How To Find "The One": The Science Of Dating With Tim Molnar | The Happiness Lab Podcast

Dating the Popular
4 followers
AI Generated·May contain errors
Video Summary
AI GeneratedBehavioral scientist Tim Molnar applies scientific frameworks to modern dating, treating it as a data-driven process. He emphasizes reclaiming agency, managing the fear of rejection through statistics, and utilizing exposure therapy to build resilience. By shifting focus from outcomes to effort and prioritizing real-life interactions over addictive app patterns, individuals can increase their probability of finding a partner.
Pushkin.
Admit it.
At some point, you probably fantasized about meeting somebody that you really clicked with.
And in that fantasy, things are really great.
You're into them.
They're into you.
You get a little jolt of joy every time you see a text from their number.
Over time, you start to think,
Huh, I might love this person.
Or even, this is the human I'm going to spend the rest of my life with.
But of course, there are some steps you need to go through before it gets to that point.
Before that happens, I'm going to have to have a relationship at all.
And before that's going to happen, I'm going to have to go on a date.
And before that's going to happen, I am going to have to get a date.
This is Tim Molnar, a social scientist turned dating coach in Boulder, Colorado.
Before Tim became an expert on the science of dating,
he was pretty much the opposite.
I had, I think, up until the age of 28, 29, never asked someone out.
My initial approach to love was very much based on this idea
that love will happen when it happens.
I just wasn't very proactive.
I was spending a lot of time pursuing self-actualization.
And so trying to make sure that I was getting into the right grad schools.
And I was playing soccer over in Europe for a while, learning new languages,
doing all these things that I thought would make me a more interesting partner.
And I realized that really wasn't moving the needle forward.
So Tim decided to look for love in an unlikely place, the world of behavioral science.
I was in a grad program at the time, and I was digging into
all this different academic research, these social psychological frameworks.
And I thought there must be a way to be able to use these to help myself in dating.
And I think there's this commonly used expression in academia that
our research is often me-search.
And so I figured that we could use these studies to help me date smarter.
And Tim ultimately succeeded in his quest.
I met my partner, Paige, at a coffee shop about six years ago at this point.
Tim now wants to share all that he's learned.
In fact, he has a new book called Date Smarter,
A Strategic Guide to Navigating Modern Romance.
In the book, Tim breaks down what the leading research says about finding your life partner.
He also gives some practical tips for navigating the messy
and often intimidating landscape of modern dating.
So stay tuned, Happiness Lab listeners,
because in this second episode in our series on the science of love,
Tim and I will explore strategies for meeting someone in real life,
the ins and outs of online dating, and how to know when you've found the one.
That's all coming up after these quick messages from the Happiness Lab sponsors.
Behavioral scientist and dating coach Tim Molnar wasn't always an expert on finding love.
And that's why he decided to take a scientific approach to the challenges of modern dating.
I wanted to figure out, is there a way that I can
reverse engineer this process?
Not to guarantee that I'm going to meet this person,
but at least to reclaim agency and take actions
that are going to improve the probability of that happening.
So what was the approach you took to reverse engineering it?
What did you look to?
I tried to understand at each point in this process,
are there certain numbers, are there certain heuristics
that can be helpful for guiding this?
So for example, there's this great study out of the University of Copenhagen,
where the researchers had sent about 360 undergrads into the field.
And what they found was that on average,
men were getting a yes when asking women out about one out of five times.
And so I use this 20% success rate.
And that was sort of my guiding path, like, okay, cool.
So if I go out and shoot my shot and this doesn't work,
it's actually to be expected.
And I can use this rejection as data points
to learn maybe what I might do better next time.
If we think about our happiness as sort of our expectations minus reality,
if I'm expecting to not get a date four out of five times,
it builds in a lot more resilience for me.
I love this idea of using the actual statistics to build in the resilience.
But if you're a guy looking to ask a woman out,
80% of the time you're going to get rejected.
I'm guessing some people hear that stat and they're like,
that's terrible.
Like, I don't want to deal with that.
How did you cope with the emotionality
that comes with a number that might feel intimidating like that?
I think you're right.
That hearing that there is a higher probability of a failure than success
is not always the most encouraging message.
But I think the important reframe is a lot of our anxiety comes from uncertainty.
And of course, there's always going to be uncertainty in dating.
We can never avoid that.
And I know you had Maya Shankar on the podcast a number of episodes back,
and she was referencing the study where we are more stressed
when we have a 50% chance of receiving an electric shock
as opposed to 100% chance.
And knowing these statistics, we still don't have that certainty,
but there is comfort in knowing that we will strike out.
And so when that happens,
we can put certain pieces into place to make ourselves more resilient.
For example, we might say, here's someone who I'd love to go talk to.
If this doesn't work out, I'm going to go on a run after this.
I'm going to go take a warm bath.
I'm going to listen to this music that always makes me feel better.
And we have these things in place ahead of time.
And having that plan can reduce some of the anxiety
that comes with putting ourselves out there.
So it seems like it works in at least two ways, right?
One is it just normalizes it.
It's like, it's 80%.
Probably this is not going to work.
I shouldn't freak out when I hear it.
But the second thing I hear you say, which is really important,
is if it's really an 80% shot that I'm going to get dinged,
I got to have some strategies in place
for when that inevitable role probabilistically comes up,
like, oh, I'm going to get turned down.
I got to call a friend.
I have to have some happy music.
You build in the resilience as you're going to kind of do better.
Another thing I know you've talked about
is the idea of having these statistics
can shift our focus from outcome to effort.
What do you mean there?
And why can that be so powerful?
The idea of focusing on what's in our control
really does improve how we approach dating overall.
When we feel like we have some agency
over what's transpiring, agency over our actions,
this does provide us a good bit of comfort.
And so there are a lot of different ways
that we can think about this happening,
but it might be I spend a lot of time working from home
and what's in my control
is not necessarily when I meet my partner,
but I do have control over deciding
I can work from a coffee shop.
And when I go there,
I can choose to sit at the community table.
I can choose to either do my yoga workout at home
or I can go to class on Tuesday and Thursday.
And these are little decision points in our lives
where reclaiming little bits of control
can provide us a comfort that comes along with that.
It's like, well, I'm not immediately
going to get my life partner,
but at least I'm taking action.
You're kind of always working towards something.
You're putting yourself out there.
Just that effort can feel really good.
One of the frameworks I talk about in the book
is this idea of the date number
and putting some type of numerical value
alongside whatever action
is serving as some type of choke point in our dating life.
And it should be something that feels like
a bit of a stretch.
And so maybe that looks like each month,
I'm going to try and shoot for four social events,
something that is maybe mildly uncomfortable,
but really thinking about where am I getting stuck?
Do I go on a bunch of first dates
and I'm very quick to write people off
because of this grass is greener
on the next date phenomenon?
And if so, can I change and set my date number around?
This year, I really want to go on 12 second dates
and just giving people another shot.
So this idea of a date number
is just like figuring out a number
for the hard thing that you want to do.
And it sounded like at first,
your hard thing was really asking people out,
knowing that your statistic
was that you're going to get turned down 80% of the time.
Did you come up with a specific date number
for the number of people you're going to ask out
when you first started this?
I did.
And I'd like to-
What was it?
We want the math in the happiness lab, right?
So I had set one at 300.
300, whoa.
This was overly conservative.
And my date number was 300 asks.
But in terms of the number of dates
that I had budgeted to go on,
that would have been 60 dates, 20% success rate.
I was building in this big buffer
for saying when I go out and try
and it doesn't work out, I shouldn't be surprised.
And so I think coming in with that understanding
really helped me say like, great, okay, only 299 more.
This one didn't work out, only 298 more.
Which is so surprising
because in some ways that seems like a really big number.
But one of the things we of course know from the research
is that these finite numbers are calming.
300 is a big number, 299 is a big number,
but it's not infinite.
And that alone can reduce our anxiety a little bit,
which is kind of cool.
The other thing is that these larger date numbers
are good from a psychological perspective
because they do something else
that we might need in the dating domain,
which is that we're getting exposure to the thing
that we find really tough.
One of the things I loved about your book
is that you compared this idea
of doing the hard thing in dating
with the kind of exposure therapy
that we see in clinical practice
when somebody is trying to get over a phobia.
So you're afraid of spiders.
You have to expose yourself to the spider.
You're afraid of heights.
You've got to expose yourself to the heights.
If we're afraid of the asking out,
we've got to expose ourselves to the asking out
so it becomes kind of real and we get used to it.
I think that's right.
We can think about having a fear of heights
and starting at the second floor and saying,
this feels a bit out of my comfort zone.
And then the next week going up to floor three,
floor five and floor 10
and building our way up gradually.
In dating, there's a very similar parallel to be drawn
where it was really difficult for me
to approach the first person that I did.
It was really difficult to approach the last person.
That is always a hard thing.
But in doing this over and over and over again,
there is a comfort that we begin to develop,
begin to reckon with this idea of this fear of rejection.
Like, gosh, I shot my shot and this didn't work out
and I live to tell the tale.
And one other thing that I would say
about the exposure therapy piece
is this was something that came out of a therapy practice
that I was in and my therapist was trying to help me
get to the bottom of,
why is this idea of being single so scary?
And I would immediately spiral into these,
oh, it's 20 years into the future
and I'm sitting at this choir concert
for my sister's nine-year-old
and everyone's coupled and has children
and I'm the butt of the joke.
Oh, you know, Tim's just single again
and brought up these really uncomfortable feelings for me.
And so she's like, you know,
just write that on a post-it note
and put it in a really conspicuous place in your house.
And so I was living with roommates at the time.
So I was like, well,
a refrigerator is probably not the best place
for like my deepest, darkest insecurities,
but I can put this on my bedside table
and still see it a good bit.
And over time, I'd see this very hyper-specific example
of like why I thought this was going to be
such a scary experience of saying hi to someone
in the aisles at Trader Joe's.
And actually it was like, no,
this is kind of a bit of a jump here to say,
if this doesn't go well,
then I'm going to be at that choir concert
20 years in the future all alone.
It's so cool because the exposure really gets you
to set these realistic expectations.
Again, this is something we know
from these clinical therapeutic practices,
like, oh, the spider's not as bad
or the height's not as bad.
You're basically teaching yourself
that these practices and dating that cause anxiety,
they're actually not that bad.
But the second thing this big date number gives you
is that you're also setting these big goals
into something a little bit tinier,
which we know from all the research on goal setting
can be so important,
whereas you need 300 for a life partner,
but you might just need 60 for a first date
or something like that.
Absolutely.
So one of the things that a framework like this
allows you to have is when we develop a plan,
it's going to be more effective
the more specific we're able to be.
So I talk about this idea of implementation intentions
in the book,
where we're assigning a specific time, place,
and behavior to an action that we want to take.
So for example, going back to this idea
of going out to four social events in a month,
we might get hyper-specific and say,
on Tuesday at 7 p.m.,
I'm going to go to trivia night
over at this specific bar.
And putting that onto our calendar
does a couple things.
One, we have to opt out of a plan
that has already been made,
which we know from the research
makes much more effective follow through.
We see that in everything from donating organs
to things like automatic retirement savings.
And so that is very powerful in and of itself.
Having on the calendar,
something else that allows us to do
is then implement other accountability mechanisms.
So I talk about getting something I call a date mate,
basically just your accountability buddy.
And I think anybody who's tried to have
like an early morning,
I'm going to go to the gym.
It's a lot easier to make that 6 a.m. workout happen
if you're meeting someone there.
I might just bail on myself.
I'm probably not going to bail on my friend.
So with the date mate,
this could be someone that we check in with once a week
and they know you were planning to try
and go out to that trivia night this week.
Did you end up making that happen?
It's not meant to cause any shame if it didn't happen.
But the idea is that
when we're accountable to somebody else,
we're more likely to take those actions
that improve our probability for success here.
It's so interesting because I think
when you first hear this idea of a date mate,
you might assume this is more like a wingman.
Like that's the person who's supposed to go with you
to trivia night and kind of talk to the person for you.
But what you mean more is like
the person you're checking in with
to make sure that you're following through
on the plans that you decided for yourself.
It's funny that you bring that up
about heading out to an event with someone else.
I was running a dating workshop over the weekend
and someone had raised their hand.
They're like, hey, you know,
I struggled to get out of the house
and it's easier if I go with a friend.
Is it possible that people will still come say hi to me
if I'm with someone else?
One of the guys just jumps in.
He's like, I would never feel comfortable approaching someone.
And I was looking back on my own dating life
and just sort of reflecting on this question,
thinking that I'd probably approached
somewhere in the ballpark of 70, 80 people
over multiple years, time horizon.
And one of those times I had approached someone
who was with someone else,
which is not to say that it's an impossibility,
but it does make it more difficult.
And certainly if it helps you get out of the house,
it's great to like have that person,
but then just realize-
But then ditch them, go sit somewhere else.
Exactly.
Okay, so hopefully listeners who are interested
in finding their partner are hearing this and saying,
oh, date number, it fits with the behavioral science.
If someone's thinking that,
what's their first step to determining their own date number?
What advice do you have?
Getting clear on where we're getting stuck.
And this can be something that's difficult to do
because by definition, when we have a blind spot,
it is something that we don't see.
So it could be, we might text a few people who know us well,
ask a therapist, ask family members,
someone who will give us an honest opinion.
Hey, why do you think I'm single?
What do you think's really holding me back right now?
It's a tough question to ask, it's vulnerable,
but there can be a lot of power in getting that feedback.
And then if they're saying you're swiping
and swiping and swiping, you're messaging,
you're rarely meeting up and it makes sense
that you're among the 78% of online daters
who report experiencing burnout.
And then if that's the case,
then we can take tangible actions for saying like,
okay, maybe I want to try more of an in real life approach.
What does that look like?
So the first step is, yeah, like you said,
really getting clear on what you're doing
and then coming up with some type of number
around that goal that feels like it's going to push you
without leading to burnout here.
So now that you've got a plan
to step out of your comfort zone,
the next question is,
where do you actually meet people
with real relationship potential?
On dating apps and bars,
in the checkout line at Dunkin' Donuts?
And what actually makes a first date good?
We'll tackle all that and more
when the Happiness Lab returns from this quick break.
Dating coach and behavioral scientist Tim Molnar
is on a mission to make the process
of finding love in the modern world a bit easier.
And one of his more controversial suggestions
is that we're better off looking for love in real life,
not online.
In fact, Tim has argued
there are lots of psychological reasons
that dating apps tend to lead us astray.
Our brains are not designed to be able to make sense
of lots and lots of options.
So we know this from work from folks like Barry Schwartz
that this idea of paradox of choice
is we get overloaded
and we're not able to make those value aligned decisions.
So you can think about going out to the Cheesecake Factory
and you have like 225 options on the menu
and you're like, I don't know,
should I get like the Cajun jambalaya pasta
or, you know, this other whatever.
And it's much easier for us
when we go to a nice restaurant,
we have six to eight choices
and we're like, great.
When we enter the online dating world
and we have limitless options
or this perception of limitless options,
we experience a sense of overwhelm.
And I remember being on a date
probably at seven or eight years back at this point.
And we were 30 minutes into dinner
and things were going really well.
And I was kind of teasing her like,
gosh, like why did it take so long for us to meet up?
This has been great.
And I remember she pulled out her app
and she went to the section
where it had active messages
and just said 999 plus.
So she'd received over a thousand messages from people.
And so it didn't matter like,
oh man, was that the right thing to text?
Maybe that wasn't funny enough.
Maybe it wasn't unique enough.
No, this is just a choice overload problem.
Voter choice is great research on this
where we see when we have a ballot
that has lots and lots of options,
it's very difficult for us to actually make choices
that are aligned with the political values that we hold.
And when that gets down into six to eight range,
that's a pretty comfortable decision-making range.
And so what some of the apps,
Hinge is a good example,
have started to do is they'll say,
if you have more than X ongoing conversations,
we're not going to allow you to continue to swipe
because we know that's not productive
for what we're trying to do here.
So it seems like some of the apps try to help,
but then sometimes apps have features
that we use to try to narrow down the playing field,
and then that messes us up.
I mean, one thing we talk about a lot in the happiness lab
is we have no idea about the kinds of things
that will make us happy.
And I think that that's definitely true
in the dating domain.
We just have all these predictions
about the kinds of things we want in a partner,
but we're often wrong.
And one of the things I'm struck by
is that in your book,
you talked about how you and your wife
were on that same dating app at the same time,
but you didn't ever see each other
because you had filters on that filtered each other out,
which I found so striking.
I love this story.
I think it's a perfect example.
I was two years outside of Paige's age filter,
and we were talking a number of months into dating.
We're like, gosh, oh,
so you were on like Hinge and Bumble as well.
You know, we were living a mile apart.
I wonder when we would have come across each other.
And we were going through all the filters that we had set.
I'm like, we wouldn't have.
Not online anyway.
And it is, like you said,
it's something where we have this false sense
of I have control over this.
I can filter for someone who's over six feet tall.
I can filter for someone who is this religion.
I can filter for someone
who has these drug and alcohol preferences.
And yet the whole time we're filling in the blanks
of the story of who we think
we're going to be meeting up with.
This person says that they're religious.
Are they going to be the person
who's in the front pew every Sunday?
Or is this someone who maybe they celebrate Christmas
and they go once a year
and like that's what being religious means to them.
And so we're creating these ideas
that often turn out not to be true.
And the filters can be highly destructive
for finding out what we actually want
and recognizing some of those qualities.
There's not a filter to turn on to say,
how kind am I?
How loyal am I?
What's my level of trustworthiness?
And I think that they really do steer us wrong
in that department.
So the apps are steering us wrong.
We should commit to meeting people in real life.
But where should we think about going
to meet a new partner in person?
I would start by saying that I don't think
we should ever head out to places
just for the idea of,
I'm going to meet someone here
who's going to be my future romantic partner.
It puts far too much pressure on the situation
and it creates strong likelihood
that we're going to be disappointed.
Instead, I think there's this matrix of,
is this something that I'm genuinely going to enjoy?
If I head out to that Saturday morning
trail maintenance crew,
I'm probably going to get some fresh air.
I'm probably going to meet some people
who are kind and generous
and who volunteer their time.
Maybe I happen to meet someone who's a good friend.
Maybe I happen to meet someone
who ends up being a future matchmaker.
Maybe I meet someone who ends up being my life partner.
But it is really important to focus
on those types of places
that we're genuinely looking to have a good time at.
And I think there's also this idea of,
what's the likelihood
that I'm going to have a conversation?
If I go to a concert,
there are a lot of people there,
but there's not a super high probability
that I'm going to be having a conversation.
If I go to a book club,
by definition,
there's a curated group of people
who are designed to be talking
and interacting with one another.
And so being thoughtful about,
am I going to have a good time here?
Is there a high likelihood
that there are going to be different people here?
And will I likely interact with them?
Those are good filters, as it were,
to be able to begin thinking about
where we might head out to meet people in real life.
Okay, so we're at the spot
that we're going to have a good time.
We can have a conversation.
There's somebody we might be interested in talking to.
What's the next step?
Do we go with a goofy pickup line?
How does it work?
There are a number of different approaches.
One of my favorite
is called the foot in the door approach.
And it comes from the old business adage
where if we wanted to sell something,
if we could get like a literal
or figurative foot in the door,
we've crossed over this threshold
and now we're more likely to close a sale.
And so in the dating context,
there's research on this idea
of if we first open with a small favor,
something like,
hey, I'm looking for directions,
or like, can I have a light for my cigarette?
When people open with a small favor first
before going into,
and I'd love to grab a coffee sometime,
they're five times more likely to get a yes.
And so that can look like a lot of different things
in real life.
Going back to the coffee shop example,
you're sitting at the community table,
you need to go to the bathroom
and you turn to the person next to you
and just say,
hey, do you mind watching my stuff
while I go to the bathroom?
It's a pretty low stakes thing to say.
And then we come back like,
hey, thanks so much.
You working on anything fun today?
But now that I've had that initial conversation,
that initial touch point,
it's much more likely that if I later say like,
you just had like a really good smile
and good energy about you
and be really fun to go for a walk,
would you be up for that sometime?
Our probability is much higher.
When you're talking about this,
this sounds so easy,
but when I talk to the young people I work with,
like my Yale students,
they would describe an act like that
as incredibly anxiety provoking.
And I think that it's true.
These days we just have more friction
for these quick conversations with people,
in part because we're on our phones all the time.
And that means when we're first starting out,
we do kind of experience a little anxiety
when we're trying to do this.
So any tips for regulating the anxiety
when you're doing these light icebreakers?
Yes. I don't want to talk about these things
as if it's easy.
It was never easy for me,
speaking from personal experience.
It did get easier
and understanding some of the research,
Nick Epley does a lot of great research on this
at University of Chicago.
And the upshot of a lot of his findings
are people enjoy being talked to
a lot more than we think,
a lot more than they think.
And we enjoy those conversations a lot more as well.
So for me as an academic,
that's something that did give me
a good degree of comfort,
but also just creating some of these
opportunity response mechanisms.
A good example, I met my partner Paige
at a coffee shop
and I really wanted an excuse
to come up and talk to her.
And I went over and I said like,
hey, do you mind if I plug in my laptop here?
That didn't feel like a crazy thing to say.
It was still hard.
There was still like a level of anxiety,
but understanding the social context
that this is a normal thing to do
within a coffee shop.
I would often do this
whether or not I was interested in someone
like my battery is running low.
I need an outlet.
You're buying an outlet.
This is a convenient option.
So one thing I think is
just having a rough idea of like,
here's something I might say.
And then if this doesn't go
the way that I hoped,
what can I do to elegantly,
gracefully extract myself from the situation?
You know, hey, no worries.
Hope you have a great rest of your day.
And just understanding that like,
I can get myself out of this situation
in a way that leaves them feeling respected
and leaves me with my dignity intact as well.
And then having those lists of things
that make you feel better at the ready,
like get on the phone with my friend right now.
You also are big on making sure
that you can be the one
that receives conversation from someone else,
that you're doing something
that allows you to seem a little bit more approachable.
What sort of behavior does that entail?
There are different ways to do this.
Some of my favorites
are giving people something easy to comment on.
And so one way we might think about doing that
is putting certain stickers on back of a laptop,
on the back of a water bottle,
and someone can come up
and see your Bryce Canyon sticker
and be like, oh my gosh,
you've been to Bryce Canyon?
Another thing could be, you know,
something that you're wearing.
Maybe you're a big Patriots fan
and you have your Patriots shirt on
or your Patriots mug or whatever it might be.
It's an easy conversation piece
for people to make a quick comment on the game,
to make a quick comment on their favorite players.
And so if we're not as comfortable
approaching other people,
which I think is very, very common today,
we can make it slightly easier
for other people to approach us.
And part of that is being ready
and willing to receive that.
Like if I have noise canceling headphones,
people are much less likely to approach me
than if I'm just sitting,
glancing up every once in a while,
sitting at a community table.
Context helps drive that approachability piece.
So far, we've heard Tim's suggestions
for meeting people in real life.
But what if you're still attached
to those online dating apps?
Are there actually effective ways to use them?
And how do you know when it's time
to stop swiping and commit?
We'll get into Tim's tips for online dating
when the Happiness Lab returns from the break.
Social scientist turned dating coach Tim Molnar
is a big advocate for meeting people in real life.
But he also knows that dating apps
can help you find your person
if you use them wisely.
So I asked Tim to share his best practices,
starting with what the science says
about choosing your profile picture.
It's really helpful when we're going through
setting up a profile
to put yourself in the place of someone
who's going through this on the other end.
And to understand,
I might not make it past the first picture
if this doesn't seem like it's something
that's interesting to me.
So some of those things
with respect to choosing best pictures,
candid pictures perform very well.
So these receive about 15% more likes.
We also know that beach shots
aren't performing very well.
So women who have beach photos
get 47% fewer likes on these.
Men get 80% fewer likes.
That seems weird
because I think my stereotype
is like showing off your body is a good thing,
but people seem not to like that.
That's incredible.
Yeah, it's an interesting one.
Another one that for me was surprising
when I was digging into this research
was that black and white photos
actually perform very well.
They perform better than color photos in general.
They're about twice as likely
to get a positive swipe.
This may be less surprising as smiling,
having that like open posture,
not being with someone
who could be perceived as a significant other.
And this might seem like an obvious one.
You're like, oh, well, like,
I know this is my sister.
Clearly they're going to know this is my sister too.
It's like, we probably wouldn't know that,
you know, going back to that,
putting yourself in their shoes piece.
What about selfies?
How do those do?
Selfies do not do well,
particularly mirror-based selfies.
And so if you are able to have a friend
do a quick photo shoot,
this is one of those very high leverage moments
with respect to online dating.
Talk in the book about this idea
of the Pareto principle,
this 80-20 rule,
where 20% of our actions
often get 80% of the results.
And then the other 80% of our actions
are aimed at the remaining 20% there.
So in dating,
this can look like asking a friend
for a quick photo shoot.
It can also look like sending a text message
out to some friends and saying,
hey, I'm getting pretty serious
about dating right now.
If you happen to meet anyone
or know anyone who you might set me up with,
please feel free to let me know.
These are things that don't take a lot of time
but can be very high leverage,
as opposed to the typical way
that a lot of people interact with online dating,
which people on average spend 51 minutes a day
on dating apps,
so that's 25 hours in a month.
But there's not a lot of time spent
actually meeting up for dates.
And so I'm very interested
in those things that we can do
to spend a lot less time,
a lot less frustration,
and spend more time on dates,
meeting up with people,
hopefully having a good time
getting to know someone.
Okay, so that's the picture
that we put in our profile,
but they also have some text.
What does the research say?
We'll start with proofreading.
Proofreading is something
that is often overlooked.
And this is something
that turns off a lot of people.
About 50% of people
will disqualify a profile
if there is even a simple typo in it.
So just do one last pass over it
to make sure that you don't
have any typos in it.
Being able to respond to something
in a way that allows people to comment.
So for example, we might say,
ask me about the time
I superglued my hand to the wall
or had to go down the emergency slide
on an Air India flight.
These are all things
that can help us make ourselves
more approachable.
Honesty is always something
that is paramount here.
And also being positive.
I think that we want to be able
to tell people all the things
that we don't want.
And we're like, you know,
I wouldn't date someone
of this political affiliation.
I wouldn't ever do this.
And there are a lot of ways
that we can signal these same things,
but in a way that exudes more positivity.
So we might say like,
looking for someone open-minded.
And that may touch
on certain political beliefs
without having to say,
you know, like,
this is what I'm not looking for.
Or instead of like,
no workaholics,
I'm seeking someone
who values quality time
and work-life balance.
If you like animals,
you could say,
if you don't like animals, swipe left.
The other reframe is like,
looking for a fellow animal lover here.
So that's what we put in a profile.
But then if our profile works,
we have this moment
that can feel really nerve-wracking,
which is that we have to send
the first message.
What does a good first message look like?
A great first message is something
that first of all,
asks an open-ended question,
something that someone
is able to respond to.
When we're thinking
about these messages,
we want to invest
a little bit of time
looking through their profile,
making a thoughtful comment
on something that they
have said about themselves.
And at the same time,
we don't want to obsess.
You know, we're not penning
the great American novel here.
This is just an opportunity
to reach out
and to maybe start a spark
that leads somewhere.
One important thing
when we're thinking
about online messaging
is the amount of time
we're spending back and forth
before we're actually
getting to a date.
It can feel very tempting
to want to understand
everything about this person
before understanding
if it's a good idea
to meet up or not.
And there are certain
safety considerations for sure.
At the same time,
research from Hinge suggests
that there's a sweet spot
between about two to five days
where people are
comfortable meeting up.
So on average,
people think that's
a good amount of time.
That's not going to be for everyone.
But it is helpful to keep in mind
that we don't need
to have these digital pen pals.
And instead,
we can say like,
hey, this has been really fun.
I've enjoyed our banter.
I think we might even
do a better job in person.
What are your thoughts
on going for a walk
Friday at 6 p.m.
over on the High Line?
And I love that particular example
because that gets
to another thing you suggest,
which is that when you're asking
for the in-real-life moment,
you got to be
very specific, concrete.
Let's meet up at the High Line
at 7 p.m.
and do this thing.
We're going to take a walk
rather than like,
hey, let's just meet up.
That seems to work better too, huh?
It's so much easier
to know what we're signing up for
when we say the time,
place, behavior invitation
versus the,
hey, are you around this weekend?
I don't know what I'm signing up for.
The High Line at 7 p.m.,
there's a specificity
that allows us to understand
what we're getting ourselves into.
And so a problem
with meeting up in real life
is that we're all really busy.
You had this lovely solution,
which you called
turtlenecking your dating life.
What is that?
In the dating world,
where people are experiencing
record high burnout rates,
being able to cut down on the effort,
the overwhelm,
the choice overload
is really helpful.
And so being able to automate certain things
makes our life a lot easier.
Steve Jobs was iconically
someone who wore
pretty much the same outfit
for a good portion of his career.
And so one of the things
that I suggest
is using that same
black turtleneck analogy
from Steve Jobs
is like picking out
a first date outfit.
What is your dating uniform going to be?
For me, I had this Henley
that I love
with these particular pair of pants.
And I was like,
I don't need to obsess
over what I'm going to wear
on this date.
I know that if I go on a date,
this is what I'm pulling out of my closet.
And it made this a lot easier.
One fewer thing
that I needed to obsess over.
You've done this too
for even what the date is.
I think you want to kind of
make it authentic
to the person you're talking to,
but you had some go-tos,
your kind of date spot turtlenecks,
if I understand it right.
There's a careful balance here
between wanting to
be thoughtful and say like,
hey, there's this great Italian restaurant
in your neighborhood.
Maybe we try and meet up there
that shows a certain level
of thoughtfulness.
And there's also this balance
with our own schedules,
living busy lives
and thinking about
how can we date,
recognizing that
I don't have to go on Yelp
and scour reviews
for every restaurant
on the Upper East Side.
I know that there's this
really great ramen place.
I know like this is actually
on my way back
from the office anyway,
so it works well with my day.
So I'm going to suggest this
and maybe we have to iterate
and maybe ramen
on the Upper East Side
turns into tacos somewhere else.
But at least it provides
that tangible starting point
and keeping that balance,
but also having the ability
to cut down on
some of that choice overwhelm.
The other thing we need to cut down on
is just how obsessed
we get everything.
You know, you mentioned this idea,
you can invest in the first message,
but you don't need to obsess over it.
You just mentioned
you don't need to do
this huge Yelp search
to figure out
where you're going to go.
I think one of the problems
with online dating
is it can become
a bit of a compulsion,
especially when it comes
to just the swiping.
Tell me a little bit
about what we know
about how much online dating
has in common
with other addictive behaviors
that people can fall into.
Online dating
and particularly
swipe-based dating algorithms
are made based
on a very similar algorithm
to how slot machines operate,
where we don't know
when we're getting that dopamine hit.
Intermittent rewards
produce highly addictive tendencies.
So for example,
we keep swiping
and swiping and swiping,
not knowing when
that reward is going to come.
We want to just
keep doing this behavior
over and over again.
There's some interesting
psychological research
from BF Skinner.
We did this with pigeons
and they're pecking
at this little lever
trying to understand,
you know,
when are they going to get
a little piece of food?
And for those pigeons
that peck, get some food,
peck, get some food,
and then eventually
the food stops being administered,
they'll stop pecking.
Whereas the other ones
who get this on
an intermittent reward schedule,
so they peck
and sometimes get the food,
peck, sometimes get the food.
That's a highly
addictive patterning.
And it's something
that we see all the time
with online dating.
And it's not a coincidence
that these are engineered
in this way,
especially when you think
about the incentives
that these app companies
have for engagement,
for time on the app
and all of these things.
So what do we know
about what a healthy
amount of time
looks like on these apps?
Healthy is going to be
a little bit different
for each person.
In general,
something like 15 minutes a day
is what a lot of experts
recommend for
interacting with these.
One thing that I suggest
is setting an alarm
when you log into the platform,
because it can get very addictive
that we were just talking about.
And so it's easy to blow past
that 15 minute hard stop,
unless we have something
reminding us like,
OK, time to get off these things.
In terms of regularity,
again, this is person dependent,
but often I'd say something
like three times a week,
15 minutes,
it's enough to stay current,
to stay fresh.
If you're worried about
missing a match
or not responding
quickly enough to message,
you can always just be up front
and say like,
hey, you know,
I'm much quicker over text.
So if you do end up being free
for that walk on the high line,
then text me.
Here's my number.
But we want to avoid that situation
where we're constantly logging in
and generally speaking,
the amount of time
on average that people are spending
is much too high
for protecting our mental health.
And so those are some
of the pitfalls of apps,
but hopefully we either do that
or we meet a person in real life
and we find somebody
that we really like.
And so how can you tell
when the person you found
is the right one to invest in
when it's time to stop
dating other people?
It's a great question.
And from a numerical standpoint,
like, yes,
I had set this date number goal.
I said, all right,
I'm willing to ask out
up to 300 people.
I had found some
pretty good matches along the way.
Things that for small reasons
didn't end up working out.
When I met Paige,
there was a one understanding
that she was compared
to a previous baseline,
like considerably better than that.
But also there were more importantly,
these bigger overriding qualities,
things like kindness,
things like curiosity.
We shared a lot of values in common.
And so it was something
where I had felt very differently,
than I had in previous relationships.
That was something that for me
surfaced fairly early on.
I don't think that always
needs to be the case,
but here it happened to.
And kind of on her end,
she tells a story about
when we were out for
sort of our first official date.
And I was asking about
her morning routine.
And she was talking about
the smoothie that she makes.
And I was like, okay,
like, well, what goes into the smoothie?
And she's like, well, you know,
it's spinach and some juice
that goes in there.
And yogurt is like,
what kind of yogurt do you use?
And I'm a pretty curious person.
And I didn't even remember
that conversation when she brought it up
months later.
But she remembers that like,
gosh, when you were asking me
about what type of Greek yogurt I use,
there was this level of interest,
this curiosity,
asking questions,
wanting to get to know someone.
And for her, that was signaling of
here's someone who's gonna be
growth-mindseted.
And there were a lot of things
on her end as well.
And so any final thoughts
for our listeners
about how you can use
a behavioral science approach
to date smarter?
This idea that we invest
a lot of time and effort
in lots of things
that we care about
is one that seems very normal
for so many aspects of our life.
When we think about
getting our dream job,
when we think about
having our health,
whatever it might be.
And with dating,
I think there's, again,
like the same idea
that I had approached things with
that it'll happen when it happens.
What I would say is
we have a lot more agency
than we often give ourselves credit for.
And we should think about those ways
in which we can exercise this
on a daily basis.
And maybe that's saying
I'm gonna shift up
my schedule a little bit.
I'm gonna move from
the Tuesday pottery class
to the Wednesday pottery class,
meeting new group of people.
I'm going to make sure
that I'm sitting out
at the community table
when I'm out at the coffee shop.
I'm going to set a date number
and find an accountability
buddy and begin taking action
in the ways that rest
within my control
that improve our outcomes.
And that's really what I think
the deep takeaway message is here.
Dating can feel mysterious
and frustrating.
But as Tim's work shows us,
it's not as out of control
as we often assume.
There are strategies we can use
to build resilience,
reduce anxiety,
and maybe, just maybe,
find that perfect person.
And if you want even more advice
on the best ways to go about that,
check out Tim's book,
Date Smarter,
A Strategic Guide
to Navigating Modern Romance.
If you have thoughts
about today's episode
and the science of love,
we'd love to hear them.
You can email us
at happinesslab at pushkin.fm
or leave us a review
to tell us what you liked.
You can also sign up
to learn more
about the science of happiness
and join my free newsletter
on my website,
drlarysantos.com.
That's D-R-L-A-U-R-I-E
S-A-N-T-O-S dot com.
Coming up on next week's episode
of The Happiness Lab,
we'll explore the misconceptions
we have about attraction.
We'll dig into the science
of happier bonding
with an expert
on the evolutionary psychology
of human mating.
When we look at these differences
and what men and women
say they want,
they're not translating
into their experienced preferences
when they're out there
meeting real life people.
That's next up in our series
on the science of love
on The Happiness Lab.
With me, Dr. Larry Santos.
