0:00:00.693,0:00:05.371 Today I want to talk to you[br]about the mathematics of love. 0:00:05.371,0:00:07.621 I think we can all agree [br]that mathematicians 0:00:07.621,0:00:11.597 are famously excellent [br]at finding love. 0:00:11.597,0:00:15.045 But it's not just because[br]of our dashing personalities 0:00:15.045,0:00:19.544 our superior conversational skills,[br]our our excellent pencil cases, 0:00:19.544,0:00:24.093 It's also because we've done[br]a lot of work into the maths 0:00:24.093,0:00:26.582 of how to find the perfect partner. 0:00:26.582,0:00:29.875 In my favorite paper on the subject,[br]which is entitled, 0:00:29.875,0:00:35.121 "Why I Don't Have a Girlfriend", [br]Peter Backus tries to rate 0:00:35.121,0:00:37.091 his chances at finding love. 0:00:37.091,0:00:39.457 Now, peter is not a [br]very greedy man. 0:00:39.457,0:00:41.542 Of all of the available [br]women in the UK, 0:00:41.542,0:00:45.245 all that Peter's looking for is [br]somebody who lives near him, 0:00:45.245,0:00:47.076 somebody in the [br]right age range, 0:00:47.076,0:00:49.996 somebody with a[br]university degree, 0:00:49.996,0:00:51.824 somebody he's likely [br]to get on well with, 0:00:51.824,0:00:53.900 somebody attractive, 0:00:53.900,0:00:57.168 somebody who is likely [br]to find him attractive 0:00:57.168,0:00:59.441 (Laughter), 0:00:59.441,0:01:02.947 and comes up with an [br]estimate of 26 women 0:01:02.947,0:01:05.441 in the whole of the UK. 0:01:05.441,0:01:07.962 It's not looking very good, [br]is it Peter? 0:01:07.962,0:01:09.469 Now just to put that[br]into perspective, 0:01:09.469,0:01:12.574 that's about 400 times fewer[br]than the best estimates 0:01:12.574,0:01:17.089 of how many intelligent[br]extra-terrestrial life forms there are. 0:01:17.089,0:01:21.676 And it also gives Peter a [br]1 in 285,000 chance 0:01:21.676,0:01:23.902 of bumping into any one[br]of these special ladies 0:01:23.902,0:01:25.838 on a night out. 0:01:25.838,0:01:28.031 I'd like to think that's why[br]mathematicians don't really bother 0:01:28.031,0:01:30.915 going on nights out anymore. 0:01:30.915,0:01:32.491 The thing is is that I personally 0:01:32.491,0:01:35.254 don't subscribe to [br]such a pessimistic view. 0:01:35.254,0:01:37.812 I know, just as well [br]as you do, 0:01:37.812,0:01:40.194 that love doesn't [br]really work like that 0:01:40.194,0:01:42.764 human emotion[br]isn't neatly ordered, 0:01:42.764,0:01:45.573 rational, or easily predictable. 0:01:45.573,0:01:48.571 But I also know that that doesn't[br]mean that mathematics 0:01:48.571,0:01:51.015 doesn't have something [br]it can offer us 0:01:51.015,0:01:53.206 because, love, as [br]with most of life, 0:01:53.206,0:01:54.961 is full of patterns 0:01:54.961,0:01:59.302 and mathematics is, ultimately,[br]all about the study of patterns. 0:01:59.302,0:02:01.635 patterns from predicting[br]the weather, 0:02:01.635,0:02:03.620 to the fluctuations of [br]the stock market, 0:02:03.620,0:02:05.160 to the movement [br]of the planets, 0:02:05.160,0:02:06.741 or the growth of cities. 0:02:06.741,0:02:10.142 If we're being honest, none [br]of those things are neatly ordered 0:02:10.142,0:02:13.094 Or easily predictable, either. 0:02:13.094,0:02:15.000 Because I believe[br]that mathematics 0:02:15.000,0:02:18.287 is so powerful that[br]is has the potential 0:02:18.287,0:02:21.631 to offer us a new way of looking[br]at almost anything. 0:02:21.631,0:02:25.187 Even something as [br]mysterious as love. 0:02:25.187,0:02:26.675 And so, to try [br]to persuade you 0:02:26.675,0:02:31.236 of how totally, excellent[br]and relevant mathematics is, 0:02:31.236,0:02:40.720 I want to give you my top three[br]mathematically verifiable tips for love. 0:02:40.720,0:02:41.939 Okay, so top tip #1: 0:02:41.939,0:02:45.643 How to win at online dating. 0:02:45.643,0:02:49.079 So my favorite [br]online dating website 0:02:49.079,0:02:50.154 is OkayCupid, 0:02:50.154,0:02:51.314 not least because it was 0:02:51.314,0:02:53.764 started by a group [br]of mathematicians. 0:02:53.764,0:02:55.343 Now because they're [br]mathematicians, 0:02:55.343,0:02:57.663 they have been collecting[br]data on everyone 0:02:57.663,0:03:00.426 whose been using their site[br]for almost a decade. 0:03:00.426,0:03:01.780 And they've been[br]trying to search 0:03:01.780,0:03:04.057 for patterns in the way that[br]we talk about ourselves[br] 0:03:04.057,0:03:05.964 and the way that we [br]interact with each other 0:03:05.964,0:03:07.766 on online dating websites. 0:03:07.766,0:03:10.985 And they've come up with[br]seriously interesting findings. 0:03:10.985,0:03:13.727 But my particular favorite[br]is that it turns out 0:03:13.727,0:03:16.007 that on an online [br]dating website, 0:03:16.007,0:03:17.912 how attractive you are 0:03:17.912,0:03:21.679 does not dictate [br]how popular you are 0:03:21.679,0:03:25.391 and actually having people[br]think that you're ugly 0:03:25.391,0:03:29.210 can work to your advantage. 0:03:29.210,0:03:30.066 Let me show you[br]how this works. 0:03:30.066,0:03:33.275 Okay, in a thankfully [br]voluntary section, 0:03:33.275,0:03:37.645 you are allowed to rate [br]how attractive people are 0:03:37.645,0:03:40.022 between 1 and 5. 0:03:40.022,0:03:43.362 And if we compare this score, [br]this average score 0:03:43.362,0:03:46.216 to how many messages a[br]selection of people receive, 0:03:46.216,0:03:49.526 You can begin to get a sense[br]of how attractiveness 0:03:49.526,0:03:51.854 links to popularity [br]on online dating. 0:03:51.854,0:03:53.656 So this is a graph [br]that the online 0:03:53.656,0:03:55.687 OkayCupid guys [br]have come up with 0:03:55.874,0:03:57.270 and the important [br]thing to notice 0:03:57.270,0:03:59.528 is that it's not totally true[br]that the more attractive you are, 0:03:59.528,0:04:01.080 the more messages you get. 0:04:01.080,0:04:02.522 But the question arises then 0:04:02.522,0:04:07.926 of what is it about people up here[br]who are so much more popular 0:04:07.926,0:04:09.549 than people down here 0:04:09.549,0:04:12.690 even though they have the[br]same score of attractiveness? 0:04:12.690,0:04:15.679 And the reason why is that it's[br]not just straight-forward looks 0:04:15.679,0:04:16.726 that are important. 0:04:16.726,0:04:18.367 So let me try to illustrate [br]their findings 0:04:18.367,0:04:19.396 with an example. 0:04:19.396,0:04:23.367 If you take someone [br]like Portia de Rossi, 0:04:23.367,0:04:25.599 everybody agrees [br]that Portia de Rossi 0:04:25.599,0:04:28.358 is a very beautiful woman. 0:04:28.358,0:04:29.894 Nobody thinks [br]that she's ugly, 0:04:29.894,0:04:31.980 but she's not a supermodel. 0:04:31.980,0:04:33.471 If you compare [br]Portia de Rossi 0:04:33.471,0:04:36.749 to someone like [br]Sarah Jessica Parker, 0:04:36.749,0:04:40.003 now, a lot of people,[br]myself included, 0:04:40.003,0:04:45.200 think that Sarah Jessica Parker[br]is seriously fabulous 0:04:45.200,0:04:47.670 and possibly one of the[br]most beautiful creatures 0:04:47.670,0:04:49.639 to have ever have walked [br]the face of the earth. 0:04:49.639,0:04:56.520 But, some other people, [br]e.i. most of the internet, 0:04:56.520,0:04:58.528 seem to think that she [br]looks a bit like a horse 0:04:58.528,0:05:01.825 (Laughter). 0:05:01.825,0:05:05.038 Now, I think that if[br]you ask people 0:05:05.038,0:05:07.260 how attractive Sarah Jessica Parker [br]or Portia de Rossi are, 0:05:07.260,0:05:10.213 and you ask them to give [br]them a score between 1 and 5, 0:05:10.213,0:05:13.374 I reckon that they would [br]average out to the same score. 0:05:13.374,0:05:14.849 But the way that people would vote 0:05:14.849,0:05:15.987 would be very different. 0:05:15.987,0:05:17.702 So Portia's scores would[br]all be clustered around 0:05:17.702,0:05:20.842 the four because everybody [br]agrees that she's very beautiful. 0:05:20.842,0:05:23.643 whereas Sarah Jessica Parker[br]divides opinion. 0:05:23.643,0:05:26.317 There a huge spread[br]in her scores. 0:05:26.317,0:05:28.389 And actually it's this[br]spread that counts. 0:05:28.389,0:05:30.865 It's this spread that[br]makes you more popular 0:05:30.865,0:05:33.255 on online internet[br]dating websites. 0:05:33.255,0:05:34.226 So what this means then 0:05:34.226,0:05:37.095 is that if some people think [br]that you're attractive, 0:05:37.095,0:05:40.473 you're actually better off[br]having some other people 0:05:40.473,0:05:44.185 think that you're a massive minger. 0:05:44.185,0:05:46.213 That's much better than[br]everybody thinking 0:05:46.213,0:05:48.494 that you're the cute[br]girl next door. 0:05:48.494,0:05:50.013 i think that this [br]makes a bit more sense 0:05:50.013,0:05:51.607 when you think in terms[br]of the people 0:05:51.607,0:05:53.368 who are sending [br]these messages. 0:05:53.368,0:05:55.738 So let's say that you think[br]somebody's attractive 0:05:55.738,0:05:57.971 but you suspect that [br]other people 0:05:57.971,0:06:00.032 won't necessarily be [br]that interested. 0:06:00.032,0:06:02.823 That means that there is [br]less competition for you 0:06:02.823,0:06:04.239 and that there's [br]an extra incentive 0:06:04.239,0:06:05.532 for you to get in touch. 0:06:05.532,0:06:07.007 Whereas compare[br]that to if you think 0:06:07.007,0:06:08.353 somebody is attractive [br]but you suspect 0:06:08.353,0:06:10.660 that everybody is going [br]to think they're attractive. 0:06:10.660,0:06:13.779 Well, why would you [br]bother humiliating yourself? 0:06:13.779,0:06:16.884 Here's where the really[br]interesting part comes. 0:06:16.884,0:06:21.740 People choose the pictures that[br]they use on an online, dating website, 0:06:21.740,0:06:23.670 they often try to[br]minimize the things 0:06:23.670,0:06:27.160 that they think people [br]will find unattractive. 0:06:27.160,0:06:31.457 The classic example is that people[br]who are a little bit overweight 0:06:31.457,0:06:35.391 deliberately choosing [br]a very cropped photo. 0:06:35.391,0:06:36.678 or bald men, for example, 0:06:36.678,0:06:39.937 deliberatly choosing pictures[br]where they're wearing hats. 0:06:39.937,0:06:42.792 But this is the opposite of [br]what you should do 0:06:42.792,0:06:43.536 if you want to be successful. 0:06:43.536,0:06:46.817 You should really, instead, play[br]up to whatever it is 0:06:46.817,0:06:48.356 that makes you different. 0:06:48.356,0:06:50.230 Even if you think that [br]some people 0:06:50.230,0:06:52.707 will find you unattractive. 0:06:52.707,0:06:53.836 Because the people [br]who fancy you 0:06:53.836,0:06:55.584 are just going to [br]fancy you anyway, 0:06:55.584,0:06:57.715 and the unimportant[br]losers who don't 0:06:57.715,0:07:00.497 well, they only play out [br]to your advantage. 0:07:00.497,0:07:02.897 Okay, top tip #2: How to pick[br]the perfect partner. 0:07:02.897,0:07:05.914 So let's imagine then that[br]you're a roaring success 0:07:05.914,0:07:07.372 on the dating scene. 0:07:07.372,0:07:11.395 But the question arises of[br]how do you then convert 0:07:11.395,0:07:14.509 that success into [br]longer-term happiness 0:07:14.509,0:07:15.186 and in particular, 0:07:15.186,0:07:19.437 how do you decide when is the[br]right time to settle down? 0:07:19.437,0:07:22.459 Now generally, it's not [br]advisable to just cash in 0:07:22.459,0:07:26.772 on the first person who comes along[br]and shows you any interest at all. 0:07:26.772,0:07:29.969 But, equally, you don't want[br]to leave it too long 0:07:29.969,0:07:32.661 if you want to maximize your [br]chances of longterm happiness. 0:07:32.661,0:07:35.843 As my favorite author, [br]Jane Austen put it, 0:07:35.843,0:07:38.061 "An unmarried woman [br]of seven and twenty 0:07:38.061,0:07:42.006 can never hope to feel or[br]inspire affection again." 0:07:42.006,0:07:44.388 (Laughter). 0:07:44.388,0:07:45.694 Thanks, Jane. 0:07:45.694,0:07:49.711 So the question is then, 0:07:49.711,0:07:51.423 how do you know when [br]is the right time [br] 0:07:51.423,0:07:53.356 to settle down given [br]all the people 0:07:53.356,0:07:54.265 you can date in [br]your lifetime? 0:07:54.265,0:07:56.940 Thankfully, there is a [br]rather delicious bit 0:07:56.940,0:07:58.486 of mathematics that[br]we can use to 0:07:58.486,0:08:00.404 help us out here. 0:08:00.404,0:08:02.284 So lets imagine then, 0:08:02.284,0:08:06.094 that you start [br]dating when you're 15 0:08:06.094,0:08:09.723 and ideally, you'd like to be[br]married by the time you're 35. 0:08:09.723,0:08:12.016 The number of people that you[br]could potentially date 0:08:12.016,0:08:13.241 across your lifetime, 0:08:13.241,0:08:14.508 and they'll be at kind of varying [br]levels of goodness. 0:08:14.508,0:08:17.469 Now the rules are [br]that when you cash in 0:08:17.469,0:08:18.271 and get married, 0:08:18.271,0:08:20.832 you can't look ahead and see[br]what you could have had, 0:08:20.832,0:08:23.812 and equally, you can't go back[br]and change your mind. 0:08:23.812,0:08:25.352 In my experience at least, 0:08:25.352,0:08:29.674 i find that people don't typically[br]like being recalled 0:08:29.674,0:08:30.956 years after being [br]passed up. 0:08:30.956,0:08:33.360 For somebody else, [br]or that's just me. 0:08:33.360,0:08:36.527 So the math says then[br]that what you should do 0:08:36.527,0:08:39.758 in the first 37 percent [br]of your dating window, 0:08:39.758,0:08:45.488 you should reject everybody [br]as serious marriage potential. 0:08:45.488,0:08:49.319 And then, you should pick the [br]next person who comes along 0:08:49.319,0:08:53.414 who is better than everyone [br]that you've seen before. 0:08:53.414,0:08:53.966 So here's the example. 0:08:53.966,0:08:56.078 Now if you do this, it can be[br]mathematically proven in fact 0:08:56.078,0:08:59.155 that this is the best[br]possible way of 0:08:59.155,0:09:03.877 maximizing your chances of[br]finding the perfect partner. 0:09:03.877,0:09:06.059 Now, unfortunately i have to tell [br]you that this method 0:09:06.059,0:09:08.682 does come with some risks. 0:09:08.682,0:09:12.632 For instance, imagine if your [br]perfect partner 0:09:12.632,0:09:16.226 appeared during your [br]first 37 percent. 0:09:16.226,0:09:22.359 Now unfortunately, [br]you'd have to reject them. 0:09:22.359,0:09:24.367 Now, if you're [br]following the maths, 0:09:24.367,0:09:26.083 I'm afraid that if no one[br]else comes along 0:09:26.083,0:09:27.640 better than anyone[br]you've seen before 0:09:27.640,0:09:30.763 so you have to go [br]on rejecting everyone 0:09:30.763,0:09:32.143 and die alone. 0:09:32.143,0:09:34.736 (Laughter). 0:09:34.736,0:09:39.617 Probably surrounded by cats[br]nibbling at your remains. 0:09:39.617,0:09:41.992 Okay, another risk is, [br]let's imagine instead 0:09:41.992,0:09:45.117 that the first people[br]that you dated 0:09:45.117,0:09:51.036 in your first 37 percent are just [br]incredibly dull, terrible people. 0:09:51.036,0:09:52.812 Now, that's okay, cause you're in [br]your rejection phase, 0:09:52.812,0:09:54.733 so you can reject them. 0:09:54.733,0:09:58.541 But, then imagine that the[br]next person who comes along 0:09:58.541,0:10:02.879 is just marginally less boring, [br]dull and terrible 0:10:02.879,0:10:04.811 than everybody that [br]you've seen before. 0:10:04.811,0:10:06.280 Now, if you are following[br]the maths 0:10:06.280,0:10:09.483 I'm afraid that you have [br]to marry them 0:10:09.483,0:10:12.776 and end up in a relationship[br]that is, frankly, suboptimal. 0:10:12.776,0:10:13.969 Sorry about that. 0:10:13.969,0:10:15.659 But I do think that there's[br]an opportunity here 0:10:15.659,0:10:18.809 for hallmark to cash in on[br]and really cater to this market. 0:10:18.809,0:10:20.799 with a valentines day [br]card like this: 0:10:20.799,0:10:24.924 "My darling husband, you[br]are marginally less terrible 0:10:24.924,0:10:27.969 than the first 37 percent[br]of people I dated." 0:10:27.969,0:10:33.456 It's actually more romantic[br]than I normally manage. 0:10:33.456,0:10:38.138 Okay, so this method doesn't give[br]you a 100 percent success rate. 0:10:38.138,0:10:41.441 but there's no other possible[br]strategy that can do any better. 0:10:41.441,0:10:44.104 And actually, in the wild[br]there are certain 0:10:44.104,0:10:47.907 types of fish that follow[br]this exact strategy. 0:10:47.907,0:10:50.676 So they reject every possible [br]suitor that turns up in 0:10:50.676,0:10:53.413 in the first 37 percent [br]of the mating season, 0:10:53.413,0:10:55.054 then they [br]pick the next fish 0:10:55.054,0:10:58.242 who comes along after[br]that window who is, 0:10:58.242,0:11:02.024 i don't know, bigger and burlier[br]than all the fish that they've seen. 0:11:02.024,0:11:03.546 I also think that [br]subconsciously, 0:11:03.546,0:11:06.651 humans, we sort of [br]do this anyway. 0:11:06.651,0:11:10.445 We give ourselves enough[br]time to play the field, 0:11:10.445,0:11:12.897 get a feel for the[br]marketplace or whatever, 0:11:12.897,0:11:13.415 when we're young. 0:11:13.415,0:11:15.363 and then we only start [br]looking seriously 0:11:15.363,0:11:18.074 at potential marriage[br]candidates 0:11:18.074,0:11:19.913 when we hit our [br]mid-to-late 20's. 0:11:19.913,0:11:21.616 I think this is [br]conclusive proof, 0:11:21.616,0:11:22.771 if ever it were needed , 0:11:22.771,0:11:24.762 that everybody's brains [br]are prewired to be 0:11:24.762,0:11:27.616 just a little bit mathematical. 0:11:27.616,0:11:29.477 Okay, so that was top tip #2. 0:11:29.477,0:11:33.540 Top tip #3: How to avoid divorce. 0:11:33.540,0:11:35.868 Okay so let's imagine then that you[br]picked the perfect partner 0:11:35.868,0:11:40.645 and you're settling into a [br]lifelong relationship with them. 0:11:40.645,0:11:42.549 Now, I like to think [br]that everybody 0:11:42.549,0:11:50.095 would like to avoid divorce[br]from Piers Morgan's wife, maybe? 0:11:50.095,0:11:52.475 But it's a sad fact [br]in modern life 0:11:52.475,0:11:56.284 that 1 in 2 marriages [br]end in divorce, 0:11:56.284,0:12:00.085 with the rest of the world[br]not being far behind. 0:12:00.085,0:12:01.684 Now, you can be forgiven, perhaps 0:12:01.684,0:12:05.344 for thinking that the arguments[br]that precede a marital breakup 0:12:05.344,0:12:09.327 are not an ideal candidate[br]for mathematical investigation. 0:12:09.327,0:12:10.777 For one, it's very [br]hard to know 0:12:10.777,0:12:13.834 what you should be measuring [br]and what you should be quantifying. 0:12:13.834,0:12:17.217 But this didn't stop a[br]psychologist, John Gottman, 0:12:17.217,0:12:20.378 who did exactly that. 0:12:20.378,0:12:22.351 He observed, Gottman observed, 0:12:22.351,0:12:25.782 hundreds of couples [br]having a conversation 0:12:25.782,0:12:28.164 and recorded well, everything [br]you could think of. 0:12:28.164,0:12:30.581 So he recorded what was said [br]in the conversation. 0:12:30.581,0:12:32.994 He recorded skin conductivity, 0:12:32.994,0:12:34.534 he recorded their facial expressions, 0:12:34.534,0:12:36.874 heart rates, their blood pressure 0:12:36.874,0:12:43.324 basically everything apart from whether[br]or ont the wife was always right, 0:12:43.324,0:12:45.188 which incidentally she totally is. 0:12:45.188,0:12:49.268 But what Gottman found, what[br]Gottman and his team found , 0:12:49.268,0:12:52.312 was that one of the[br]most important predictors 0:12:52.312,0:12:53.922 for whether or not a couple[br]is going to get divorced 0:12:53.922,0:12:59.213 is how positive or negative each[br]partner was being in the conversation. 0:12:59.213,0:13:01.634 Now couples that were [br]very low risk 0:13:01.634,0:13:05.861 scored a lot more positive on[br]Gottman's scale than negative 0:13:05.861,0:13:08.072 Whereas bad relationship, 0:13:08.072,0:13:10.963 as in, those that are probably[br]going to get divorced, 0:13:10.963,0:13:15.835 they found themselves getting [br]into a spiral of negativity. 0:13:15.835,0:13:17.758 Now just by using these [br]very simple ideas, 0:13:17.758,0:13:20.500 Gottman and his group[br]were able to predict 0:13:20.500,0:13:23.103 whether a given couple[br]was going to get divorced 0:13:23.103,0:13:25.758 with a 90 percent accuracy. 0:13:25.758,0:13:27.472 But it wasn't until he teamed up 0:13:27.472,0:13:29.406 with a mathematician[br]James Murray 0:13:29.406,0:13:31.891 that they really started to[br]understand what caused 0:13:31.891,0:13:35.601 these negativity spirals [br]and how they occur. 0:13:35.601,0:13:37.308 And the results that [br]they found, 0:13:37.308,0:13:42.807 I think are just incredibly,[br]impressively, simple and interesting. 0:13:42.807,0:13:44.325 So these equations, [br]they predict 0:13:44.325,0:13:46.763 how the wife or husband[br]is going to respond 0:13:46.763,0:13:48.501 in the next turn[br]of the conversation, 0:13:48.501,0:13:49.929 how positive or negative[br]they're going to be. 0:13:49.929,0:13:51.546 And these equations, [br]they depend on 0:13:51.546,0:13:53.912 the mood of the person [br]when they're on their own, 0:13:53.912,0:13:56.385 the mood of the person when they're [br]with their partner. 0:13:56.385,0:13:58.845 But most importantly,[br]they depend on 0:13:58.845,0:14:02.094 how much the husband and wife[br]influence one another. 0:14:02.094,0:14:04.372 Now I think it's important [br]to point out that at this stage, 0:14:04.372,0:14:08.462 these exact equations have[br]also been shown 0:14:08.462,0:14:10.498 to be perfectly able [br]to describe 0:14:10.498,0:14:14.256 what happens between two[br]countries in an arms race. 0:14:14.256,0:14:18.464 (Laughter). 0:14:18.464,0:14:20.855 So that an arguing couple, 0:14:20.855,0:14:22.367 spiraling into negativity, 0:14:22.367,0:14:23.789 teetering on the brink of divorce, 0:14:23.789,0:14:28.107 is actually mathematically equivalent to[br]the beginning of nuclear war. 0:14:28.107,0:14:30.676 (Laughter). 0:14:30.676,0:14:33.159 But the really important term[br]in this equation 0:14:33.159,0:14:35.877 is the influence that people[br]have on one another, 0:14:35.877,0:14:36.697 and in particular, 0:14:36.697,0:14:39.420 something called the[br]Negativity Threshhold. 0:14:39.420,0:14:40.769 Now the Negativity Threshold, 0:14:40.769,0:14:44.519 you can think of as[br]how annoying 0:14:44.519,0:14:46.192 the husband can be [br]before the wife 0:14:46.192,0:14:50.034 starts to get really pissed of, [br]and vice versa. 0:14:50.034,0:14:51.988 Now I always thought [br]that good marriages 0:14:51.988,0:14:54.596 are about compromise [br]and understanding 0:14:54.596,0:14:57.621 and allowing the person to [br]have the space to be themselves. 0:14:57.621,0:15:00.388 So I would have thought that 0:15:00.388,0:15:02.856 perhaps the most [br]successful relationships 0:15:02.856,0:15:04.024 are the ones where there is a[br]really high Negativity Threshold. 0:15:04.024,0:15:06.012 Where couples let things go[br] 0:15:06.012,0:15:08.557 and only brought things up if [br]there really were a big deal. 0:15:08.557,0:15:12.023 But actually, the mathematics[br]and subsequent findings 0:15:12.023,0:15:15.318 by the team have shown the[br]exact opposite to be true. 0:15:15.318,0:15:18.404 The best couples or [br]the most successful couples 0:15:18.404,0:15:19.217 are the ones are the ones 0:15:19.217,0:15:21.779 with a really low [br]Negativity Threshold. 0:15:21.779,0:15:25.378 These are the couples that don't[br]let anything go unnoticed.[br] 0:15:25.378,0:15:28.599 They allow each other some[br]room to complain. 0:15:28.599,0:15:28.863 These are the couples that are [br]continually trying to repair 0:15:28.863,0:15:33.813 their own relationship, 0:15:33.813,0:15:36.418 that have a much more positive[br]outlook on their marriage. 0:15:36.418,0:15:38.516 Couples that don't let things go 0:15:38.516,0:15:42.426 and couples that don't let [br]trivial things end up being 0:15:42.426,0:15:44.527 a really big deal. 0:15:44.527,0:15:50.023 Now of course, it takes more than [br]just a low Negativity Threshold 0:15:50.023,0:15:54.332 and not compromising to[br]have a successful relationship 0:15:54.332,0:15:56.970 But i think that[br]it's quite interesting 0:15:56.970,0:15:59.103 to know that there is really[br]mathematical evidence 0:15:59.103,0:16:00.440 to support that you [br]that you should 0:16:00.440,0:16:02.662 never let you should go[br]down on your anger. 0:16:02.662,0:16:04.188 So those are my top three tips 0:16:04.188,0:16:05.943 for how maths can help you 0:16:05.943,0:16:07.355 with love and relationships. 0:16:07.355,0:16:09.826 But I hope that aside [br]from these tips, 0:16:09.826,0:16:11.721 they also give you[br]a little bit of insight 0:16:11.721,0:16:13.968 into the power [br]of mathematics, 0:16:13.968,0:16:14.953 because for me, 0:16:14.953,0:16:18.897 equations and symbols[br]aren't just a thing, 0:16:18.897,0:16:20.359 They are a voice [br]that speaks out 0:16:20.359,0:16:23.797 about the incredible[br]richness of nature 0:16:23.797,0:16:25.169 and the startling simplicity[br]in the patterns 0:16:25.169,0:16:27.314 that twist and turn, 0:16:27.314,0:16:28.872 and warp and evolve[br]around us. 0:16:28.872,0:16:31.054 From how the world works, 0:16:31.054,0:16:32.557 to how we behave. 0:16:32.557,0:16:33.407 So I hope that perhaps, 0:16:33.407,0:16:34.435 for just a couple of you, 0:16:34.435,0:16:36.906 a little bit of insight into[br]the mathematics of love 0:16:36.906,0:16:38.112 can persuade [br]you to have 0:16:38.112,0:16:40.314 a little bit more [br]love for mathematics. 0:16:40.314,0:16:40.991 Thank you. 0:16:40.991,0:16:43.815 (Applause).