Posts

If you’ve ever taken an economics course, you’d recall that basic economics is founded on the assumption that an individual is a fundamentally rational creature. This infallible being, homo economicus, when in possession of complete and accurate information, always chooses the option that maximizes their well-being. Of course, we all know that this is a flagrantly inaccurate assumption – people constantly act against their objective rational self-interest. In the 1970s, Israeli psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman studied and catalogued some of these irrationalties. Through meticulous and often creative experimentation, they found patterns in the way that we are sometimes at odds with rationality. Tversky and Kahneman’s research spawned a new field called behavioral economics to study these predictable irrationalities. Thus far, behavioral economists have identified over 100 of these persistent mental errors – called cognitive biases – that distort our decision-making. ...

The world of relationships is rife with hard choices – at each stage, you have to decide whether you’re in or you’re out, whether to brave that next date or relegate them to the friend zone, whether to invest more in an unsatisfying relationship or to throw in the towel and break up. Numerous are the opportunities for “agonizing, hand-wringing, the gnashing of teeth.” In times where I have to make difficult calls, I find myself coming back time and time again to Ruth Chang’s TED talk on hard choices. Chang is the Professor and Chair of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford and a Professorial Fellow of University College, Oxford. She’s no stranger to hard choices. After graduating from college, she found herself deciding between a career in philosophy and one in law. Coming from an immigrant family, being a philosopher seemed like the “height of extravagance and frivolity”, so she went with the less risky option of becoming an attorney. After getting her JD from Harvard Law and dipping her toe into the legal world, she soon realized that this path was not for her. She went to Oxford to pursue philosophy, and has since then been studying choice, freedom, value and action. ...

The investment model1 offers an elegant explanation for why we sometimes find it very difficult to leave a relationship, even when relationship satisfaction is persistently low. This model posits we are likely to remain in a relationship to the extent that we feel dependent on that relationship. This dependence, in turn, leads to greater commitment to remaining in the relationship over time. While we do tend to feel more dependent in satisfying relationships, even in an unsatisfying relationship dependence can be present when: ...

The text Intimate Relationships by Thomas Bradbury and Benjamin Karney at UCLA’s Marriage and Close Relationships Lab distinguishes among different types of social relationships: Interdependent relationship: A relationship in which the behavior of each participant affects the other. Interdependence is the defining characteristic of any social relationship. Personal relationship: An interdependent relationship in which the partners consider each other special and unique, rather than as member of a generic category (e.g. classmate or neighbor). Close relationship: A personal relationship in which the partners have strong, sustained mutual influence over a broad range of interactions. Intimate relationship: A close relationship that includes some kind of sexual passion that could be expressed and shared. While these definitions are not universal, they do show the key dimensions of distinction for various kinds of relationships.

The Netflix show Black Mirror famously portrays near-future dystopias that have some sci-fi technology twist. When the creators turned their lens to the dating world, the result was typically thought-provoking – and atypically optimistic. The episode Hang the DJ (Season 4) follows protagonists Frank and Amy in their quest to find their perfect match. They are guided by an AI called Coach that matches them up with a partner for fixed lengths of time (anything ranging from a few hours to several years), in what appears to be an idyllic dating village. Coach monitors each relationship, with the end of goal of assigning each participant a life partner on “pairing day”… with a 99.8% success rate (just slightly higher than Tinder!). ...

In quantum mechanics, wave–particle duality is the theory that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It captures the indecency of concepts particle or wave to fully capture the nuances of how quantum-scale objects behave. As Einstein said: It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do. ...

Relational well-being is based on two pillars: foundational virtues and functional relational skills. Firstly, you want to select a partner based on foundational virtues. These include other-oriented empathy and self-awareness. While these aren’t set in stone, a weekend training workshop will not instill these virtues and abilities. You have to choose a partner who demonstrates them already in daily practice. Second, a life partner requires functional relational skills, or the salient behaviors and strategies of good partnership. For instance, great partners consistently and skillfully offer generous listening and practice non-violent communication, they turn towards bids, and they express fondness and admiration. These are teachable skills, and can be instilled and refined through relationship workshops, counseling, and/or self-education.

I’m often asked of all the relationship books I’ve read, which one I would recommend the most. As with any recommendation, a good answer takes into account the person that’s asking – their tastes, their learning style, and where they’re at in their relational journey. So while I can’t identify the one best book for everyone, below are some of my favorites. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John Gottman and Nan Silver Attached by Amir Levin and Rachel Heller Wired for Love by Stan Tatkin The 80/80 Marriage: A New Model for a Happier, Stronger Relationship by Nate and Kaley Klemp Non-Violent Communication by Marshall B. Rosenberg The All-or-Nothing Marriage by Eli J. Finkel The 80/80 marriage authors maintain an up-to-date list of resources here, which includes a high-level summary and a key takeaway from each book. ...

A common dynamic in relationships is that there’s one “more responsible” partner that’s first to notice things – whether it’s a stain on the carpet or that it’s time to renew the car registration. That partner is faced with two choices – they can deal with the issue themselves, or ask their partner to deal with it, stepping into the role of a domestic autocrat giving orders to their peons. Either way, resentment ensues on both sides. And predictably, when enough resentment builds, it can turn into bursts of rage or pervasive passive aggressiveness. ...

Consider these scenarios: Scenario 1: Your partner tells you that they you want to show you something in the garden, and you say that you’ll be there in five minutes. Five minutes later, you’re still finishing up that email… just a little while longer. 15 minutes later, you finally show up, with some excuses about the delay. Scenario 2: You’re supposed to walk the dog in the mornings, but the night before, your boss throws a work meeting on your calendar at the last minute. You ask your partner to cover for you – they acquiesce, but silently resent that it throws their entire morning routine off. ...