Emrys Auen And if she wants to play with it when you whip it out you know right away you've got a match. Worst case, you'll be able to calculate the tip and split the check. :)
So in conclusion, honest communication is still the most important thing for healthy relationships! It's interesting to me that we all say we know this, but yet still don't put it into action on all occasions.
***** No, just for you to explain why we as humans wouldn't live by the same measures as humans lived in the past if both we and they were equally human? Scientific concepts and technology are advancements and comforts, but even chimps can gamble and use tools.
You've said nothing to comprehend except some vague notion that you feel humans should have evolved beyond sexual and other visceral urges and seem to be on some mission to desexualize the species. When I ask you point blank to clarify, you respond with some trite adolescent internet retort. Let me ask you point blank again, what is your point?
-"You forgot the trash" -"You forgot to remind me of the trash" -"You forgot to remind me to remind you about the trash" .....TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!!!!!
So...... if I got the video right, the mathematicians more or less proved that communication in relationship is important for its success and ignoring problems is bad?
Shattered Anvil Thanks. I never knew that there was an actual word for it. I only knew that the only non-losing strategy for that game is not to play it.
Well stonewalling means withholding information in any way, it's just that refusing to say what's wrong with you is basically that because you're not sharing how you actually feel.
SlideRulePirate A relevant point about that note is that if you're in a relationship where someone is asking "what's wrong?" it's too late for you to choose not to play. You're already in the relationship. If you value that relationship, you're likely better off discussing the issue, because avoiding it is as bad as neglecting the relationship.
sk8rdman I see where you are coming from and I was that idealistic as well once, but...The partner who asks "What's wrong?" is demonstrating that the relationship is valued because it shows care and concern, through recognising the existence of a problem and is taking the first step in addressing it. Doesn't sound too much like neglect to me so far.. . The partner who replies "Nothing" is actually devaluing that relationship by being emotionally manipulative and is also insulting the intelligence of the other. It is, in effect, a tacit effort to shift the centre of mass toward the "Nothing" side so that going forward there is unequal investment and power in it. If you are on the receiving end of a "Nothing" then you have learnt something about the person and about how they really see you. Your self respect should be screaming at you that the relationship has either just changed or was never how you thought it was. If you carry on exactly as before you do so in the fantasy land of wishful thinking. Life is far too short to waste any of it being lead around by the emotional nose by someone who does not respect you.
This was a wonderful video, my two absolute favorite parts about it were: -"I like ABBA music." -"I wish bad upon you." and how it made me think about USA and Russia being an old married couple.
I'm in electrical engineering, the equation looks like something from my systems and signals class, whereas the step functions (graph) were learnt in a partial differential equations math class. There's a large bias that we're terrible at relationships (no time, nerdy, whatever), but all this time, we had the tools to potentially engineer a perfect relationship :D
I would like Dr Fry to tell us a lot more about the science of predictive statistics and complex systems, maybe an initial pilot mini-series of around 100 videos plus background material on the other channel would be very nice indeed.
i made a boolean equation form for my high school senior final research paper. made two equations per character with three characters per book for three books. your equation was my inspiration to it and i think with a little more work i could get my analysis of the change in equations of relationships through the generations could even one day be published
An other reason why those couples end up having a longer relationship might be the fact that, agruments/fights happen often and aren't big deals while for others, when a big argument happens, it's done for.
This makes a lot of sense. My dad's family airs all their problems all the time, and makes no secret of being in each other's business. The result: no divorces in the last three generations. My mother's family on the other hand is much more reserved and keeps things hidden and secret from one another, in the name of being polite above all else to each other. The result: four divorces in the last three generations.
That's really nice to know that you actually argue a lot about small things. Well of course when you think about it now, it feels so obvious. When you constantly argue about small things and get them resolved early on, the issues aren't going to get any big scale and emotions involving those constant small arguments are also going to stay small so there's no fear of losing anything big or that eagerness to "win" the argument to gain something big. The arguments stay on civilized level and they stay small and life continues.
I think one thing that I do question about this is the scoring system. I think some studies have shown that a negative reaction is more ...powerfully negative than a positive, because it is more unexpected in society. Perhaps that study only applies to first impressions, but I would think it probably would have some affect in a relationship, too.
That's a very interesting thought. Presumably it would indeed be applicable to similar relationships, since it is mainly based on type of responses, not necessarily on the content of the conversations.
Brad Walkom Yeah, a teacher can only take so much sodding around before they flip out, and a class can only take so much inconsideration before they get pissed off.. I don't know if it would matter that the class has no ability to do the equivalent of shouting at the teacher though?
Oh students will shout at teachers if they are that engaged in an argument with the teacher. But I guess that certain response restrictions are still considered in this process.
Very fascinating question indeed. Personally, I think that appplying this equation to the teacher-class situation would be far more difficult. I guess you could technically do it, but only on the condition that you perceive group of students as a single, unanimous organism. In reality though, I don't think you could do that since class consists of many people with diverse personalities, etc.
Two of my favorites: _Hannah Fry_ on _Numberphile_. Here she talks about "the relationship equation." It really doesn't matter how good the mathematics is, I just like watching her talk.
What i got from this video is that your significant other is a nice person, especially to you since they got you a beautiful diamond ring. Also you generally speak up about things they do that bother you, but you are aiming to set your threshold higher to push your relationship toward the more positive quadrant.
I’ve always found myself saying things like “No we’re sorting it now so it’s not escalating into a bomb later”… I had no idea I was so wise I thought I was maybe a harsh Harry.
This makes sense with how friendships work, too. The friendships that I always see being the strongest tend to involve a lot more criticizing and small arguments. On the other side (and I've experienced this), friendships that fall through are the ones where you are actively trying to ignore the small negatives until finally, you've had it.
Pretty sure if you listen to a couple argue for 15 minutes, without the system, anyone could tell with a 90% accuracy if they're going to get divorced.
R3fug33 Maybe not after 15 minutes, but over a longer observation period I'd agree that it is not that hard to figure out where a relationship is going.
R3fug33 But since this is a formula/algorithm, that means a computer can too, and that's the takeaway here. A lot of things are easy for humans but hard for computers (making conversation) and vice versa (chess)
I am divorced...ex and I never fought once; everything was sunshine and unicorns and peachy until she changed her mind and left. We always agreed, laughed at the same things, liked the same things, disliked the same things... To this day I don't know what changed her mind, but I do know from experience that being assertive and airing the little things is vital. I encourage all my friends in relationships to fight more often; not nasty fighting, but have conflict, and thusly resolve said conflict before it escalates. Now...I can say that math says so.
The fun variable is the "likelihood" of the individuals that have humane arguments (low negatives) marrying against the individuals that have internal buildup arguments (positives). This does have further depths to it that go as far as to explain why divorce has become as big of a thing and why non married couples are able to sustain relations for much longer than married ones (in modern times, overall)
That is so weird that couples with a low negativity threshold get on the best. Does that mean that they constantly pester each other with big fights over little things? I cant see how I'd stay in a relationship if I am walking on eggshells knowing that my partner could have a strong negative reaction to something only slightly negative. It makes me wonder if the people designing the tests, and deciding whats positive or negative (or whats worth positive or negative points) are perhaps biasing the tests for the kind of person they are. I've seen disagreement, even among professionals, on what constitutes stonewalling; one party is stonewalling but when the other party does seemingly the same thing, no stonewalling is called out. So basically, how do you remove bias from the tests? And do any of the personality models factor into the equations? INTJ, etc? I would think that would change the results. Maybe not. But I dont think I could ever be happy in a relationship with someone who had a low negativity threshold, and so were always irritated. So I guess I'm a bit surprised.
I love how my parents never really argue but then something very minor happens, like my dad hang his pants on a chair in the living room one day and left to work with my mom and we have two dogs who spent the day alone in the house, so I assume they were just playing and being goofy that day. Anyway, when we came home, the pants were on the floor and my dad got angry at my mom for some reason. It started with "my only pants are on the floor i have no other clothing items to wear this is the worst" and quickly turnt into "you never do anything i wont cook anymore because all you ever do is play games on your phone and i work all day and i cant ever sit down" and the dogs got off without anything lol this was my favourite argument of my parents even if it was very loud and not nice but it was very ridiculous i had to hide in my room to laugh it off because i dont think that would help. Anyway that would make for a nice graph i think!
Thanks for the great video, I love Numberphile! This one was especially cool in that this time I could share Numberphile with my girlfriend (who is HR, not an engineer like me) and SHE liked it too! I wanted more, however! It was great to see the one equation and scoring system, but I'd like to see the dynamics demonstrated more concretely. And the comparison with countries going to war is fascinating--but where's the example showing two countries and how they did or didn't go to war?
Who would have thought that talking about relationship problems with your partner, being open about it and fixing them would make the relationship very successful? I'm very glad there's a mathematical proof for it now.
I'd like a changepoint analysis algorithm to determine when yo do like someone and a probabilistic model to determine whether someone likes you, that would be awesome, but I think the first one would be almost impossible to implement in real life. The second may be implemented as a calculator using Bayesian statistics, demographics and some custom parameters (such as size of population and a safety factor)
On couples with values of T-minus close to zero being the ones where risk of divorce is small: An alternate explanation is survivor bias. There are some couples like which have no, or few, positive aspects to their relation. Those relations will be shortlived, and will therefore not come to the attention to the scientists - since they have broken up before then. Therefore, such relationships which are so long-lived so that they become part of the scientific study will tend to have higher-than-average level of other relationship-helping traits. Those traits, in their turn, will make those relationships long-lived. Way to test this hypothesis: Interview the people in relationships with T-minus values close to zero, and ask them how long-lived their previous relationships were. If those previous relationships tended to be be on the shorter side, then the hypothesis is supported.
But.. But... I wanted to see the model applied! It looks like an amazing series of differential equations, and depending on the numeration of everything, I can imagine it making a very interesting state space. *wimper* But seriously, thanks a ton for sharing this with us! It's fascinating to see this kind of social analysis and interesting to consider what useful conclusions might be derived from this research.
Ruudsch Ma' Hinda If we use the incidence of red hair in northern and western Europe, which is about 2 - 6%, and if these two are the only female mathematicians on Numberphile... then I suppose the odds of a *second* female redhead are about 2 to 6%. Note that the first one was not surprising, since she might have had any of a number of unlikely traits.
That's a no brainer. It's obvious that those who continually work on beind honest with each other, and resolving problems on the go will last longer. Because both sides know, neither side will say things just to hurt, because it never gets to that point because they are not holding back secret feelings. Just being honest in relationships always works.
Well, when you say a small negativity threshold is the best, it sounds like according to the system, bringing up negative things gets negative points, but I'd say they're bringing up negative things in a healthy, positive fashion.
If you looked at the equation and wondered how one would solve it, then I would recommend any video that explains Markov chains. A Markov chain can be used to model a system in which there are dependencies between its members, such as a predator/prey system (the predators eat the prey, so there are fewer prey, meaning that the predators starve, which means that the prey can thrive, and so on). Markov chains are usually taught in first-year university linear algebra. The equations mentioned in this video aren't actually Markov (the vectors are not probability vectors, there is an offset vector for each transition, etc.), but they're close enough.
I see.. This is like Spiderman 2 scene. The graph here resemble the relationship "stair" Peter Parker : Would you think about it? Mary Jane Watson : Think about what? Peter Parker : Picking up where we left off. Mary Jane Watson : Where was that? We never got on. You can't get off if you don't get on Peter.
Seems like we need more clarity on the negativity threshold. From Hannah's description, it says that the threshold is just when you start complaining about the negative stuff, but my view point would say the threshold is when you begin to experience annoyance. It makes sense that people who stuff down their annoyance and don't communicate would have problems in their marriages, but it also makes sense that people who just don't get flustered would not have as many problems. I think we have convinced ourselves that the latter position is the preferred position and so we are dishonest with ourselves and this leads to the former position. I'm not sure the equation is saying as much as we think it is saying. I think it's only saying that honest communication is important and that couples who are not honest tend to get divorced. I'm not sure the negativity threshold is actually important here.
"I like ABBA music." "I wish bad upon you."
I love that exchange.
My favorite was "You look very valid today".
I am so using that...I wish bad upon you.
Me talking to my parents
You misspelled AB=BA
"Just stunningly-provable!"
'you are looking very valid' is my new go-to compliment
hahahahaha
donkosaurus "Amazeballs!"
donkosaurus xD
donkosaurus I'm thinking of studying math at the university, so this is a great onelinear/pickup line I guess xD ;D
I could listen to her talk all day
3:09 Hannah Fry vocal fry
Me too, I don't even like maths.
I'll be honest. The ad at the end of this video was the first time I considered buying an audio book. Lol
Damn straight, compadre.
Buy the audiobook.
Finally, I have a reason take my calculator with me on dates.
Emrys Auen And if she wants to play with it when you whip it out you know right away you've got a match. Worst case, you'll be able to calculate the tip and split the check. :)
Emrys Auen Don't forget to hook up your date with a heart rate and blood pressure monitor. Wouldn't want to be inconsiderate.
Emrys Auen "what's that big thing in your pants?""my TI-89"
You can turn it upside down and type 58008 on it
+Emrys Auen i thought in this age we all do it... it is our cellphone as well
"You look very valid today."
My favorite new way of validating someone.
Yeah, that's cool
I wanted to put that
That statement makes total sense now lol
My relationship equation had a divide-by-zero error!
Mine has a 404 not found.
Marcel Robitaille
Could be worse. At least it's not a 403.
2thinkcritically Or a 500
Marcel Robitaille
Or a 402. Or a 410.
2thinkcritically LOL
So in conclusion, honest communication is still the most important thing for healthy relationships! It's interesting to me that we all say we know this, but yet still don't put it into action on all occasions.
It can also be generalized
I hav lost many friends cuz of lack of communication
@@bengineer8 Friendship is still a relationship you know
Not just honest, willingness to listen and resolve.
I usually ignore the audio books plug in, but having Hannah talking mathematics right into my eardrums? Now I am reeeaallly thinking about it...
And being an ascetic is a waste of life.
***** Yeah, but once upon a time there wasn't and we shouldn't forget that crucial part of human history smarty pants.
***** No, just for you to explain why we as humans wouldn't live by the same measures as humans lived in the past if both we and they were equally human? Scientific concepts and technology are advancements and comforts, but even chimps can gamble and use tools.
You've said nothing to comprehend except some vague notion that you feel humans should have evolved beyond sexual and other visceral urges and seem to be on some mission to desexualize the species. When I ask you point blank to clarify, you respond with some trite adolescent internet retort. Let me ask you point blank again, what is your point?
Shaun Murphy **applauds your post**
-"You forgot the trash"
-"You forgot to remind me of the trash"
-"You forgot to remind me to remind you about the trash"
.....TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!!!!!
lin4cba Would they not die before reaching infinity?
Let's put it into equation and find out ;)
Ooooh ;)
Yes No Even if they never died, they would not reach infinity.
oi565 my comment is still valid
Fiction: You can't put values to feelings.
Mathematician: Lemme show you how it's done
Psycho-physical scaling or Magnitude Estimation, just to name two methods that work well.
So...... if I got the video right, the mathematicians more or less proved that communication in relationship is important for its success and ignoring problems is bad?
Totally not like we didn't know that for thousands of years.
Yes.
@@theletterwynn but now there is PROOF! (actually, i might have to hear the whole book to say if there's proof - this seems more like a hypothesis)
Huh. Who would've thought?
Fun fact: If a person wishes bad upon you for liking ABBA, you should not be in a long-term relationship with them.
truth.
Yes, because people should be tolerant of other people's tastes, not matter how bad.
Some people may dispute this this fun fact, with relevant arguments
@@UnlinealHand ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooof
I think the area between T- and T+ ought to be called the range of expectation. Outside of this range is the range of surprise.
"I wish bad upon you"
+BaconOfTheDarkSide you look very valid today
ToastyOs AMAZEBALLS
ToastyOs AMAZEBALLS
'I like ABBA'
Brain: big
Appearance: beautiful
Voice: soothing
Possibility of me ever finding someone so perfect: square root of -1
So you have a probability of i?
@@KToMmi you could say they have no real chance
@@PabloGarcia-gw1np I liked that
The couple's speech bubbles were the best. "This is for you!" "AMAZEBALLS" :-D
Amazeballs sounds like something from Life is Strange.
I have never been so tempted to try Audible.
What's the mathematics of the "What's wrong?"..."Nothing" phenomenon?
SlideRulePirate That's the "Stonewalling" factor. 3:44
Shattered Anvil Thanks. I never knew that there was an actual word for it. I only knew that the only non-losing strategy for that game is not to play it.
Well stonewalling means withholding information in any way, it's just that refusing to say what's wrong with you is basically that because you're not sharing how you actually feel.
SlideRulePirate A relevant point about that note is that if you're in a relationship where someone is asking "what's wrong?" it's too late for you to choose not to play. You're already in the relationship.
If you value that relationship, you're likely better off discussing the issue, because avoiding it is as bad as neglecting the relationship.
sk8rdman I see where you are coming from and I was that idealistic as well once, but...The partner who asks "What's wrong?" is demonstrating that the relationship is valued because it shows care and concern, through recognising the existence of a problem and is taking the first step in addressing it. Doesn't sound too much like neglect to me so far.. .
The partner who replies "Nothing" is actually devaluing that relationship by being emotionally manipulative and is also insulting the intelligence of the other. It is, in effect, a tacit effort to shift the centre of mass toward the "Nothing" side so that going forward there is unequal investment and power in it.
If you are on the receiving end of a "Nothing" then you have learnt something about the person and about how they really see you. Your self respect should be screaming at you that the relationship has either just changed or was never how you thought it was. If you carry on exactly as before you do so in the fantasy land of wishful thinking.
Life is far too short to waste any of it being lead around by the emotional nose by someone who does not respect you.
This was a wonderful video, my two absolute favorite parts about it were:
-"I like ABBA music."
-"I wish bad upon you."
and how it made me think about USA and Russia being an old married couple.
I'm in electrical engineering, the equation looks like something from my systems and signals class, whereas the step functions (graph) were learnt in a partial differential equations math class. There's a large bias that we're terrible at relationships (no time, nerdy, whatever), but all this time, we had the tools to potentially engineer a perfect relationship :D
+Sophia Ha "Partial differential equations math class" "electrical engineering" lol...please.
@@xXxBladeStormxXx ?
@@xXxBladeStormxXx kha?
Love is irrational, but with fractions.
RIP single people who thought this was gonna help them
I thought it was gonna help me marrying Hannah.
whoever even thought a random math video was gonna help them
Secret to a successful relationship has been broken down mathematically! Turns out its communication.
Jokes on you, my friend. I got to spend time listening to and looking at a smart and beautiful lady:D
"You look very valid today!"
I just learned a perfect de-escalation tool. Awesome :D
It is in fact my default greeting phrase
"You look very valid today" XD
Her TED talk on the same topic is great as well. I can listen to Hannah Fry talk for hours..
haha, showing validation = "you look very valid today" 3:33
No, no...showing validation. Like wearing a sign "I'm valid today".
More Hannah Fry videos, please. I could learn from her all day every day for the rest of my life and never tire of it.
"you look very valid today" hahahaha. Who wrote the drawing's dialogue? It's hillarious
The most important thing in every relationship is communication.
XouZ And not raping or domestic violencing the other person.
***** I don't know, I love raping chickens... :/
no its trust
Grisu69 You cant have trust without communication and you wont communicate without trust. They go hand in hand
***** I was just joking...pls don't get mad.
Hannah is so beautiful.
So m I
And smart!
AlwayzPr0 And masculine.
NarutoSSj6 The more masculine, the better. Up to a point.
j0nthegreat Whatever floats yer boat. Prefer looks myself.
I would like Dr Fry to tell us a lot more about the science of predictive statistics and complex systems, maybe an initial pilot mini-series of around 100 videos plus background material on the other channel would be very nice indeed.
i made a boolean equation form for my high school senior final research paper. made two equations per character with three characters per book for three books. your equation was my inspiration to it and i think with a little more work i could get my analysis of the change in equations of relationships through the generations could even one day be published
AMAZEBALLS
Simply put, communication and not being afraid to fight with someone, is the best way to be.
My love equation: f(x)=abs(sin(x)) + 5*e^(-x^100)*cos(x)
(where -3
I giggled
My love equation is f(x)=sqrt(-|x|)
:(
Angular Momentum |x| is always real and non-negative.
Udit Gupta Your mum still found it pleasant.
libertarianDE This is just amazing.
An other reason why those couples end up having a longer relationship might be the fact that, agruments/fights happen often and aren't big deals while for others, when a big argument happens, it's done for.
The *shape* of the "I" is important not the actual numbers. Did I just hear that size doesn't matter?
This makes a lot of sense. My dad's family airs all their problems all the time, and makes no secret of being in each other's business. The result: no divorces in the last three generations. My mother's family on the other hand is much more reserved and keeps things hidden and secret from one another, in the name of being polite above all else to each other. The result: four divorces in the last three generations.
Being so beautiful and smart at the same time is kind of illegal
That's really nice to know that you actually argue a lot about small things. Well of course when you think about it now, it feels so obvious. When you constantly argue about small things and get them resolved early on, the issues aren't going to get any big scale and emotions involving those constant small arguments are also going to stay small so there's no fear of losing anything big or that eagerness to "win" the argument to gain something big. The arguments stay on civilized level and they stay small and life continues.
And importantly of course how you argue, like whether you are validating or humorous or whether you "wish bad upon them" like was said in the video
That's all well and good, but the real question is. Can we use this information to stop these ridiculous arms races?
“You look valid today” - stick man 😂😂 3:33
Hannah is GORGEOUS!
I think one thing that I do question about this is the scoring system. I think some studies have shown that a negative reaction is more ...powerfully negative than a positive, because it is more unexpected in society. Perhaps that study only applies to first impressions, but I would think it probably would have some affect in a relationship, too.
Would this apply to any relationship. A teacher and class for example?
That's a very interesting thought. Presumably it would indeed be applicable to similar relationships, since it is mainly based on type of responses, not necessarily on the content of the conversations.
Brad Walkom Yeah, a teacher can only take so much sodding around before they flip out, and a class can only take so much inconsideration before they get pissed off.. I don't know if it would matter that the class has no ability to do the equivalent of shouting at the teacher though?
Oh students will shout at teachers if they are that engaged in an argument with the teacher. But I guess that certain response restrictions are still considered in this process.
Very fascinating question indeed. Personally, I think that appplying this equation to the teacher-class situation would be far more difficult. I guess you could technically do it, but only on the condition that you perceive group of students as a single, unanimous organism. In reality though, I don't think you could do that since class consists of many people with diverse personalities, etc.
TheSkepticalApple No.
I've seen quite a few Audible sponsor spots in my days,
but this one is the most effective so far.
I love the stick figure relationship!
"here's a diamond ring!"
"amazeballs!" 😂😂😂😂
“You look very valid today” - stick man 😂😂 3:33
interesting stuff indeed. I just learned my relationship's in the greatest of paths!
jackpaice that's quite interesting indeed, I've been doing this for 8 years now and didn't even notice! :)
Do you mean that sarcastically?
Edward Kenway no...
Edward Kenway no...
Her voice is very soothing, i can listen to her talk for days haha.
Two of my favorites: _Hannah Fry_ on _Numberphile_. Here she talks about "the relationship equation." It really doesn't matter how good the mathematics is, I just like watching her talk.
Just what I was thinking
What i got from this video is that your significant other is a nice person, especially to you since they got you a beautiful diamond ring.
Also you generally speak up about things they do that bother you, but you are aiming to set your threshold higher to push your relationship toward the more positive quadrant.
the best video I've seen in 2016.... simply awesome
0:49 I don't know why "I wish bad upon you" kind of cracked me up here. 😂😂
I’ve always found myself saying things like “No we’re sorting it now so it’s not escalating into a bomb later”… I had no idea I was so wise I thought I was maybe a harsh Harry.
I have to say, mathematicians would probably be among the very last people I would go to for relationship advice.
All the family friends who are mathematicians or stasticians all punch way above their weight with their partners actually
This makes sense with how friendships work, too. The friendships that I always see being the strongest tend to involve a lot more criticizing and small arguments. On the other side (and I've experienced this), friendships that fall through are the ones where you are actively trying to ignore the small negatives until finally, you've had it.
Pretty sure if you listen to a couple argue for 15 minutes, without the system, anyone could tell with a 90% accuracy if they're going to get divorced.
No
perokb24 Maybe not you.
R3fug33 Maybe not after 15 minutes, but over a longer observation period I'd agree that it is not that hard to figure out where a relationship is going.
R3fug33 But since this is a formula/algorithm, that means a computer can too, and that's the takeaway here. A lot of things are easy for humans but hard for computers (making conversation) and vice versa (chess)
I am divorced...ex and I never fought once; everything was sunshine and unicorns and peachy until she changed her mind and left. We always agreed, laughed at the same things, liked the same things, disliked the same things...
To this day I don't know what changed her mind, but I do know from experience that being assertive and airing the little things is vital. I encourage all my friends in relationships to fight more often; not nasty fighting, but have conflict, and thusly resolve said conflict before it escalates. Now...I can say that math says so.
"I like ABBA music."
"I wish bad upon you."
"... k den :'( "
The fun variable is the "likelihood" of the individuals that have humane arguments (low negatives) marrying against the individuals that have internal buildup arguments (positives). This does have further depths to it that go as far as to explain why divorce has become as big of a thing and why non married couples are able to sustain relations for much longer than married ones (in modern times, overall)
guys i think i'm in love
The message here is that honesty keeps your relationship together. Though that ought to be a given, since that's all a relationship is.
That is so weird that couples with a low negativity threshold get on the best. Does that mean that they constantly pester each other with big fights over little things? I cant see how I'd stay in a relationship if I am walking on eggshells knowing that my partner could have a strong negative reaction to something only slightly negative.
It makes me wonder if the people designing the tests, and deciding whats positive or negative (or whats worth positive or negative points) are perhaps biasing the tests for the kind of person they are. I've seen disagreement, even among professionals, on what constitutes stonewalling; one party is stonewalling but when the other party does seemingly the same thing, no stonewalling is called out.
So basically, how do you remove bias from the tests? And do any of the personality models factor into the equations? INTJ, etc? I would think that would change the results. Maybe not. But I dont think I could ever be happy in a relationship with someone who had a low negativity threshold, and so were always irritated. So I guess I'm a bit surprised.
this is a brilliant use of mirroring ... The de esculation process if you used a reverse mirror is absoloutly mental ...so much control of a situation
8:24 download bait
definitely
And said with a low tone to arouse us. Damn women use psychology to sell
It’s 100% worth it
I love how my parents never really argue but then something very minor happens, like my dad hang his pants on a chair in the living room one day and left to work with my mom and we have two dogs who spent the day alone in the house, so I assume they were just playing and being goofy that day. Anyway, when we came home, the pants were on the floor and my dad got angry at my mom for some reason. It started with "my only pants are on the floor i have no other clothing items to wear this is the worst" and quickly turnt into "you never do anything i wont cook anymore because all you ever do is play games on your phone and i work all day and i cant ever sit down"
and the dogs got off without anything lol
this was my favourite argument of my parents even if it was very loud and not nice but it was very ridiculous i had to hide in my room to laugh it off because i dont think that would help.
Anyway that would make for a nice graph i think!
smart girls who are sexy are sexy
Tautologies that are tautological are tautological.
Really stretching to include your islamophobia in this conversation, but more than anything I'm impressed.
@NihilisticEntropy ?
a+b includes a in it, that's right.
Simple truths are true that are true
This is mathematical psychology. I don't just approve of it: I bloody adore it!
Spaff... just cause they didnt wanna use sacs
my thoughts exactly
Someone just wanted to use the word "amazeballs" in a video. I'm not complaining. That made me laugh.
Thanks for the great video, I love Numberphile! This one was especially cool in that this time I could share Numberphile with my girlfriend (who is HR, not an engineer like me) and SHE liked it too!
I wanted more, however! It was great to see the one equation and scoring system, but I'd like to see the dynamics demonstrated more concretely. And the comparison with countries going to war is fascinating--but where's the example showing two countries and how they did or didn't go to war?
Hannah Fry's voice is the most soothing sound all day: I rate her voice above birds of spring.
"You look very valid today"
**takes notes**
Who would have thought that talking about relationship problems with your partner, being open about it and fixing them would make the relationship very successful? I'm very glad there's a mathematical proof for it now.
I'd like a changepoint analysis algorithm to determine when yo do like someone and a probabilistic model to determine whether someone likes you, that would be awesome, but I think the first one would be almost impossible to implement in real life. The second may be implemented as a calculator using Bayesian statistics, demographics and some custom parameters (such as size of population and a safety factor)
On couples with values of T-minus close to zero being the ones where risk of divorce is small: An alternate explanation is survivor bias. There are some couples like which have no, or few, positive aspects to their relation. Those relations will be shortlived, and will therefore not come to the attention to the scientists - since they have broken up before then. Therefore, such relationships which are so long-lived so that they become part of the scientific study will tend to have higher-than-average level of other relationship-helping traits. Those traits, in their turn, will make those relationships long-lived. Way to test this hypothesis: Interview the people in relationships with T-minus values close to zero, and ask them how long-lived their previous relationships were. If those previous relationships tended to be be on the shorter side, then the hypothesis is supported.
But.. But... I wanted to see the model applied! It looks like an amazing series of differential equations, and depending on the numeration of everything, I can imagine it making a very interesting state space. *wimper*
But seriously, thanks a ton for sharing this with us! It's fascinating to see this kind of social analysis and interesting to consider what useful conclusions might be derived from this research.
Low negativity threshold = couple has clear personal boundaries and enforces and respects it.
two different female redhead mathematicians on numberfile. what are the chances?
literally.. you should have a statsitics guy/gal look into that :)
Ruudsch Ma' Hinda Well... this channel is based at the University of Nottingham. It's kind of like the redhead capitol of the world.
Ruudsch Ma' Hinda If we use the incidence of red hair in northern and western Europe, which is about 2 - 6%, and if these two are the only female mathematicians on Numberphile... then I suppose the odds of a *second* female redhead are about 2 to 6%. Note that the first one was not surprising, since she might have had any of a number of unlikely traits.
Marc Donis Maybe he has a thing for redheads in particular, in which case the first one would count.
Ruudsch Ma' Hinda Hmm... interesting point... But the true question is: 'Does the carpet match the curtains with redheads?'.
Pietje Puk I have a theory that eyebrows tell all
Positivity scores:
Hannah Fry
video + 3141
Nobel Prize + 4
Win lottery + 3
Best lovemaking
ever + 1
she makes me wanna study math more ;)
That's a no brainer. It's obvious that those who continually work on beind honest with each other, and resolving problems on the go will last longer. Because both sides know, neither side will say things just to hurt, because it never gets to that point because they are not holding back secret feelings. Just being honest in relationships always works.
She kinda cute.
Kinda?
You English kinda rubbish.
NecroBanana Especially considering he didn't use the proper pronoun lol.
NecroBanana But it IS an example of your writing skills. Only one, small example, mind you, but it's still valid.
NecroBanana NO I DON'T WANT TO. :(
Well, when you say a small negativity threshold is the best, it sounds like according to the system, bringing up negative things gets negative points, but I'd say they're bringing up negative things in a healthy, positive fashion.
Where does the heart rate, blood pressure and skin conductivity come into play in this experiment?
Daniel measuring mood and stuff. Aka: helps measure their reactions to the conversations
Moral of the video: Love is as complicated as mathematics.
If you looked at the equation and wondered how one would solve it, then I would recommend any video that explains Markov chains. A Markov chain can be used to model a system in which there are dependencies between its members, such as a predator/prey system (the predators eat the prey, so there are fewer prey, meaning that the predators starve, which means that the prey can thrive, and so on). Markov chains are usually taught in first-year university linear algebra. The equations mentioned in this video aren't actually Markov (the vectors are not probability vectors, there is an offset vector for each transition, etc.), but they're close enough.
I know an other love equation: (x²+y²-1)³-x²*y³=0
Trestein Jordklatt Heart curve
But that's empty love.
Here you have real love: (cos(x)^(1/2) * cos(200*x) + abs(x)^(1/2)) * (4-x^2)^0.01
***** At least Wolfram Alpha is refusing me with this one. They don't feel the love, they just feel that I've exceeded their computation time.
Penny Lane
Try this: (cos(x)^(1/2) * cos(200*x) + abs(x)^(1/2))*(4-x²)^(1/100) from -5 to 5
Trestein Jordklatt It's the imaginary part that makes the thing really charming IMHO :)
Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear - Riley's emotional team!
one thing is clear in the equation: tu estai riiiicaaa, como para que te den como caja toda la noche 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Indeed
As long as the equation leads to a result that I'm THEORETICALLY matched with Hannah, then I'd be happy. 😅
"AMAZEBALLS!"
She says "mathematics of love"
love
love
LOVE
LOVE
LOVE!!!!!
I night, the stars were showing
II hearts were overflowing
III words whispered so tenderly ...
Hannah, my love for you is like y=2^x... exponentially growing! ;D
TheYvesL y=e^x :D
Dylan Walsh 2^x has an exponetial growth. It is not the exponential function properly speking but it's growth is :)
"i can only think about one thing when i see hannah, and thats the integral of e^x"
Aedra Daedra Complex?
Xalnop I would rather say imaginary.
"I like ABBA music"...
"I wish bad upon you"
Is the best conversation of all time.
What was the p-value?
I see.. This is like Spiderman 2 scene.
The graph here resemble the relationship "stair"
Peter Parker : Would you think about it?
Mary Jane Watson : Think about what?
Peter Parker : Picking up where we left off.
Mary Jane Watson : Where was that? We never got on. You can't get off if you don't get on Peter.
"You look very valid today."
That's my new pickup line lol
Seems like we need more clarity on the negativity threshold. From Hannah's description, it says that the threshold is just when you start complaining about the negative stuff, but my view point would say the threshold is when you begin to experience annoyance.
It makes sense that people who stuff down their annoyance and don't communicate would have problems in their marriages, but it also makes sense that people who just don't get flustered would not have as many problems. I think we have convinced ourselves that the latter position is the preferred position and so we are dishonest with ourselves and this leads to the former position.
I'm not sure the equation is saying as much as we think it is saying. I think it's only saying that honest communication is important and that couples who are not honest tend to get divorced. I'm not sure the negativity threshold is actually important here.