Thank you very much. So, yes, I’m Hannah Fry,

I am a mathematician, and today I want to talk to you

about the mathematics of love. Now, I think that we can all agree that mathematicians

are famously excellent at finding love. But it’s not just

because of our dashing personalities, superior conversational skills

and excellent pencil cases. It’s also because we’ve actually done

an awful lot of work into the maths of how to find the perfect partner. Now, in my favorite paper

on the subject, which is entitled, “Why I Don’t Have a Girlfriend” –

(Laughter) – Peter Backus tries to rate

his chances of finding love. Now, Peter’s not a very greedy man. Of all of the available women in the U.K., all Peter’s looking for

is somebody who lives near him, somebody in the right age range, somebody with a university degree, somebody he’s likely to get on well with, somebody who’s likely to be attractive, somebody who’s likely

to find him attractive. (Laughter) And comes up with an estimate

of 26 women in the whole of the UK. It’s not looking very good, is it Peter? Now, just to put that into perspective, that’s about 400 times fewer

than the best estimates of how many intelligent

extraterrestrial life forms there are. And it also gives Peter

a 1 in 285,000 chance of bumping into any one

of these special ladies on a given night out. I’d like to think

that’s why mathematicians don’t really bother

going on nights out anymore. The thing is that I personally don’t subscribe

to such a pessimistic view. Because I know,

just as well as all of you do, that love doesn’t really work like that. Human emotion isn’t neatly ordered

and rational and easily predictable. But I also know that that doesn’t mean that mathematics hasn’t got something

that it can offer us because, love, as with most of life,

is full of patterns and mathematics is, ultimately,

all about the study of patterns. Patterns from predicting the weather

to the fluctuations in the stock market, to the movement of the planets

or the growth of cities. And if we’re being honest,

none of those things are exactly neatly ordered

and easily predictable, either. Because I believe that mathematics

is so powerful that it has the potential to offer us a new way of looking

at almost anything. Even something as mysterious as love. And so, to try to persuade you of how totally amazing, excellent

and relevant mathematics is, I want to give you my top three

mathematically verifiable tips for love. Okay, so Top Tip #1: How to win at online dating. So my favorite online dating website

is OkCupid, not least because it was started

by a group of mathematicians. Now, because they’re mathematicians, they have been collecting data on everybody who uses their site

for almost a decade. And they’ve been trying

to search for patterns in the way that we talk about ourselves and the way that we interact

with each other on an online dating website. And they’ve come up with some

seriously interesting findings. But my particular favorite is that it turns out

that on an online dating website, how attractive you are

does not dictate how popular you are, and actually, having people think

that you’re ugly can work to your advantage. Let me show you how this works. In a thankfully voluntary

section of OkCupid, you are allowed to rate

how attractive you think people are on a scale between 1 and 5. Now, if we compare this score,

the average score, to how many messages

a selection of people receive, you can begin to get a sense of how attractiveness links to popularity

on an online dating website. This is the graph that the OkCupid guy

shave come up with. And the important thing to notice

is that it’s not totally true that the more attractive you are,

the more messages you get. OK, there’s maybe a bit of a trend there, but it’s got an R squared

of absolutely naff all, let’s be honest. But the question arises then

of what is it about people up here who are so much more popular

than people down here, even though they have the same

score of attractiveness? And the reason why is that it’s not just

straight forward looks that are important. So let me try to illustrate

their findings with an example. So if you take someone like

Portia de Rossi, for example, everybody agrees that Portia de Rossi

is a very beautiful woman. Nobody thinks that she’s ugly,

but she’s not a supermodel, either. If you compare Portia de Rossi

to someone like Sarah Jessica Parker, now, a lot of people,

myself included, I should say, think that Sarah Jessica Parker

is seriously fabulous and possibly one

of the most beautiful creatures to have ever have walked

on the face of the Earth. But some other people,

i.e., most of the Internet, seem to think that she looks

a bit like a horse. (Laughter) Now, I think that if you ask people

how attractive they thought Sarah Jessica Parker

or Portia de Rossi were, and you ask them to give them

a score between 1 and 5, I reckon that they’d average out

to have roughly the same score. But the way that people would vote

would be very different. So Portia’s scores would

all be clustered around the 4 because everybody agrees

that she’s very beautiful, whereas Sarah Jessica Parker

completely divides opinion. There’d be a huge spread in her scores. And actually it’s this spread that counts. It’s this spread

that makes you more popular on an online Internet dating website. So what that means then is that if some people

think that you’re attractive, you’re actually better off having some other people think

that you’re a massive minger. That’s much better

than everybody just thinking that you’re the cute girl next door. Now, I think this begins

makes a bit more sense when you think in terms of the people

who are sending these messages. So let’s say that you think

somebody’s attractive, but you suspect that other people

won’t necessarily be that interested. That means there’s

less competition for you and it’s an extra incentive

for you to get in touch. Whereas compare that to

if you think somebody is attractive but you suspect that everybody

is going to think they’re attractive. Well, why would you bother

humiliating yourself, let’s be honest? Here’s where the really

interesting part comes. Because when people choose the pictures

that they use on an online dating website, they often try to minimize the things that they think some people

will find unattractive. The classic example is people who are,

perhaps, a little bit overweight deliberately choosing

a very cropped photo, or bald men, for example, deliberately choosing pictures

where they’re wearing hats. But actually this is the opposite

of what you should do if you want to be successful. You should really, instead, play up to

whatever it is that makes you different, even if you think that some people

will find it unattractive. Because the people who fancy you

are just going to fancy you anyway, and the unimportant losers who don’t,

well, they only play up to your advantage. Okay, Top Tip #2:

How to pick the perfect partner. So let’s imagine then

that you’re a roaring success on the dating scene. But the question arises of how do you then

convert that success into longer-term happiness

and in particular, how do you decide

when is the right time to settle down? Now generally,

it’s not advisable to just cash in and marry the first person

who comes along and shows you any interest at all. But, equally, you don’t really

want to leave it too long if you want to maximize your chance

of long-term happiness. As my favorite author,

Jane Austen, puts it, “An unmarried woman of seven and twenty can never hope to feel or inspire

affection again.” (Laughter) Thanks a lot, Jane.

What do you know about love? So the question is then, how do you know when

is the right time to settle down given all the people

that you can date in your lifetime? Thankfully, there’s a rather delicious bit

of mathematics that we can use to help us out here, called

optimal stopping theory. So let’s imagine then, that you start dating when you’re 15 and ideally, you’d like to be married

by the time that you’re 35. And there’s a number of people that you could potentially

date across your lifetime, and they’ll be at varying levels

of goodness. Now the rules are that once you cash in

and get married, you can’t look ahead to see

what you could have had, and equally, you can’t go back

and change your mind. In my experience at least, I find that typically people don’t

much like being recalled years after being passed up

for somebody else, or that’s just me. So the math says then

that what you should do in the first 37 percent

of your dating window, you should just reject everybody

as serious marriage potential. (Laughter) And then, you should pick

the next person that comes along that is better than everybody

that you’ve seen before. So here’s the example. Now if you do this, it can be

mathematically proven, in fact, that this is the best possible way of maximizing your chances

of finding the perfect partner. Now unfortunately, I have to tell you that

this method does come with some risks. For instance,

imagine if your perfect partner appeared during your first 37 percent. Now, unfortunately,

you’d have to reject them. (Laughter) Now, if you’re following the maths, I’m afraid no one else comes along that’s better than anyone

you’ve seen before, so you have to go on

rejecting everyone and die alone. (Laughter) Probably surrounded by cats

nibbling at your remains. Okay, another risk is,

let’s imagine, instead, that the first people that you dated

in your first 37 percent are just incredibly dull,

boring, terrible people. Now, that’s okay,

because you’re in your rejection phase – that’s okay,

because you’re in your rejection phase, so thats fine, you can reject them. But then imagine, the next person

to come along is just marginally less boring,

dull and terrible than everybody that you’ve seen before. Now, if you are following the maths,

I’m afraid you have to marry them and end up in a relationship

which is, frankly, suboptimal. Sorry about that. But I do think that there’s

an opportunity here for Hallmark to cash in on

and really cater for this market. A Valentine’s Day card like this.

(Laughter) “My darling husband,

you are marginally less terrible than the first 37 percent

of people I dated.” It’s actually more romantic

than I normally manage. Okay, so this method doesn’t give you

a 100 percent success rate, but there’s no other possible

strategy that can do any better. And actually, in the wild,

there are certain types of fish which follow

and employ this exact strategy. So they reject every possible suitor

that turns up in the first 37 percent

of the mating season, and then they pick the next fish

that comes along after that window that’s, I don’t know, bigger and burlier than all of the fish

that they’ve seen before. I also think that subconsciously,

humans, we do sort of do this anyway. We give ourselves a little bit of time

to play the field, get a feel for the marketplace

or whatever when we’re young. And then we only start looking seriously

at potential marriage candidates once we hit our mid-to-late 20s. I think this is conclusive proof,

if ever it were needed, that everybody’s brains are prewired

to be just a little bit mathematical. Okay, so that was Top Tip #2. Now, Top Tip #3: How to avoid divorce. Okay, so let’s imagine then

that you picked your perfect partner and you’re settling into

a lifelong relationship with them. Now, I like to think that everybody

would ideally like to avoid divorce, apart from, I don’t know,

Piers Morgan’s wife, maybe? But it’s a sad fact of modern life that 1 in 2 marriages

in the States ends in divorce, with the rest of the world

not being far behind. Now, you can be forgiven, perhaps for thinking that the arguments

that precede a marital breakup are not an ideal candidate

for mathematical investigation. For one thing, it’s very hard to know what you should be measuring

or what you should be quantifying. But this didn’t stop a psychologist,

John Gottman, who did exactly that. Gottman observed hundreds of couples

having a conversation and recorded, well,

everything you can think of. So he recorded what was said

in the conversation, he recorded their skin conductivity, he recorded their facial expressions, their heart rates, their blood pressure, basically everything apart from whether

or not the wife was actually always right, which incidentally she totally is. But what Gottman and his team found was that one of the most important

predictors for whether or not a couple

is going to get divorced was how positive or negative each partner

was being in the conversation. Now, couples that were very low-risk scored a lot more positive points

on Gottman’s scale than negative. Whereas bad relationships, by which I mean, probably

going to get divorced, they found themselves

getting into a spiral of negativity. Now just by using these very simple ideas, Gottman and his group were able to predict whether a given couple

was going to get divorced with a 90 percent accuracy. But it wasn’t until he teamed up

with a mathematician, James Murray, that they really started to understand what causes these negativity spirals

and how they occur. And the results that they found I think are just incredibly

impressively simple and interesting. So here they are. I think that should be fairly clear. So these equations, they predict how

the wife or husband is going to respond in their next turn of the conversation, how positive or negative

they’re going to be. And these equations, they depend on the mood of the person

when they’re on their own, the mood of the person when

they’re with their partner, but most importantly, they depend on how much the husband and wife

influence one another. Now, I think it’s important

to point out at this stage, that these exact equations

have also been shown to be perfectly able at describing what happens between two countries

in an arms race. (Laughter) So that – an arguing couple

spiraling into negativity and teetering on the brink of divorce – is actually mathematically equivalent

to the beginning of a nuclear war. (Laughter) But the really important term

in this equation is the influence that people

have on one another, and in particular, something called

the negativity threshold. Now, the negativity threshold, you can think of as

how annoying the husband can be before the wife starts to get

really pissed off, and vice versa. Now, I always thought that good marriages

were about compromise and understanding and allowing the person

to have the space to be themselves. So I would have thought that perhaps

the most successful relationships were ones where there was

a really high negativity threshold. Where couples let things go and only brought things up

if they really were a big deal. But actually, the mathematics

and subsequent findings by the team have shown the exact opposite is true. The best couples,

or the most successful couples, are the ones with

a really low negativity threshold. These are the couples that don’t let

anything go unnoticed and allow each other

some room to complain. These are the couples that are continually

trying to repair their own relationship, that have a much more positive

outlook on their marriage. Couples that don’t let things go and couples that don’t let trivial things

end up being a really big deal. Now of course, it takes bit more

than just a low negativity threshold and not compromising to have

a successful relationship. But I think that it’s quite interesting to know that there is really

mathematical evidence to say that you should never

let the sun go down on your anger. So those are my top three tips of how maths can help you

with love and relationships. But I hope

that aside from their use as tips, they also give you a little bit of insight

into the power of mathematics. Because for me, equations and symbols

aren’t just a thing. They’re a voice that speaks out

about the incredible richness of nature and the startling simplicity in the patterns that twist and turn

and warp and evolve all around us, from how the world works to how we behave. So I hope that perhaps,

for just a couple of you, a little bit of insight into

the mathematics of love can persuade you to have a little bit

more love for mathematics. Thank you. (Applause)

Cool

She's brilliant and hilarious. More people should be laughing at her jokes!

Yes, the odds are absurd now. If I simply put everyone of the gender I am interested in within the Metro area. I only included the age range of 18-44 due to the fact that these are wide census ranges that include the smaller range that I would be interested in.

The number I estimated 4% of the population would be interested in me, not including age range. Roughly 14074 people within the hour and a half driving range. The fact that you likely cannot keep a relationship going outside of a 30 minute drive would reduce the number to a non-precise 4223 options . This doesn't consider anything to do with personality limitations or attractiveness or anything else. However, if you believe the Meyer-Briggs concepts as applied to dating. The number drops to 15 people. Apparently I am a rare type who only likes other particular small groups. Throw in the fact that I only meet people online in a very narrow range, and that number likely drops to 1 or 2 options.

Interestingly, OkCupid has told me I have 1985 likes over an 8 year period of being online. I have had roughly 15 or so dates over that time, and only two relationships. The numbers are not good. A lot of those likes are from thousands of miles away as well.

My research shows me that I will never again have a relationship from OkCupid unless I change a lot of factors of my life.

I like your hairs 🙂

Red hair, accent, intelligence. I'm in love.

OK, 37%. But how do You really know how many potential candidates You'd have in an assumed time frame?

I'm sure Hannah has never had a problem finding love.

How was everyone not laughing as hysterically as I was every time she said something funny 😂😂😂

Shouldn’t the card read “You’re marginally less terrible than the men I dated during the first 37% of my predicted optimal dating years” instead of the first 37% of men?

My takeaway from this: There’s hope for massive minger gingers like me!I’m going to binge listen the Curious Cases podcast. Dr Fry gives me hope 😁

Very sad! The same talk about monogamic, heteronormative, and violent relationships. For how long we'll reinforce this meaning of "Love"?

Peter should come to Rexburg

What i did! 😊 it works.

37% of zero is zero

But now 5 million people gonna use this -_-

Ok I believe you hannah I fell for you thanks for being you your beautiful and seem to be really nice and funny wow you got everything but your missing something me

Must see channel Nikhil Nirmal

Thank you! You are beautiful!

Asolutely mesmerising voice, mind, humor & and beauty.

At 6.30… ok … beautiful girl but… ginger hair…. everybody out and leave her to me.

the title should be the love of mathemathcs…

Easy for her to say when shes a 9/10

I'm not sure the audience understood the term 'minger'

Hannah Fry gives nerds dating advice. Lol great content Hannah

This is not math

I loved this! Thank you. Absolutely adored your speech.

hey…you used the toilet example on people! Love it

I would have an entirely disparate relationship with mathematics if I'd have such a teacher.

Also the jon gottman study is described elaborately in Malcolm gladwell's Blink.

Tips

1. For online dating, emphasize your unique (and perhaps unflattering/divisive) parts of yourself.

2. Reject the first 37% of dates and settle for the next one that's better than them all.

3. Have a really low negativity threshold – sound out any negativities with your partner ASAP

Can you help me with a consideration of a mathematically geometrical problem? Please? How many equilateral triangles can you fit into a right triangle a la Pythagoras, if you encode the golden ratio, psi or more insightfully creative ratios?

I mean… I think this shows just how hard and complicated it is to get and stay married. Why wouldn't someone simply put that effort into themselves and, I don't know, not get married? Seems like there's little to no payoff… Don't want to die alone? That's a weird argument since we all die alone… I mean, statistically if a guy gets married and stays married, he's gonna die before her, so she'll end up dying alone anyway. There's a ton of other options out there besides marriage, all of which appear to have a much higher chance of success with higher levels of fulfillment and satisfaction from a statistical standpoint. So weird people are who keep trying to justify marriage… It's like they are self destructive or something… but maybe that's just me.

Do you want Fry with that? Yes!

the most of the internet thinks she looks like a hor that what i was thinking i didn't head the s

Why is everyone so thirsty in these comments?

Im sure Hannah is one of the 26.

How do you know what the 1st 37% is without knowing the total set?

3:00 I always win at online dating! Of course, I use third party cheat programs.

Marginally less terrible…

LOL. MGTOW all the way.

Jesus Christ. Come up with some more interesting comments. 60%+ Of you basically just saying you want to bang her. So do I, but we ALL get it. Absolutely no popcorn for your discussion, too boring.

I rate Hannah as 5/5

Me + Hannah Fry + a Bed = Lust.

all the assumptions on this video are wrong:

– meeting an marrying a person you meet on a dating website to get started with

to put it straight:

– things happen when they have to happen

– things happen when you are prepared to have the opportunity

– things happen when you are prepared to turn that opportunity into a relationship

– things happen if you have resilience and can keep a relationship in the long run

to put it straight:

– all relationships have some manifested hardship at some point

– it's willing to you to surprass that and deal with that

11:10 If GlaD0s got married

I've never heard a southerner say "minger".

"Rule 10 of life: Be precise in your speech"

2018 anyone?

Looks like I've bloody well found love and it's a redhead mathematician.

I got lucky wife has been chasing me sense 12 years old and we've been on our honeymoon for 24 years and counting. Now with that said this info may have been helpful when I was younger haha great presentation.

This crowd is absolutely boring. Her talk was amazing and funny. And by the way for science lovers there's a podcast that she does. It goes by the name 'The curious case of rutherford and Fry' from the BBC.

This woman is amazing, I love her.

Wow! She threw a shizzt ton of shade. On Jessica Parker, Piers Morgan. Lol. This woman is awesome. I am in love! I wish I was 37.000001% man.

One day, she will complete the equation and solves the gravity problem that prevent interstellar travel, ultimately saving humanity.

damn, I wish she was my hairdresser….

I could watch her all day

shes amazing

i'm not a native speaker. There's the comment about Jane Austen that I don't understand. What does she mean by a woman of seven and twenty?

Attempting to use statistics to measure something as complex as human mate selection / pair bonding seems to me akin to using a yardstick when you need to measure in millimeters. You might get some ideas about broad patterns and trends. But, so much of that process relies on the unconscious that you are missing the really interesting parts that merit investigation.

What metrics were used to quantify both the wife and husband’s assigned mood values? Seems like those metrics in such a study could be quite arbitrary.

I heard her tongue moving her saliva inside her mouth the whole talk xd

شكرا نضال قسوم

Only someone with a foot fetish could find Sarah Jessica Parker attractive (thanks Peter Griffin)

Is it weird that I want to maths her brains out? I'd happily marry her before or after this, but there's no question about it; I'd maths the snot out of her, numerate all over it, then maths it back in!

How to win a online dating if your name is Hannah Fry:

Show them a picture of you, and let them know that you are just as smart as you are beautiful.. 😉

I want to marry you !

How do incels enter in this equation ? Error ?

Tip 1: Find a British girl called Hannah

Tip 2: Make sure she's a Professor

Tip 3: Marry

I am very confused, did you actually say something about the topic?

Brilliant

16:20 Ron and Hermione from Harry Potter anyone?

Well she couldn't calculate how bland the audience was 😂😂

Incredible blend of science and magic

So if you strike gold on the first date after the first 37%, why would you date the last 63%?

Beautiful and intelligent- Hannah Fry in a nutshell;).

Что за аутист превратил Ханну в Анну?

According to the Equations of "coulples' responses" there seems to be strong correlation between those two, but what if the situation is such, that the correlation is oposite? How probability is working in those situations?

Redheads are my favorite

She's so funny!

She’s beautiful!!!!!

Wow, Hannah Fry!

There is no such thing as love!

I wonder if where compatible …..i would really have to ask you out for a cup of tea

don't need 100 message, just need one

Spiral of negativity, leads to nuclear war and divorce.

I am sending a link all my ex's. Spread the knowledge!

Very funny. Next time I'm going to use math to find love.

Clickbait. This isn’t the mathematics of love it’s the mathematics of just meeting people.

Hannah, I have to admit that I have fallen in love with you for the duration of the video, but unfortunately it appears to me now as I go through the comments that so has everyone else, therefore I think I'm just not going to do anything about it. I mean, why even bother, taking into account all the competition? You must have trillions of people hitting on you every day.

women will do anything for attention…except shut up. Ha! Ha!

Hahahahaha, the tables are turning, aren't they? Now the women need help attracting men, because the smart and successful men have gone MGTOW.

I was shocked with the 37% theory. I was ready to seriously date for marriage from 25 until im 33(this is my cut off). Hence my 37% should be at age 28. Without knowing this, i marry my husband at 28. Same with my hubby. We got same same 37% optimal.

This is obviously aimed at women

My Life has become so much easier & prosperous once I completely gave up on the idea of marriage and relationships. Women = CHEAP THRILL THAT'S WAY OVERPRICED

i agree on one thing i now, dont let sun go down on your anger

Ist noch λ?Ja, aber das ϕ ist noch ϱI’m confused… how do you “reject the first thirty seven percent” of an amount of people of which you don’t know the maximum of. I mean, how do you know when you’ve reached the 37% if you don’t know the total amount?

5:30 a second of heaven

Hannah Fry is really attractive, let's be honest. And that dig at Piers Morgan was AWESOME! Why didn't it get laughs?

I guess They receive more messages because they respond to the messages. ))

About the thing with nuclear war, I think that when you and your partner actually fall in love you both already have zero sum capacity because if things go sideways both will be terribly hurt, even if you end up as friends, so every time you choose to express affection and positivity towards your loved one you are in fact your own Stanislav Petrov

14:40 – Well a lot of introverts are dying alone then.