
Applying an experimental procedure to fall in love - pje
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/modern-love-to-fall-in-love-with-anyone-do-this.html
======
grimgrin
I harvested the questions out of the PDF.

[https://gist.github.com/shmup/3bc1229f24486d746bf3](https://gist.github.com/shmup/3bc1229f24486d746bf3)

~~~
morgante
Oddly those don't match the list which the NYT published:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/no-37-big-
wedding-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/no-37-big-wedding-or-
small.html)

~~~
grimgrin
They match the questions under "Task Slips for Closeness-Generating Procedure"
but don't include the "Task Slips for Small-Talk Condition in Study 1"
questions.

------
ada1981
I was so inspired by this article that I spent the day coding an app / game
that beautifully guides you through the questions and includes a built in
timer with a sound for the eye gazing.

[http://LoveActualized.com](http://LoveActualized.com)

I envision is being something that would be fun on a first date as a game.

Also - I've used eye gazing and several variations with profound results in my
coaching work -- many of my clients have said that a ~3 minute session is
easily the most profound experience of their lives.

------
logicallee
I thought this was great and recommend the article. Click through to the list
of questions - [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/no-37-big-
wedding-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/no-37-big-wedding-or-
small.html)

There's no harm in trying it. At worst you'll get to know someone. I'd have no
qualms working through this set with at least a dozen people I can think of
off-hand (some of whom aren't available anyway, it doesn't matter, or where we
flirt anyway.)

The questions are mostly quite interesting. I'd lie about #34 though as it's
embarrassing that, like most people here, I have unbacked up stuff on a
laptop, which would be an easy decision over other stuff (since there's so
much and it's so easy to take) but gives the wrong impression about my
priorities. So what - say someone isn't completely honest with you in some of
the answers. still an interesting set of questions.

I'm also curious what happens if you just do this with an acquaintance of the
same gender assuming neither of you two have any interest in that gender
romantically. if you're a man, imagine just answering this stuff with a casual
acquiantance (think of bros or colleagues) vaguely similar to you but not a
gender you're attracted to, and looking into each other's eyes for 4 minutes.
same if you're a woman with another woman acquaintance. [1]

It would be interesting to know what kind of bonding this elicits.

[1] I specifically chose to mention only a same-gendered examples - two guys
who aren't into guys, or same with two girls - because the example of a purely
gay person doing so with someone of the opposite gender is a bit different for
a couple of reasons. some gay people will date or even marry someone of the
opposite gender - e.g. a beard - plus social norms would push in that
direction even if neither party is attracted. I'm more interested in the
example of two acquaintances who are of the same gender but not gay doing
this.)

~~~
gamerDude
I would definitely save my computer. But I don't think it should be
embarrassing.

You already saved loved ones and pets, next your value may be your thoughts
(saved in documents), work (value to the world), etc. There is a lot of good
reasons to save that.

That is what the why is for, to add the actual personal reasons behind it.
Which is the important part of the question.

~~~
dean
First thing I thought of was photos, and they are all on the computer. Which
is backed up, but onsite.

------
cllns
I'm just finishing up _All About Love: New Visions_ by bell hooks. In it, she
talks about love as an action.

She frequently quotes Erich Fromm's _The Art of Loving_ , which seems good as
well.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_About_Love:_New_Visions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_About_Love:_New_Visions)

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Loving](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Loving)

~~~
rhblake
_The Art of Loving_ , while feeling a bit dated in some parts (especially
Fromm's views on homosexuality), is on the whole a fantastic, short little
book that I reread every few years or so. I always liked his definition of
love: "Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we
love. Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love."

~~~
djrtwo
Love has a circular definition? I find that interesting. It implies (to me)
that more love grows from love. Maybe the experiment successfully lays the
down a foundation to begin the circular love reinforcement.

~~~
garretraziel
I don't think that it's circular definition. Definition talks about the one
you love, in other words:

love(x, y) = x has the active concern for the life and the growth of y

"Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love" only says that "if x
has no active concern about y, love is zero".

~~~
mbrock
This definition of love as a binary relation is interesting. Fromm, in a way,
goes beyond it. From _The Art of Loving:_

If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his
fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged
egotism. Yet most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not
by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is proof of the intensity
of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person. This is
the same fallacy which I have already mentioned above. Because one does not
see that love is an activity, a power of the soul, one believes that all that
is necessary to find is the right object - and that everything goes by itself
afterward. This attitude can be compared to that of the man who wants to paint
but who, instead of learning the art, claims that he just has to wait for the
right object - and that he will paint beautifully when he finds it. If I truly
love one person I love all persons, I love the world, I love life. If I can
say to somebody else, "I love you," I must be able to say, "I love in you
everybody, I love through you the world, I love in you also myself."

------
cel
In a psychology class I took, we applied this procedure as an in-class
exercise, pairing up and asking each other the questions. It works well.

~~~
Someone
If it works well, is it ethical for a teacher to let you do it as an exercise
(simplest example: some of those doing the exercise may be in a relationship
with someone not in the class)?

~~~
cel
We didn't do the full procedure, just a subset of the questions. We were not
forming intimate relationships, just developing a sense of closeness in a
short amount of time and learning about what that involves (e.g. reciprocal
personal self-disclosure). So I don't think it was harmful or unethical.

------
curuinor
We did this in the Stanford salon: the procedure was for interpersonal
intimacy, so some parts you can pluck out and try for friendships: we matched
people pretty randomly-ish, and it was a fairly good result. This is the
experimental protocol
([https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~rascl/tools/secondFastFriendsQ...](https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~rascl/tools/secondFastFriendsQuestions.html))

There seems to be a positive feedback sort of thing in this, because the pair
who got the most out of it was two people who had been friends for a long
time, who learned a lot about each other.

------
DarkIye
I remember reading about positive conceptualisation techniques in _Men are
from Mars, Women are from Venus_. This is nothing particularly special. What
if you spent 90 minutes detailing one another's flaws? You'd come away with a
similarly inaccurate negative impression of your partner.

------
ukusan
Here's an app version! [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fall-in-
love/id957054500?ls=...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fall-in-
love/id957054500?ls=1&mt=8)

------
minthd
What i don't get-why did something like this remains hidden from the general
public for 20 years ? Why didn't the study authors worked on popularizing this
?

~~~
codingdave
It was a published study. In academia, that is the goal, and the goal was met.

Do you really mean to ask why didn't the study authors monetize this? If so,
you are looking at academia through startup-tinted lenses.

~~~
minthd
It's not about monetizing this. But people who know about this, don't they
think it could really help lots of people ? and if so aren't they, especially
in the fields of psychology, motivated by such things ? Because popularizing
this might be the most valuable thing they could do in their professional
lives.

~~~
Retra
Unless it is fundamentally wrong. In which case, it could be a major mistake.
So you let it exist for a while and see if there is any counter-research or
alternative explanations that have been overlooked.

------
adamzerner
I could have sworn that I saw a video about this. It might have been a Ted
Talk? I can't find the link. Can anyone else?

~~~
Pyfagorass
Amy Webb - How I Hacked Online Dating:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_datin...](https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_dating?language=en)

~~~
adamzerner
That isn't what I'm thinking of :/. I recall people actually up on a stage
staring into each others eyes, and the talk being about that phenomena.

------
jmharvey
Whatever happened to HN's rule about clickbait headlines?

~~~
k-mcgrady
AFAIK the rule is to use the title given in the article and not create your
own click bait headline. IF the mods determine the articles title is click
bait they can change it.

~~~
dang
The rule says " _unless it is misleading or linkbait_ ", so in the case of
linkbait it's not only legit to change the title, it's requested.

We've attempted to replace the title of this article with a more neutral one.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
jacques_chester
Time for all of us to come up with pre-canned answers.

"My greatest weakness is that I'm a workaholic perfectionist. I know I should
spend more time doing stuff other than working and preparing for work, but
it's just so important to do everything that is best for my company."

~~~
jvagner
The whole, whole point of her article is that, in that action, you're not
choosing love, and won't get it.

Read the last sentence of her article again...

~~~
jacques_chester
The whole point of my comment is that it was a joke. HN, at least _officially_
, frowns on humorous remarks. But I've found that it's not always true.

I fully expect that I will be "spontaneously" bombarded with these questions
on dates in the coming months. And they will lose all efficacy because people
will prepare for them in the same way that they prepare for idiotic brain-
teasers and HR questions.

~~~
mkal_tsr
Describe the last time you went to the zoo.

------
tightfleece
"To Fall in Love with Anyone, Stare Into Their Eyes for 4 Minutes"

I hate business models that work by wasting your time. It's not a bad article
though.

~~~
Retra
What on Earth prompted you to use the phrase 'business model' in this context?

~~~
IkmoIkmo
I'd guess he refers to: Clickbait Title -> Page Views -> Ad Views/Exposure ->
Revenue

------
andrewlynch
Apply to Tinder.

------
kornork
I dated a girl who liked to stare at me in the eyes, in silence. I'm not sure
if we ever made it to 4 minutes. It was pretty creepy.

------
scottlocklin
This article is disgusting hogwash, suited for the emotional timbre of shallow
New Yorkers who go to psychotherapists as a hobby. As the great philosopher
Inigo Montoya put it, (Love) "you keep using that word, I don't think you know
what it means."

------
selimthegrim
This is sophistry. She was already attracted to him (here, I use it in the
sense primarily of "willing to go out on a date with him") before they
started. I don't see any mention of "to build attraction, do this", and
intimacy will smother their boundaries and their relationship without
attraction.

~~~
jkscm
> Let me acknowledge the ways our experiment already fails to line up with the
> study. First, we were in a bar, not a lab. Second, we weren’t strangers. Not
> only that, but I see now that one neither suggests nor agrees to try an
> experiment designed to create romantic love if one isn’t open to this
> happening.

Her story is just an illustration to the research paper she linked to. Please
stay away from commenting if you didn't read the article.

~~~
selimthegrim
I did read the article, and that disclaimer, which she was correct to include,
is inimical to the linkbaity title. OTOH, I may just be used to dealing with
avoidant personalities, because I can't say I've had nearly the same results
this woman has had.

~~~
tptacek
Periodical writers do not as a general rule make up their own titles. Your
comment painted the whole article as "sophistry". Don't move the goalposts.

