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 --> 00:00:35.544
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 --> 00:01:05.666
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 --> 00:01:20.427
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 --> 00:02:54.233
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 --> 00:03:22.243
And they've been trying
to search for patterns

00:03:22.243 --> 00:03:23.830
in the way that we talk about ourselves

00:03:23.830 --> 00:03:25.712
and the way that we interact
with each other

00:03:25.712 --> 00:03:27.408
on an online dating website.

00:03:27.408 --> 00:03:30.278
And they've come up with some
seriously interesting findings.

00:03:30.278 --> 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,

00:03:40.480 --> 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 --> 00:03:54.124
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 --> 00:04:21.290
that the more attractive you are,
the more messages you get.

00:04:27.737 --> 00:04:29.242
But the question arises then
of what is it about people up here

00:04:29.242 --> 00:04:29.946
who are so much more popular
than people down here,

00:04:29.946 --> 00:04:30.710
even though they have the same
score of attractiveness?

00:04:30.710 --> 00:04:32.699
And the reason why is that it's not just
straight forward looks that are important.

00:04:32.699 --> 00:04:35.477
So let me try to illustrate their
findings with an example.

00:04:35.477 --> 00:04:39.607
So if you take someone like
Portia de Rossi, for example,

00:04:39.607 --> 00:04:44.279
everybody agrees that Portia de Rossi
is a very beautiful woman.

00:04:44.279 --> 00:04:47.940
Nobody thinks that she's ugly,
but she's not a supermodel, either.

00:04:47.940 --> 00:04:52.561
If you compare Portia de Rossi
to someone like Sarah Jessica Parker,

00:04:52.561 --> 00:04:55.846
now, a lot of people,
myself included, I should say,

00:04:55.846 --> 00:05:00.320
think that Sarah Jessica Parker
is seriously fabulous

00:05:00.320 --> 00:05:02.990
and possibly one
of the most beautiful creatures

00:05:02.990 --> 00:05:05.639
to have ever have walked
on the face of the Earth.

00:05:05.639 --> 00:05:11.660
But some other people,
i.e., most of the Internet,

00:05:11.660 --> 00:05:17.838
seem to think that she looks
a bit like a horse. (Laughter)

00:05:17.838 --> 00:05:21.098
Now, I think that if you ask people
how attractive they thought

00:05:21.098 --> 00:05:23.260
Sarah Jessica Parker
or Portia de Rossi were,

00:05:23.260 --> 00:05:26.213
and you ask them to give them
a score between 1 and 5,

00:05:26.213 --> 00:05:29.218
I reckon that they'd average out
to have roughly the same score.

00:05:29.218 --> 00:05:31.979
But the way that people would vote
would be very different.

00:05:31.979 --> 00:05:34.522
So Portia's scores would
all be clustered around the 4

00:05:34.522 --> 00:05:36.982
because everybody agrees
that she's very beautiful,

00:05:36.982 --> 00:05:39.643
whereas Sarah Jessica Parker
completely divides opinion.

00:05:39.643 --> 00:05:42.067
There'd be a huge spread in her scores.

00:05:42.067 --> 00:05:44.389
And actually it's this spread that counts.

00:05:44.389 --> 00:05:46.865
It's this spread
that makes you more popular

00:05:46.865 --> 00:05:49.065
on an online Internet dating website.

00:05:49.065 --> 00:05:50.236
So what that means then

00:05:50.236 --> 00:05:52.735
is that if some people
think that you're attractive,

00:05:52.735 --> 00:05:54.683
you're actually better off

00:05:54.683 --> 00:05:59.935
having some other people think
that you're a massive minger.

00:05:59.935 --> 00:06:02.173
That's much better
than everybody just thinking

00:06:02.173 --> 00:06:03.904
that you're the cute girl next door.

00:06:03.904 --> 00:06:06.153
Now, I think this begins
makes a bit more sense

00:06:06.153 --> 00:06:09.387
when you think in terms of the people
who are sending these messages.

00:06:09.387 --> 00:06:11.738
So let's say that you think
somebody's attractive,

00:06:11.738 --> 00:06:15.992
but you suspect that other people
won't necessarily be that interested.

00:06:15.992 --> 00:06:18.543
That means there's
less competition for you

00:06:18.543 --> 00:06:20.979
and it's an extra incentive
for you to get in touch.

00:06:20.979 --> 00:06:23.803
Whereas compare that to
if you think somebody is attractive

00:06:23.803 --> 00:06:27.060
but you suspect that everybody
is going to think they're attractive.

00:06:27.060 --> 00:06:30.624
Well, why would you bother
humiliating yourself, let's be honest?

00:06:30.628 --> 00:06:32.904
Here's where the really
interesting part comes.

00:06:32.904 --> 00:06:37.378
Because when people choose the pictures
that they use on an online dating website,

00:06:37.378 --> 00:06:39.670
they often try to minimize the things

00:06:39.670 --> 00:06:43.160
that they think some people
will find unattractive.

00:06:43.160 --> 00:06:47.457
The classic example is people who are,
perhaps, a little bit overweight

00:06:47.457 --> 00:06:50.921
deliberately choosing
a very cropped photo,

00:06:50.921 --> 00:06:52.678
or bald men, for example,

00:06:52.678 --> 00:06:55.477
deliberately choosing pictures
where they're wearing hats.

00:06:55.477 --> 00:06:58.142
But actually this is the opposite
of what you should do

00:06:58.142 --> 00:06:59.536
if you want to be successful.

00:06:59.536 --> 00:07:04.347
You should really, instead, play up to
whatever it is that makes you different,

00:07:04.356 --> 00:07:08.300
even if you think that some people
will find it unattractive.

00:07:08.300 --> 00:07:11.544
Because the people who fancy you
are just going to fancy you anyway,

00:07:11.544 --> 00:07:16.485
and the unimportant losers who don't,
well, they only play up to your advantage.

00:07:16.497 --> 00:07:18.897
Okay, Top Tip #2:
How to pick the perfect partner.

00:07:18.897 --> 00:07:21.624
So let's imagine then
that you're a roaring success

00:07:21.624 --> 00:07:23.092
on the dating scene.

00:07:23.092 --> 00:07:27.395
But the question arises of how do you then
convert that success

00:07:27.395 --> 00:07:31.179
into longer-term happiness
and in particular,

00:07:31.186 --> 00:07:35.437
how do you decide
when is the right time to settle down?

00:07:35.437 --> 00:07:38.269
Now generally,
it's not advisable to just cash in

00:07:38.269 --> 00:07:40.292
and marry the first person
who comes along

00:07:40.292 --> 00:07:42.505
and shows you any interest at all.

00:07:42.505 --> 00:07:45.659
But, equally, you don't really
want to leave it too long

00:07:45.659 --> 00:07:48.661
if you want to maximize your chance
of long-term happiness.

00:07:48.661 --> 00:07:51.843
As my favorite author,
Jane Austen, puts it,

00:07:51.843 --> 00:07:54.061
"An unmarried woman of seven and twenty

00:07:54.061 --> 00:07:57.726
can never hope to feel or inspire
affection again."

00:07:57.726 --> 00:07:59.718
(Laughter)

00:07:59.718 --> 00:08:03.272
Thanks a lot, Jane.
What do you know about love?

00:08:03.836 --> 00:08:05.391
So the question is then,

00:08:05.391 --> 00:08:07.996
how do you know when
is the right time to settle down

00:08:07.996 --> 00:08:10.675
given all the people
that you can date in your lifetime?

00:08:10.675 --> 00:08:14.350
Thankfully, there's a rather delicious bit
of mathematics that we can use

00:08:14.350 --> 00:08:16.874
to help us out here, called
optimal stopping theory.

00:08:16.874 --> 00:08:18.774
So let's imagine then,

00:08:18.774 --> 00:08:21.044
that you start dating when you're 15

00:08:21.044 --> 00:08:25.128
and ideally, you'd like to be married
by the time that you're 35.

00:08:25.128 --> 00:08:26.668
And there's a number of people

00:08:26.668 --> 00:08:29.154
that you could potentially
date across your lifetime,

00:08:29.154 --> 00:08:31.308
and they'll be at varying levels
of goodness.

00:08:31.308 --> 00:08:34.198
Now the rules are that once you cash in
and get married,

00:08:34.198 --> 00:08:36.902
you can't look ahead to see
what you could have had,

00:08:36.902 --> 00:08:39.511
and equally, you can't go back
and change your mind.

00:08:39.511 --> 00:08:41.082
In my experience at least,

00:08:41.082 --> 00:08:43.904
I find that typically people don't
much like being recalled

00:08:43.904 --> 00:08:49.320
years after being passed up
for somebody else, or that's just me.

00:08:49.320 --> 00:08:52.527
So the math says then
that what you should do

00:08:52.527 --> 00:08:55.558
in the first 37 percent
of your dating window,

00:08:55.558 --> 00:08:59.999
you should just reject everybody
as serious marriage potential.

00:08:59.999 --> 00:09:01.513
(Laughter)

00:09:01.513 --> 00:09:05.319
And then, you should pick
the next person that comes along

00:09:05.319 --> 00:09:08.154
that is better than everybody
that you've seen before.

00:09:08.154 --> 00:09:09.476
So here's the example.

00:09:09.476 --> 00:09:12.308
Now if you do this, it can be
mathematically proven, in fact,

00:09:12.308 --> 00:09:14.975
that this is the best possible way

00:09:14.975 --> 00:09:19.437
of maximizing your chances
of finding the perfect partner.

00:09:19.437 --> 00:09:23.909
Now unfortunately, I have to tell you that
this method does come with some risks.

00:09:24.382 --> 00:09:29.072
For instance, imagine if your perfect partner

00:09:29.072 --> 00:09:32.226
appeared during your first 37 percent.

00:09:32.226 --> 00:09:34.939
Now, unfortunately,
you'd have to reject them.

00:09:34.939 --> 00:09:37.652
(Laughter)

00:09:37.652 --> 00:09:39.997
Now, if you're following the maths,

00:09:39.997 --> 00:09:41.663
I'm afraid no one else comes along

00:09:41.663 --> 00:09:43.790
that's better than anyone
you've seen before,

00:09:43.790 --> 00:09:48.093
so you have to go on
rejecting everyone and die alone.

00:09:48.093 --> 00:09:49.776
(Laughter)

00:09:50.736 --> 00:09:55.617
Probably surrounded by cats
nibbling at your remains.

00:09:55.617 --> 00:09:59.422
Okay, another risk is,
let's imagine, instead,

00:09:59.422 --> 00:10:02.667
that the first people that you dated
in your first 37 percent

00:10:02.667 --> 00:10:06.507
are just incredibly dull,
boring, terrible people.

00:10:06.507 --> 00:10:09.232
Now, that's okay,
because you're in your rejection phase,

00:10:09.232 --> 00:10:11.073
so thats fine, you can reject them.

00:10:11.073 --> 00:10:14.541
But then imagine, the next person
to come along

00:10:14.541 --> 00:10:18.879
is just marginally less boring,
dull and terrible

00:10:18.879 --> 00:10:20.761
than everybody that you've seen before.

00:10:20.761 --> 00:10:24.963
Now, if you are following the maths,
I'm afraid you have to marry them

00:10:24.963 --> 00:10:28.376
and end up in a relationship
which is, frankly, suboptimal.

00:10:28.376 --> 00:10:29.459
Sorry about that.

00:10:29.459 --> 00:10:31.659
But I do think that there's
an opportunity here

00:10:31.659 --> 00:10:34.809
for Hallmark to cash in on
and really cater for this market.

00:10:34.809 --> 00:10:36.899
A Valentine's Day card like this.
(Laughter)

00:10:36.899 --> 00:10:40.924
"My darling husband,
you are marginally less terrible

00:10:40.924 --> 00:10:43.969
than the first 37 percent
of people I dated."

00:10:43.969 --> 00:10:49.456
It's actually more romantic
than I normally manage.

00:10:49.456 --> 00:10:54.138
Okay, so this method doesn't give you
a 100 percent success rate,

00:10:54.138 --> 00:10:57.441
but there's no other possible
strategy that can do any better.

00:10:57.441 --> 00:11:00.104
And actually, in the wild,
there are certain types

00:11:00.104 --> 00:11:03.817
of fish which follow and
employ this exact strategy.

00:11:03.817 --> 00:11:06.456
So they reject every possible suitor
that turns up

00:11:06.456 --> 00:11:09.413
in the first 37 percent
of the mating season,

00:11:09.413 --> 00:11:12.944
and then they pick the next fish
that comes along after that window

00:11:12.944 --> 00:11:15.000
that's, I don't know, bigger and burlier

00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:17.518
than all of the fish
that they've seen before.

00:11:17.518 --> 00:11:22.196
I also think that subconsciously,
humans, we do sort of do this anyway.

00:11:22.196 --> 00:11:25.613
We give ourselves a little bit of time
to play the field,

00:11:25.613 --> 00:11:29.115
get a feel for the marketplace
or whatever when we're young.

00:11:29.115 --> 00:11:34.023
And then we only start looking seriously
at potential marriage candidates

00:11:34.023 --> 00:11:35.913
once we hit our mid-to-late 20s.

00:11:35.913 --> 00:11:38.716
I think this is conclusive proof,
if ever it were needed,

00:11:38.716 --> 00:11:43.222
that everybody's brains are prewired
to be just a little bit mathematical.

00:11:43.616 --> 00:11:45.477
Okay, so that was Top Tip #2.

00:11:45.477 --> 00:11:48.730
Now, Top Tip #3: How to avoid divorce.

00:11:48.730 --> 00:11:51.868
Okay, so let's imagine then
that you picked your perfect partner

00:11:51.868 --> 00:11:56.645
and you're settling into
a lifelong relationship with them.

00:11:56.645 --> 00:12:00.719
Now, I like to think that everybody
would ideally like to avoid divorce,

00:12:00.719 --> 00:12:05.085
apart from, I don't know,
Piers Morgan's wife, maybe?

00:12:06.185 --> 00:12:08.475
But it's a sad fact of modern life

00:12:08.475 --> 00:12:12.284
that 1 in 2 marriages
in the States ends in divorce,

00:12:12.284 --> 00:12:15.585
with the rest of the world
not being far behind.

00:12:15.585 --> 00:12:17.684
Now, you can be forgiven, perhaps

00:12:17.684 --> 00:12:21.344
for thinking that the arguments
that precede a marital breakup

00:12:21.344 --> 00:12:24.877
are not an ideal candidate
for mathematical investigation.

00:12:24.877 --> 00:12:26.777
For one thing, it's very hard to know

00:12:26.777 --> 00:12:29.834
what you should be measuring
or what you should be quantifying.

00:12:29.834 --> 00:12:36.407
But this didn't stop a psychologist,
John Gottman, who did exactly that.

00:12:36.407 --> 00:12:41.602
Gottman observed hundreds of couples
having a conversation

00:12:41.602 --> 00:12:44.064
and recorded, well,
everything you can think of.

00:12:44.064 --> 00:12:46.551
So he recorded what was said
in the conversation,

00:12:46.551 --> 00:12:48.614
he recorded their skin conductivity,

00:12:48.614 --> 00:12:50.534
he recorded their facial expressions,

00:12:50.534 --> 00:12:52.874
their heart rates, their blood pressure,

00:12:52.874 --> 00:12:59.324
basically everything apart from whether
or not the wife was actually always right,

00:12:59.324 --> 00:13:02.348
which incidentally she totally is.

00:13:02.348 --> 00:13:05.268
But what Gottman and his team found

00:13:05.268 --> 00:13:07.772
was that one of the most important
predictors

00:13:07.772 --> 00:13:09.922
for whether or not a couple
is going to get divorced

00:13:09.922 --> 00:13:15.022
was how positive or negative each partner
was being in the conversation.

00:13:15.022 --> 00:13:17.634
Now, couples that were very low-risk

00:13:17.634 --> 00:13:21.861
scored a lot more positive points
on Gottman's scale than negative.

00:13:21.861 --> 00:13:24.001
Whereas bad relationships,

00:13:24.001 --> 00:13:26.793
by which I mean, probably
going to get divorced,

00:13:26.793 --> 00:13:31.405
they found themselves
getting into a spiral of negativity.

00:13:31.405 --> 00:13:33.758
Now just by using these very simple ideas,

00:13:33.758 --> 00:13:36.260
Gottman and his group were able to predict

00:13:36.260 --> 00:13:39.103
whether a given couple
was going to get divorced

00:13:39.103 --> 00:13:41.758
with a 90 percent accuracy.

00:13:41.758 --> 00:13:45.152
But it wasn't until he teamed up
with a mathematician, James Murray,

00:13:45.152 --> 00:13:47.291
that they really started to understand

00:13:47.291 --> 00:13:51.601
what causes these negativity spirals
and how they occur.

00:13:51.601 --> 00:13:53.308
And the results that they found

00:13:53.308 --> 00:13:57.667
I think are just incredibly
impressively simple and interesting.

00:13:57.667 --> 00:14:02.005
So these equations, they predict how
the wife or husband is going to respond

00:14:02.005 --> 00:14:03.971
in their next turn of the conversation,

00:14:03.971 --> 00:14:06.099
how positive or negative
they're going to be.

00:14:06.099 --> 00:14:07.896
And these equations, they depend on

00:14:07.896 --> 00:14:10.242
the mood of the person
when they're on their own,

00:14:10.242 --> 00:14:12.856
the mood of the person when
they're with their partner,

00:14:12.856 --> 00:14:14.845
but most importantly, they depend on

00:14:14.845 --> 00:14:17.824
how much the husband and wife
influence one another.

00:14:17.824 --> 00:14:20.532
Now, I think it's important
to point out at this stage,

00:14:20.532 --> 00:14:23.852
that these exact equations
have also been shown

00:14:23.852 --> 00:14:26.498
to be perfectly able at describing

00:14:26.498 --> 00:14:30.256
what happens between two countries
in an arms race.

00:14:30.256 --> 00:14:32.394
(Laughter)

00:14:34.194 --> 00:14:37.905
So that - an arguing couple
spiraling into negativity

00:14:37.905 --> 00:14:39.819
and teetering on the brink of divorce -

00:14:39.819 --> 00:14:44.107
is actually mathematically equivalent
to the beginning of a nuclear war.

00:14:44.107 --> 00:14:46.606
(Laughter)

00:14:46.606 --> 00:14:49.159
But the really important term
in this equation

00:14:49.159 --> 00:14:51.877
is the influence that people
have on one another,

00:14:51.877 --> 00:14:54.900
and in particular, something called
the negativity threshold.

00:14:54.900 --> 00:14:56.579
Now, the negativity threshold,

00:14:56.579 --> 00:15:01.072
you can think of as
how annoying the husband can be

00:15:01.072 --> 00:15:05.254
before the wife starts to get
really pissed off, and vice versa.

00:15:05.254 --> 00:15:10.408
Now, I always thought that good marriages
were about compromise and understanding

00:15:10.408 --> 00:15:13.261
and allowing the person
to have the space to be themselves.

00:15:13.261 --> 00:15:16.558
So I would have thought that perhaps
the most successful relationships

00:15:16.558 --> 00:15:20.024
were ones where there was
a really high negativity threshold.

00:15:20.024 --> 00:15:21.692
Where couples let things go

00:15:21.692 --> 00:15:24.487
and only brought things up
if they really were a big deal.

00:15:24.487 --> 00:15:28.023
But actually, the mathematics
and subsequent findings by the team

00:15:28.023 --> 00:15:31.318
have shown the exact opposite is true.

00:15:31.318 --> 00:15:33.707
The best couples,
or the most successful couples,

00:15:33.707 --> 00:15:37.519
are the ones with
a really low negativity threshold.

00:15:37.519 --> 00:15:41.378
These are the couples that don't let
anything go unnoticed

00:15:41.378 --> 00:15:44.399
and allow each other
some room to complain.

00:15:44.399 --> 00:15:49.733
These are the couples that are continually
trying to repair their own relationship,

00:15:49.733 --> 00:15:52.418
that have a much more positive
outlook on their marriage.

00:15:52.418 --> 00:15:54.516
Couples that don't let things go

00:15:54.516 --> 00:16:00.426
and couples that don't let trivial things
end up being a really big deal.

00:16:00.426 --> 00:16:06.023
Now of course, it takes bit more
than just a low negativity threshold

00:16:06.023 --> 00:16:10.162
and not compromising to have
a successful relationship.

00:16:10.162 --> 00:16:12.650
But I think that it's quite interesting

00:16:12.650 --> 00:16:15.053
to know that there is really
mathematical evidence

00:16:15.053 --> 00:16:18.480
to say that you should never
let the sun go down on your anger.

00:16:18.480 --> 00:16:20.188
So those are my top three tips

00:16:20.188 --> 00:16:23.383
of how maths can help you
with love and relationships.

00:16:23.383 --> 00:16:25.826
But I hope
that aside from their use as tips,

00:16:25.826 --> 00:16:29.928
they also give you a little bit of insight
into the power of mathematics.

00:16:29.928 --> 00:16:34.293
Because for me, equations and symbols
aren't just a thing.

00:16:34.293 --> 00:16:39.119
They're a voice that speaks out
about the incredible richness of nature

00:16:39.119 --> 00:16:40.929
and the startling simplicity

00:16:40.929 --> 00:16:45.384
in the patterns that twist and turn
and warp and evolve all around us,

00:16:45.384 --> 00:16:48.187
from how the world works to how we behave.

00:16:48.187 --> 00:16:50.485
So I hope that perhaps,
for just a couple of you,

00:16:50.485 --> 00:16:52.926
a little bit of insight into
the mathematics of love

00:16:52.926 --> 00:16:56.134
can persuade you to have a little bit
more love for mathematics.

00:16:56.134 --> 00:16:57.521
Thank you.

00:16:57.521 --> 00:16:59.815
(Applause)