642 --> 00:10:41.499
But then imagine, the next person
to come along

00:10:41.499 --> 00:10:44.611
is just marginally less boring,
dull and terrible

00:10:46.069 --> 00:10:48.408
than everybody that you've seen before.

00:10:48.408 --> 00:10:52.240
Now, if you are following the maths,
I'm afraid you have to marry them

00:10:52.240 --> 00:10:55.721
and end up in a relationship
which is, frankly, suboptimal.

00:10:56.030 --> 00:10:57.241
Sorry about that.

00:10:57.241 --> 00:10:59.503
But I do think that there's
an opportunity here

00:10:59.503 --> 00:11:02.381
for Hallmark to cash in on
and really cater for this market.

00:11:02.381 --> 00:11:04.847
A Valentine's Day card like this.
(Laughter)

00:11:04.847 --> 00:11:08.456
"My darling husband,
you are marginally less terrible

00:11:08.456 --> 00:11:11.328
than the first 37 percent
of people I dated."

00:11:13.258 --> 00:11:16.006
It's actually more romantic
than I normally manage.

00:11:16.920 --> 00:11:21.120
Okay, so this method doesn't give you
a 100 percent success rate,

00:11:21.304 --> 00:11:25.100
but there's no other possible
strategy that can do any better.

00:11:25.100 --> 00:11:27.824
And actually, in the wild,
there are certain types

00:11:27.824 --> 00:11:31.041
of fish which follow
and employ this exact strategy.

00:11:31.041 --> 00:11:33.496
So they reject every possible suitor
that turns up

00:11:33.496 --> 00:11:36.625
in the first 37 percent
of the mating season,

00:11:36.625 --> 00:11:40.218
and then they pick the next fish
that comes along after that window

00:11:40.218 --> 00:11:42.521
that's, I don't know, bigger and burlier

00:11:42.521 --> 00:11:45.210
than all of the fish
that they've seen before.

00:11:45.210 --> 00:11:49.915
I also think that subconsciously,
humans, we do sort of do this anyway.

00:11:49.915 --> 00:11:52.944
We give ourselves a little bit of time
to play the field,

00:11:52.944 --> 00:11:56.415
get a feel for the marketplace
or whatever when we're young.

00:11:56.415 --> 00:12:01.296
And then we only start looking seriously
at potential marriage candidates

00:12:01.296 --> 00:12:03.325
once we hit our mid-to-late 20s.

00:12:03.325 --> 00:12:06.658
I think this is conclusive proof,
if ever it were needed,

00:12:06.658 --> 00:12:10.600
that everybody's brains are prewired
to be just a little bit mathematical.

00:12:10.886 --> 00:12:12.969
Okay, so that was Top Tip #2.

00:12:12.969 --> 00:12:16.251
Now, Top Tip #3: How to avoid divorce.

00:12:17.713 --> 00:12:20.765
Okay, so let's imagine then
that you picked your perfect partner

00:12:20.765 --> 00:12:23.950
and you're settling into
a lifelong relationship with them.

00:12:24.841 --> 00:12:28.595
Now, I like to think that everybody
would ideally like to avoid divorce,

00:12:28.595 --> 00:12:32.219
apart from, I don't know,
Piers Morgan's wife, maybe?

00:12:34.904 --> 00:12:37.078
But it's a sad fact of modern life

00:12:37.078 --> 00:12:40.422
that 1 in 2 marriages
in the States ends in divorce,

00:12:40.422 --> 00:12:43.771
with the rest of the world
not being far behind.

00:12:43.989 --> 00:12:46.009
Now, you can be forgiven, perhaps

00:12:46.009 --> 00:12:49.670
for thinking that the arguments
that precede a marital breakup

00:12:49.670 --> 00:12:53.436
are not an ideal candidate
for mathematical investigation.

00:12:53.436 --> 00:12:55.250
For one thing, it's very hard to know

00:12:55.250 --> 00:12:58.448
what you should be measuring
or what you should be quantifying.

00:12:58.448 --> 00:13:04.157
But this didn't stop a psychologist,
John Gottman, who did exactly that.

00:13:04.711 --> 00:13:09.559
Gottman observed hundreds of couples
having a conversation

00:13:09.676 --> 00:13:12.438
and recorded, well,
everything you can think of.

00:13:12.438 --> 00:13:14.850
So he recorded what was said
in the conversation,

00:13:14.850 --> 00:13:17.189
he recorded their skin conductivity,

00:13:17.189 --> 00:13:19.034
he recorded their facial expressions,

00:13:19.034 --> 00:13:21.023
their heart rates, their blood pressure,

00:13:21.023 --> 00:13:25.796
basically everything apart from whether
or not the wife was actually always right,

00:13:27.257 --> 00:13:29.586
which incidentally she totally is.

00:13:30.608 --> 00:13:33.139
But what Gottman and his team found

00:13:33.139 --> 00:13:36.151
was that one of the most important
predictors

00:13:36.151 --> 00:13:38.618
for whether or not a couple
is going to get divorced

00:13:38.618 --> 00:13:43.046
was how positive or negative each partner
was being in the conversation.

00:13:43.727 --> 00:13:46.113
Now, couples that were very low-risk

00:13:46.113 --> 00:13:50.183
scored a lot more positive points
on Gottman's scale than negative.

00:13:50.183 --> 00:13:52.467
Whereas bad relationships,

00:13:52.467 --> 00:13:55.495
by which I mean, probably
going to get divorced,

00:13:55.495 --> 00:14:00.023
they found themselves
getting into a spiral of negativity.

00:14:00.740 --> 00:14:02.869
Now just by using these very simple ideas,

00:14:02.869 --> 00:14:05.433
Gottman and his group were able to predict

00:14:05.433 --> 00:14:08.148
whether a given couple
was going to get divorced

00:14:08.148 --> 00:14:10.684
with a 90 percent accuracy.

00:14:11.137 --> 00:14:14.525
But it wasn't until he teamed up
with a mathematician, James Murray,

00:14:14.525 --> 00:14:16.528
that they really started to understand

00:14:16.528 --> 00:14:20.580
what causes these negativity spirals
and how they occur.

00:14:20.580 --> 00:14:22.502
And the results that they found

00:14:22.502 --> 00:14:26.200
I think are just incredibly
impressively simple and interesting.

00:14:28.267 --> 00:14:29.551
So here they are.

00:14:33.359 --> 00:14:35.480
I think that should be fairly clear.

00:14:36.898 --> 00:14:42.471
So these equations, they predict how
the wife or husband is going to respond

00:14:43.396 --> 00:14:45.292
in their next turn of the conversation,

00:14:45.292 --> 00:14:47.436
how positive or negative
they're going to be.

00:14:47.436 --> 00:14:49.134
And these equations, they depend on

00:14:49.134 --> 00:14:51.489
the mood of the person
when they're on their own,

00:14:51.489 --> 00:14:54.036
the mood of the person when
they're with their partner,

00:14:54.036 --> 00:14:55.915
but most importantly, they depend on

00:14:55.915 --> 00:14:58.614
how much the husband and wife
influence one another.

00:14:59.191 --> 00:15:01.816
Now, I think it's important
to point out at this stage,

00:15:01.816 --> 00:15:05.209
that these exact equations
have also been shown

00:15:05.209 --> 00:15:07.995
to be perfectly able at describing

00:15:07.995 --> 00:15:11.302
what happens between two countries
in an arms race.

00:15:11.983 --> 00:15:14.568
(Laughter)

00:15:15.605 --> 00:15:19.408
So that - an arguing couple
spiraling into negativity

00:15:19.408 --> 00:15:21.478
and teetering on the brink of divorce -

00:15:21.478 --> 00:15:25.589
is actually mathematically equivalent
to the beginning of a nuclear war.

00:15:25.589 --> 00:15:27.818
(Laughter)

00:15:28.456 --> 00:15:30.669
But the really important term
in this equation

00:15:30.669 --> 00:15:33.150
is the influence that people
have on one another,

00:15:33.150 --> 00:15:36.308
and in particular, something called
the negativity threshold.

00:15:36.308 --> 00:15:38.169
Now, the negativity threshold,

00:15:38.169 --> 00:15:42.680
you can think of as
how annoying the husband can be

00:15:42.680 --> 00:15:46.758
before the wife starts to get
really pissed off, and vice versa.

00:15:47.285 --> 00:15:51.652
Now, I always thought that good marriages
were about compromise and understanding

00:15:51.652 --> 00:15:54.587
and allowing the person
to have the space to be themselves.

00:15:54.587 --> 00:15:57.892
So I would have thought that perhaps
the most successful relationships

00:15:57.892 --> 00:16:00.940
were ones where there was
a really high negativity threshold.

00:16:00.940 --> 00:16:02.881
Where couples let things go

00:16:02.881 --> 00:16:05.844
and only brought things up
if they really were a big deal.

00:16:05.844 --> 00:16:10.060
But actually, the mathematics
and subsequent findings by the team

00:16:10.060 --> 00:16:12.823
have shown the exact opposite is true.

00:16:12.823 --> 00:16:15.377
The best couples,
or the most successful couples,

00:16:15.377 --> 00:16:18.554
are the ones with
a really low negativity threshold.

00:16:18.554 --> 00:16:22.769
These are the couples that don't let
anything go unnoticed

00:16:22.769 --> 00:16:25.710
and allow each other
some room to complain.

00:16:25.710 --> 00:16:30.935
These are the couples that are continually
trying to repair their own relationship,

00:16:30.935 --> 00:16:33.878
that have a much more positive
outlook on their marriage.

00:16:33.878 --> 00:16:35.828
Couples that don't let things go

00:16:35.828 --> 00:16:40.735
and couples that don't let trivial things
end up being a really big deal.

00:16:41.402 --> 00:16:46.569
Now of course, it takes bit more
than just a low negativity threshold

00:16:46.569 --> 00:16:50.632
and not compromising to have
a successful relationship.

00:16:50.874 --> 00:16:53.991
But I think that it's quite interesting

00:16:53.991 --> 00:16:56.367
to know that there is really
mathematical evidence

00:16:56.367 --> 00:16:59.642
to say that you should never
let the sun go down on your anger.

00:16:59.642 --> 00:17:01.672
So those are my top three tips

00:17:01.672 --> 00:17:04.713
of how maths can help you
with love and relationships.

00:17:04.713 --> 00:17:07.025
But I hope
that aside from their use as tips,

00:17:07.025 --> 00:17:11.190
they also give you a little bit of insight
into the power of mathematics.

00:17:11.190 --> 00:17:15.514
Because for me, equations and symbols
aren't just a thing.

00:17:15.785 --> 00:17:20.349
They're a voice that speaks out
about the incredible richness of nature

00:17:20.349 --> 00:17:22.497
and the startling simplicity

00:17:22.497 --> 00:17:27.170
in the patterns that twist and turn
and warp and evolve all around us,

00:17:27.170 --> 00:17:29.640
from how the world works to how we behave.

00:17:29.640 --> 00:17:31.948
So I hope that perhaps,
for just a couple of you,

00:17:31.948 --> 00:17:34.391
a little bit of insight into
the mathematics of love

00:17:34.391 --> 00:17:37.672
can persuade you to have a little bit
more love for mathematics.

00:17:37.672 --> 00:17:38.795
Thank you.

00:17:38.795 --> 00:17:40.721
(Applause)