WEBVTT

00:00:00.960 --> 00:00:02.416
I published this article

00:00:02.440 --> 00:00:06.816
in the New York Times Modern Love column
in January of this year.

00:00:06.840 --> 00:00:09.176
"To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This."

00:00:09.200 --> 00:00:11.496
And the article
is about a psychological study

00:00:11.520 --> 00:00:14.936
designed to create romantic love
in the laboratory,

00:00:14.960 --> 00:00:17.696
and my own experience
trying to study myself

00:00:17.720 --> 00:00:19.576
one night last summer.

00:00:19.600 --> 00:00:22.336
So the procedure is fairly simple:

00:00:22.360 --> 00:00:29.216
two strangers take turns asking each other
36 increasingly personal questions

00:00:29.240 --> 00:00:32.136
and then they stare into each other's eyes

00:00:32.159 --> 00:00:34.720
without speaking for four minutes.

00:00:35.360 --> 00:00:38.736
So here are a couple of sample questions.

00:00:38.760 --> 00:00:44.016
Number 12: If you could wake up tomorrow
having gained any one quality or ability,

00:00:44.040 --> 00:00:45.240
what would it be?

00:00:46.240 --> 00:00:50.936
Number 28: When did you last cry
in front of another person?

00:00:50.960 --> 00:00:52.176
By yourself?

00:00:52.200 --> 00:00:56.456
As you can see, they really do
get more personal as they go along.

00:00:56.480 --> 00:00:58.856
Number 30, I really like this one:

00:00:58.880 --> 00:01:01.736
Tell your partner
what you like about them;

00:01:01.760 --> 00:01:03.616
be very honest this time,

00:01:03.640 --> 00:01:08.000
saying things you might not say
to someone you just met.

00:01:08.840 --> 00:01:13.376
So when I first came across this study
a few years earlier,

00:01:13.400 --> 00:01:15.496
one detail really stuck out to me,

00:01:15.520 --> 00:01:18.576
and that was the rumor
that two of the participants

00:01:18.600 --> 00:01:21.096
had gotten married six months later,

00:01:21.120 --> 00:01:25.296
and they'd invited the entire lab
to the ceremony.

00:01:25.320 --> 00:01:28.176
So I was of course very skeptical

00:01:28.200 --> 00:01:31.856
about this process of just
manufacturing romantic love,

00:01:31.880 --> 00:01:34.736
but of course I was intrigued,

00:01:34.760 --> 00:01:38.176
and when I got the chance
to try this study myself,

00:01:38.200 --> 00:01:41.336
with someone I knew
but not particularly well,

00:01:41.360 --> 00:01:44.496
I wasn't expecting to fall in love.

00:01:44.520 --> 00:01:47.216
But then we did, and --

00:01:47.240 --> 00:01:49.136
(Laughter)

00:01:49.160 --> 00:01:53.536
And I thought it made a good story,
so I sent it to the Modern Love column

00:01:53.560 --> 00:01:55.376
a few months later.

00:01:55.400 --> 00:01:59.120
Now, this was published in January,

00:01:59.880 --> 00:02:01.576
and now it is August,

00:02:01.600 --> 00:02:05.216
so I'm guessing that some of you
are probably wondering,

00:02:05.240 --> 00:02:07.616
are we still together?

00:02:07.640 --> 00:02:10.015
And the reason I think
you might be wondering this

00:02:10.039 --> 00:02:12.696
is because I have been asked this question

00:02:12.720 --> 00:02:16.656
again and again and again
for the past seven months,

00:02:16.680 --> 00:02:20.376
and this question is really
what I want to talk about today.

00:02:20.400 --> 00:02:21.856
But let's come back to it.

00:02:21.880 --> 00:02:24.856
(Laughter)

00:02:24.880 --> 00:02:26.856
So the week before the article came out,

00:02:26.880 --> 00:02:29.576
I was very nervous.

00:02:29.600 --> 00:02:32.176
I had been working
on a book about love stories

00:02:32.200 --> 00:02:34.016
for the past few years,

00:02:34.040 --> 00:02:36.856
so I had gotten used to writing
about my own experiences

00:02:36.880 --> 00:02:39.896
with romantic love on my blog.

00:02:39.920 --> 00:02:44.496
But a blog post might get
a couple hundred views at the most,

00:02:44.520 --> 00:02:47.616
and those were usually
just my Facebook friends,

00:02:47.640 --> 00:02:50.216
and I figured my article
in the New York Times

00:02:50.240 --> 00:02:53.040
would probably get a few thousand views.

00:02:54.080 --> 00:02:56.856
And that felt like a lot of attention

00:02:56.880 --> 00:03:00.056
on a relatively new relationship.

00:03:00.080 --> 00:03:03.360
But as it turned out, I had no idea.

00:03:04.240 --> 00:03:06.136
So the article was published online

00:03:06.160 --> 00:03:08.216
on a Friday evening,

00:03:08.240 --> 00:03:14.376
and by Saturday, this had happened
to the traffic on my blog,

00:03:14.400 --> 00:03:19.280
and by Sunday, both the Today Show
and Good Morning America had called.

00:03:20.720 --> 00:03:25.256
Within a month, the article
would receive over 8 million views,

00:03:25.280 --> 00:03:27.576
and I was, to say the least,

00:03:27.600 --> 00:03:31.496
underprepared for this sort of attention.

00:03:31.520 --> 00:03:34.496
It's one thing to work up
the confidence to write honestly

00:03:34.520 --> 00:03:36.616
about your experiences with love,

00:03:36.640 --> 00:03:39.096
but it is another thing to discover

00:03:39.120 --> 00:03:42.096
that your love life
has made international news --

00:03:42.120 --> 00:03:43.336
(Laughter)

00:03:43.360 --> 00:03:47.176
and to realize
that people across the world

00:03:47.200 --> 00:03:52.176
are genuinely invested
in the status of your new relationship.

00:03:52.200 --> 00:03:54.376
(Laughter)

00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:59.216
And when people called or emailed,
which they did every day for weeks,

00:03:59.240 --> 00:04:02.576
they always asked the same question first:

00:04:02.600 --> 00:04:05.256
are you guys still together?

00:04:05.280 --> 00:04:07.616
In fact, as I was preparing this talk,

00:04:07.640 --> 00:04:09.896
I did a quick search of my email inbox

00:04:09.920 --> 00:04:11.856
for the phrase "Are you still together?"

00:04:11.880 --> 00:04:14.576
and several messages
popped up immediately.

00:04:14.600 --> 00:04:17.255
They were from students and journalists

00:04:17.279 --> 00:04:20.296
and friendly strangers like this one.

00:04:20.320 --> 00:04:22.776
I did radio interviews and they asked.

00:04:22.800 --> 00:04:26.736
I even gave a talk, and one woman
shouted up to the stage,

00:04:26.760 --> 00:04:30.096
"Hey Mandy, where's your boyfriend?"

00:04:30.120 --> 00:04:33.416
And I promptly turned bright red.

00:04:33.440 --> 00:04:36.256
I understand that this
is part of the deal.

00:04:36.280 --> 00:04:39.816
If you write about your relationship
in an international newspaper,

00:04:39.840 --> 00:04:43.496
you should expect people
to feel comfortable asking about it.

00:04:43.520 --> 00:04:48.456
But I just wasn't prepared
for the scope of the response.

00:04:48.480 --> 00:04:52.336
The 36 questions seem
to have taken on a life of their own.

00:04:52.360 --> 00:04:55.776
In fact, the New York Times
published a follow-up article

00:04:55.800 --> 00:04:57.016
for Valentine's Day,

00:04:57.040 --> 00:05:01.536
which featured readers' experiences
of trying the study themselves,

00:05:01.560 --> 00:05:03.840
with varying degrees of success.

00:05:04.960 --> 00:05:09.176
So my first impulse
in the face of all of this attention

00:05:09.200 --> 00:05:12.640
was to become very protective
of my own relationship.

00:05:13.920 --> 00:05:16.936
I said no to every request
for the two of us

00:05:16.960 --> 00:05:19.296
to do a media appearance together.

00:05:19.320 --> 00:05:21.016
I turned down TV interviews,

00:05:21.040 --> 00:05:25.176
and I said no to every request
for photos of the two us.

00:05:25.200 --> 00:05:27.776
I think I was afraid that we would become

00:05:27.800 --> 00:05:31.936
inadvertent icons
for the process of falling in love,

00:05:31.960 --> 00:05:35.680
a position I did not at all
feel qualified for.

00:05:36.760 --> 00:05:39.216
And I get it:

00:05:39.240 --> 00:05:42.016
people didn't just want to know
if the study worked,

00:05:42.040 --> 00:05:44.976
they wanted to know if it really worked:

00:05:45.000 --> 00:05:49.696
that is, if it was capable
of producing love that would last,

00:05:49.720 --> 00:05:55.096
not just a fling, but real love,
sustainable love.

00:05:55.120 --> 00:05:59.216
But this was a question
I didn't feel capable of answering.

00:05:59.240 --> 00:06:01.936
My own relationship
was only a few months old,

00:06:01.960 --> 00:06:06.720
and I felt like people were asking
the wrong question in the first place.

00:06:08.040 --> 00:06:12.176
What would knowing whether or not
we were still together really tell them?

00:06:12.200 --> 00:06:13.856
If the answer was no,

00:06:13.880 --> 00:06:17.856
would it make the experience
of doing these 36 questions

00:06:17.880 --> 00:06:20.080
any less worthwhile?

00:06:20.800 --> 00:06:23.576
Dr. Arthur Aron first wrote
about these questions

00:06:23.600 --> 00:06:27.976
in this study here in 1997,

00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:32.736
and here, the researcher's goal
was not to produce romantic love.

00:06:32.760 --> 00:06:34.696
Instead, they wanted to foster

00:06:34.720 --> 00:06:38.176
interpersonal closeness
among college students,

00:06:38.200 --> 00:06:40.936
by using what Aron called

00:06:40.960 --> 00:06:45.856
"sustained, escalating, reciprocal,
personalistic self-disclosure."

00:06:45.880 --> 00:06:48.360
Sounds romantic, doesn't it?

00:06:49.600 --> 00:06:51.256
But the study did work.

00:06:51.280 --> 00:06:54.336
The participants
did feel closer after doing it,

00:06:54.360 --> 00:06:59.656
and several subsequent studies have also
used Aron's fast friends protocol

00:06:59.680 --> 00:07:03.816
as a way to quickly create
trust and intimacy between strangers.

00:07:03.840 --> 00:07:07.269
They've used it between members
of the police and members of a community,

00:07:07.293 --> 00:07:10.853
and they've used it between people
of opposing political ideologies.

00:07:11.800 --> 00:07:13.576
The original version of the story,

00:07:13.600 --> 00:07:16.096
the one that I tried last summer,

00:07:16.120 --> 00:07:20.336
that pairs the personal questions
with four minutes of eye contact,

00:07:20.360 --> 00:07:22.456
was referenced in this article,

00:07:22.480 --> 00:07:25.080
but unfortunately it was never published.

00:07:26.640 --> 00:07:29.656
So a few months ago, I was giving a talk

00:07:29.680 --> 00:07:31.976
at a small liberal arts college,

00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:34.696
and a student came up to me afterwards

00:07:34.720 --> 00:07:36.640
and he said, kind of shyly,

00:07:37.360 --> 00:07:42.376
"So, I tried your study,
and it didn't work."

00:07:42.400 --> 00:07:45.656
He seemed a little mystified by this.

00:07:45.680 --> 00:07:50.456
"You mean, you didn't fall in love
with the person you did it with?" I asked.

00:07:50.480 --> 00:07:52.896
"Well..." He paused.

00:07:52.920 --> 00:07:55.400
"I think she just wants to be friends."

00:07:57.480 --> 00:08:01.216
"But did you become
better friends?" I asked.

00:08:01.240 --> 00:08:04.896
"Did you feel like you got to really
know each other after doing the study?"

00:08:04.920 --> 00:08:06.216
He nodded.

00:08:06.240 --> 00:08:09.176
"So, then it worked," I said.

00:08:09.200 --> 00:08:13.416
I don't think this is the answer
he was looking for.

00:08:13.440 --> 00:08:17.776
In fact, I don't think this is the answer
that any of us are looking for

00:08:17.800 --> 00:08:20.056
when it comes to love.

00:08:20.080 --> 00:08:21.816
I first came across this study

00:08:21.840 --> 00:08:23.296
when I was 29

00:08:23.320 --> 00:08:26.736
and I was going through
a really difficult breakup.

00:08:26.760 --> 00:08:29.376
I had been in the relationship
since I was 20,

00:08:29.400 --> 00:08:32.176
which was basically my entire adult life,

00:08:32.200 --> 00:08:34.296
and he was my first real love,

00:08:34.320 --> 00:08:39.416
and I had no idea how or if
I could make a life without him.

00:08:39.440 --> 00:08:41.816
So I turned to science.

00:08:41.840 --> 00:08:46.416
I researched everything I could find
about the science of romantic love,

00:08:46.440 --> 00:08:51.536
and I think I was hoping that it might
somehow inoculate me from heartache.

00:08:51.560 --> 00:08:54.200
I don't know if I realized
this at the time --

00:08:55.120 --> 00:08:58.416
I thought I was just doing research
for this book I was writing --

00:08:58.440 --> 00:09:01.856
but it seems really obvious in retrospect.

00:09:01.880 --> 00:09:06.296
I hoped that if I armed myself
with the knowledge of romantic love,

00:09:06.320 --> 00:09:10.960
I might never have to feel
as terrible and lonely as I did then.

00:09:12.320 --> 00:09:16.616
And all this knowledge
has been useful in some ways.

00:09:16.640 --> 00:09:19.936
I am more patient with love.
I am more relaxed.

00:09:19.960 --> 00:09:23.536
I am more confident
about asking for what I want.

00:09:23.560 --> 00:09:27.296
But I can also see myself more clearly,

00:09:27.320 --> 00:09:31.576
and I can see that what I want
is sometimes more

00:09:31.600 --> 00:09:34.656
than can reasonably be asked for.

00:09:34.680 --> 00:09:38.136
What I want from love is a guarantee,

00:09:38.160 --> 00:09:40.376
not just that I am loved today

00:09:40.400 --> 00:09:42.816
and that I will be loved tomorrow,

00:09:42.840 --> 00:09:48.040
but that I will continue to be loved
by the person I love indefinitely.

00:09:49.240 --> 00:09:52.736
Maybe it's this possibility of a guarantee

00:09:52.760 --> 00:09:54.736
that people were really asking about

00:09:54.760 --> 00:09:57.480
when they wanted to know
if we were still together.

00:09:58.800 --> 00:10:02.736
So the story that the media told
about the 36 questions

00:10:02.760 --> 00:10:06.056
was that there might be
a shortcut to falling in love.

00:10:06.080 --> 00:10:09.816
There might be a way to somehow
mitigate some of the risk involved,

00:10:09.840 --> 00:10:12.456
and this is a very appealing story,

00:10:12.480 --> 00:10:15.656
because falling in love feels amazing,

00:10:15.680 --> 00:10:18.416
but it's also terrifying.

00:10:18.440 --> 00:10:21.016
The moment you admit to loving someone,

00:10:21.040 --> 00:10:23.680
you admit to having a lot to lose,

00:10:24.640 --> 00:10:28.856
and it's true that these questions
do provide a mechanism

00:10:28.880 --> 00:10:31.176
for getting to know someone quickly,

00:10:31.200 --> 00:10:33.736
which is also a mechanism for being known,

00:10:33.760 --> 00:10:38.216
and I think this is the thing
that most of us really want from love:

00:10:38.240 --> 00:10:42.320
to be known, to be seen, to be understood.

00:10:43.200 --> 00:10:45.136
But I think when it comes to love,

00:10:45.160 --> 00:10:49.656
we are too willing to accept
the short version of the story.

00:10:49.680 --> 00:10:53.256
The version of the story that asks
"Are you still together?"

00:10:53.280 --> 00:10:56.400
and is content with a yes or no answer.

00:10:57.560 --> 00:10:59.496
So rather than that question,

00:10:59.520 --> 00:11:03.176
I would propose we ask
some more difficult questions,

00:11:03.200 --> 00:11:04.400
questions like:

00:11:05.080 --> 00:11:08.096
How do you decide who deserves your love

00:11:08.120 --> 00:11:09.360
and who does not?

00:11:10.840 --> 00:11:14.096
How do you stay in love
when things get difficult,

00:11:14.120 --> 00:11:16.640
and how do you know
when to just cut and run?

00:11:17.880 --> 00:11:19.776
How do you live with the doubt

00:11:19.800 --> 00:11:22.816
that inevitably creeps
into every relationship,

00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:24.456
or even harder,

00:11:24.480 --> 00:11:26.840
how do you live with your partner's doubt?

00:11:27.800 --> 00:11:31.416
I don't necessarily know
the answers to these questions,

00:11:31.440 --> 00:11:36.576
but I think they're an important start
at having a more thoughtful conversation

00:11:36.600 --> 00:11:38.760
about what it means to love someone.

00:11:40.080 --> 00:11:42.416
So, if you want it,

00:11:42.440 --> 00:11:46.736
the short version of the story
of my relationship is this:

00:11:46.760 --> 00:11:49.856
a year ago, an acquaintance
and I did a study

00:11:49.880 --> 00:11:52.576
designed to create romantic love,

00:11:52.600 --> 00:11:54.296
and we fell in love,

00:11:54.320 --> 00:11:56.176
and we are still together,

00:11:56.200 --> 00:11:58.360
and I am so glad.

00:11:59.040 --> 00:12:03.800
But falling in love is not
the same thing as staying in love.

00:12:04.440 --> 00:12:06.840
Falling in love is the easy part.

00:12:08.360 --> 00:12:12.736
So at the end of my article, I wrote,
"Love didn't happen to us.

00:12:12.760 --> 00:12:16.056
We're in love because we each
made the choice to be."

00:12:16.080 --> 00:12:20.256
And I cringe a little
when I read that now,

00:12:20.280 --> 00:12:22.576
not because it isn't true,

00:12:22.600 --> 00:12:25.816
but because at the time,
I really hadn't considered

00:12:25.840 --> 00:12:29.456
everything that was contained
in that choice.

00:12:29.480 --> 00:12:34.696
I didn't consider how many times
we would each have to make that choice,

00:12:34.720 --> 00:12:38.296
and how many times I will continue
to have to make that choice

00:12:38.320 --> 00:12:42.136
without knowing whether or not
he will always choose me.

00:12:42.160 --> 00:12:47.656
I want it to be enough to have asked
and answered 36 questions,

00:12:47.680 --> 00:12:52.896
and to have chosen to love someone
so generous and kind and fun

00:12:52.920 --> 00:12:57.920
and to have broadcast that choice
in the biggest newspaper in America.

00:12:58.880 --> 00:13:01.976
But what I have done instead
is turn my relationship

00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:06.176
into the kind of myth
I don't quite believe in.

00:13:06.200 --> 00:13:10.456
And what I want, what perhaps
I will spend my life wanting,

00:13:10.480 --> 00:13:13.176
is for that myth to be true.

00:13:13.200 --> 00:13:17.976
I want the happy ending
implied by the title to my article,

00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:19.496
which is, incidentally,

00:13:19.520 --> 00:13:23.176
the only part of the article
that I didn't actually write.

00:13:23.200 --> 00:13:26.496
(Laughter)

00:13:26.520 --> 00:13:31.216
But what I have instead is the chance
to make the choice to love someone,

00:13:31.240 --> 00:13:34.696
and the hope that he will choose
to love me back,

00:13:34.720 --> 00:13:37.416
and it is terrifying,

00:13:37.440 --> 00:13:39.176
but that's the deal with love.

00:13:39.200 --> 00:13:40.440
Thank you.