In sum, we have shown that subjective understanding
during social interaction can modulate interpersonal attraction. Interestingly, the findings of the current study suggest that the neural mechanisms underlying individual adjustments of interpersonal attraction during social encounters might act through internal reward signals that are partly independent of external feedback, which makes them perhaps less prone to cheating by potential cooperation partners. To investigate the interaction between intrinsic confidence signals and other — honest or manipulative — signals sent back and forth between communication partners and to examine the neural determinants of the dynamics of human social relations in larger groups (“social connectomes”) remain challenging tasks for future studies.
The current study suggests that mutual understanding is an important factor in interpersonal attraction, and that further research into the role of a common neural vocabulary in interpersonal attraction will lead to a better understanding of the neurobiological factors that define human social relations.
The paragraph summarizing the experiment is clarifying:
> Significance.
> Humans interacting with other humans must be able to understand
their interaction partner’s affect and motivations, often
without words. We examined whether people are attracted to
others whose affective behavior they can easily understand. For
this, we asked participants to watch different persons experiencing
different emotions. We found the better a participant
thought they could understand another person’s emotion the
more they felt attracted toward that person. Importantly, these
individual changes in interpersonal attraction were predicted by
activity in the participant’s reward circuit, which in turn signaled
how well the participant’s “neural vocabulary” was suited to
decode the other’s behavior. This research elucidates neurobiological
processes that might play an important role in the formation
and success of human social relations.
Makes sense. One of the most attractive things about my girlfriend initially was that she and I related some some things that a lot of other people don't seem to get.
I didn't get that much things in common in the beginning, except that we would understand and laugh from the same jokes. It took a while to refine many other things, like understanding things without needing to say and so on.
You have to have things in common to be a resting place, so that you have peace of mind while doing those things together.
You also have to have things that you're good at and that makes the other person proud (kind of envy) of you, things that they'll contemplate while you're doing.
And, finally, things that you suck at but they are good, so that you'll also stare while they are doing and will keep you enchanted.
I am madly in love with a girl because of just this. We understand each other where others don't, or would even judge us for the same (mis)understanding.
This phenomenon is alluded to in the spoken bit at the closing of Jason Mraz's "Details In The Fabric", with "You're an island of reality in an ocean of diarrhoea".
Great read. Makes me reflect on my own taste, though. I seem to be attracted to people I can't quite understand, people who take some work for me to figure out. Maybe there's a solid relational foundation between us, but we're always quite different people and I'm kept guessing a lot of the time. I find it interesting, fun, stimulating. I'm sure there are plenty like me in that respect. Any armchair hypotheses for that?
You are most likely a lover of problems and puzzles. Relationships where you don't understand the other person, is the Ultimate Problem Puzzle, but in the emotional field zone, where you can experience and interact with the problem in so much more ways than just computer code.
The same dopamine high of breaking through in solving a problem in the messy legacy code base, refactoring down those 1000s of lines into 100s, increasing the webserver's performance etc.. those same circuits are firing when trying to 'fix' or 'solve' the indecipherable person you are dating.
however, sometimes after a beginner hacker starts, maybe 3,4,5 years, and after their philosophizing-abstractionist hacker phase, they become the 'wise hacker', where writing ---no code at all--- is the best code to try and solve, or bypass problems. Maybe this is what people feel when they meet a S.O. who share mutual intrinsic emotional understanding.
I don't personally subscribe to this philosophy but I could see some other pattern-based thinkers branching off it.
I used to be that way (I went as far as dating a few borderline people). I didn't end up with someone like that though. I think partners like you describe are fun relationships but difficult partners long term. Its exciting but you probably don't want to buy a house and have kids with exciting. To each their own of course.
"Can't quite understand" in an intellectual sense (i.e. "where they're coming from" or "how they think"), or an emotional sense (i.e. "what they're feeling" or "what they want")?
I can perfectly-well understand being content with the first kind of disconnect—that's the kind of puzzle that drives you to learn more about your partner.
The second kind seems a lot more fundamental, though: if someone had completely different preferences or feelings from me, to the point where I couldn't even understand those feelings/preferences, I'd just feel like they were an alien.
And I mean, maybe I'm imagining something too far out-there; I can perfectly well understand the feelings and preferences of e.g. autistics or sociopaths or narcissists. But, say—someone who enjoys things, but then this enjoyment doesn't translate to doing those things ever again? Can't connect. Just don't get it. Bizarre alien mind architecture.
I'm the same way, and for me I believe it is a combination of being extremely intrigued and gratefully removed from my own world. Meeting an interesting person (romantic or not) is a great experience for that dual effect of mental stimulation (your "figuring it out" description) and being confronted with another person's reality which may feel much more vibrant than your own.
How is stuff like this still news, given the "epistemological crisis" in psychology research? Did they pre-register their analysis or arrange some kind of independent replication?
A lot of my ex-partners complained that we "didn't have anything in common," to the extent that I started telling new love interests, "Look, I already know we don't have anything in common. Don't bring it up later as a reason to leave."
After reading this I wonder if it was actually that my ex-partners were incapable of understanding how someone unlike them would react to different situations. I was usually able to predict their reactions, but maybe it was only a one way street.
> "Look, I already know we don't have anything in common. Don't bring it up later as a reason to leave."
I can vouch that you do not have to have much in common with your significant other despite what all the dating services will lead you to believe.
My wife and I have failed every compatibility test (most of the tests are gimmicky anyway) and have very little in common yet we have been together for 17 years.
However we can still effectively communicate to one another.
One armchair conclusion I sort of take from the study is that this should give some greater credence to couples therapy and that sooner participation is probably better. After all communication can be learned.
Could also be that just because you and your wife don't have much in common doesn't mean you don't understand one another. Shared traits and understanding are different things.
"Look, I already know we don't have anything in common. Don't bring it up later as a reason to leave."
I don't know you or your context but, without that context, that reads like someone missing the boat completely about relationships. Sure, you might start out without anything in common, but part of the bonding processes is finding things you do have in common (typically by experimenting with each other's interests, or mutual exploration/discovery of new interests/experiences). If you don't nurture that, then over time you may grow apart and no longer have anything in common.
I was usually able to predict their reactions, but maybe it was only a one way street.
You trying to predict what your partner is going to do might not have been such a positive contribution to the relationship. People don't like it when someone tries to predict their reaction to something. If you're right then it makes the other person look predictable, and if you're wrong then you look like you don't know them very well. Either way it's bad.
> People don't like it when someone tries to predict their reaction to something.
What? How exactly do you expect to pleasantly surprise your significant other if you can't predict what they'll like? How could you possibly buy them gifts? I'm pretty sure that predicting what I like is something that pretty much everyone is perfectly ok with.
You'd think so, but research suggests that isn't the case. There was an interesting psychological study recently that showed the best gift (in terms of how happy the receiver is) reflects the personality of the giver rather than the recipient[1]. You might not mind, but other people do. And obviously it depends hugely on the situation, people involved, relationship, etc.
> There was an interesting psychological study recently that showed the best gift (in terms of how happy the receiver is) reflects the personality of the giver rather than the recipient
That's great, but you claimed that your partner wouldn't like it if you try to predict what they would like. The link you provided actually says the opposite: that people say they prefer gifts tailored to their preferences, which means they wouldn't mind you predicting what they'd like, contrary to your original claim.
Well, that's definitely one for the "suspicious until replicated" bin. They generalized all that from asking people to buy a single song off iTunes. Off the top of my head, people are better judges of music quality in their preferred genres. There's also not much to distinguish "a song bought from iTunes that I like" vs "a song bought from iTunes I think you'll like" in terms of thought invested, allowing smaller effects to dominate.
I suspect if you broadened the scope even a little, the effect would reverse. How about beverages? Alice likes coffee and hates whiskey. Bob hates coffee but loves a single malt. What should Alice and Bob get each other for Christmas?
> People don't like it when someone tries to predict their reaction to something.
They probably don't like it if you set it up as a trap for them, but surely a lot of the "little things" in a long-term relationship are exactly this kind of prediction? Knowing their favourite X and least favourite Y?
Partner dances are rather old fashioned these days, but I think one of the reasons for their long popularity is precisely mutual prediction - it's a little test of whether you're able to sync up with someone and go in the same direction.
I'm constantly trying to predict what people are going to do, but it isn't voluntary, at least I don't think it is. I have to construct a mental model of the people around me, and to do that requires constant evaluation, testing, and adjustment.
So Internet relationship advice is a bit like advice on a rash based on its color.
That said and with a bit of tough love I really doubt they were incapable of understanding you. If they were, perhaps there's something you should change so they can understand you.
Offhand, your "I already know" remark comes off as putting up walls because you're afraid of being hurt. It's hard to learn about someone when they don't want you getting too close.
Can you identify what your common interests were in those relationships? What brought you together besides you both having equipment the other fancies? If there's a limited supply of answers, it's possible you really didn't have mutual interests or aspirations/life goals.
No doubt they were doing me a favor by leaving, but when I say to someone I'm interacting with for the first time, "I already know we don't have anything in common," I'm giving them the chance to get out now if they aren't interested in someone who is not their clone. I'd rather skip dating all together than to find out 2-3 years later that I wasn't what they were looking for.
But from the other person's perspective it sounds something like:
"Having just met you I can already tell nothing about you interests or excites me. I have trust issues and I fully expect you to leave me so in preparation for that I'm going to put up emotional walls and not invest myself too much in this relationship in case it fails."
There's a wide and opaque area between not being someone's clone and having nothing in common.
"Having nothing in common" is not the same as "having nothing even potentially in common."
The parent meant, I assume, that they expressed the first one: that they don't currently know much about the other person's interests, and vice-versa.
That doesn't mean they won't learn about them. And, in fact, if the two people are compatible on a personality level, they'll likely turn out to enjoy similar interests—finding out about "things I liked but didn't know it."
But it does communicate something important: that if you're someone who isn't willing to learn about new things, and stretch your definition of "who you are" to encompass new things—i.e. to "invest yourself in the relationship"—then this won't work.
And that is an important thing to communicate, at some point (maybe not the first conversation, but at some point.) Some people really do just want a partner who likes "what they like", instead of a partner that will help them grow in directions they will enjoy only in retrospect.
No. I assure you the conversation goes further than this. If I am pursuing them then everything about them interests me and excites me. I'm very interested in a particular type of person, one which happens to not have much in common with me.
See to me, it came across as more like, "I'm confusing position with trajectory", which signals some really terrible understanding of relationship dynamics.
I'm an aspie/hfa and you sound like me before I started learning about how to socially interact from piles of self-help books. Learn how to software emulate the hardware so to speak.
Yeah, I consider the above behavior as being pro-active. He/she didn't allege this issue to be the case in every relationship, nor -- as the other comment correctly suggests -- anyone's fault.
It's human to use our register of past experiences to foresee problems in the future. I'd rather put out a warning than waste time with someone who later hits the eject button based on something that was evident from the jump. In relationships of any sort, really, including business, it's reasonable to say "hey, just so there aren't any misunderstandings down the road, let's be clear on x,y,and z; otherwise, we're wasting our time and this probably isn't going to work."
Astute observation that he was the common denominator -- as opposed to his experiences being based on a history of relationships that didn't involve him. I guess anytime a person has multiple bad experiences, it must be their fault, right? (I have family members that think that way. I no longer visit them during the holidays.)
Well, you can't say it MUST be their fault, but certainly if the same thing keeps happening over and over, they might want to do a little self assessment and see if anything they're doing could be the cause of the issues.
>I wonder if it was actually that my ex-partners were incapable of understanding how someone unlike them would react to different situations. I was usually able to predict their reactions, but maybe it was only a one way street
Perhaps you should ponder the meaning of "I wonder if" and contrast with your attempt to interpret this statement as an unequivocal assignment of blame.
Fair to speculate that the other person was the problem. They didn't say it was a certain thing. Some people have blind spots that prevent them from realizing that their actions may not fly with the other person. I can't speak to how objective this poster's self-evaluation was, but I guess they felt they were better able to predict the reactions of the other person, and accordingly, were better able to avoid doing things to irritate others.
To be fair, I do see how you could misinterpret this as blaming the other person; but an alternate take is that the person is brainstorming, after reading the article, that the other person was simply less adept at predicting behavior.
I don't know if the authors are trying to avoid it, but what they are describing hints at a similar conclusion for the opposites of attraction: hate + racism
The more certain you are of how someone feels, the more you are attracted to them. Not only how they feel, but also how they are motivated. They conclude this from looking at patterns of neural activity.
But most importantly, the "attraction" is an intrinsic reward signal generated by your own brain from judging that it understands another person well. The other person can't actually alter that intrinsic reward except by making their actions easier to understand.
Well, it sorta depends on how the anxiety or low self esteem manifests itself. If the person is aware of their anxiety and doesn't try to cover it with over-compensation in the other direction (excessive self assurance or arrogance), then it can be rather charming.
Would it suggest that like-attracts-like with mental illnesses? E.g., if you have ADHD, other people with ADHD will be more predictable to you than people without ADHD, so you'll prefer to date them?
In sum, we have shown that subjective understanding during social interaction can modulate interpersonal attraction. Interestingly, the findings of the current study suggest that the neural mechanisms underlying individual adjustments of interpersonal attraction during social encounters might act through internal reward signals that are partly independent of external feedback, which makes them perhaps less prone to cheating by potential cooperation partners. To investigate the interaction between intrinsic confidence signals and other — honest or manipulative — signals sent back and forth between communication partners and to examine the neural determinants of the dynamics of human social relations in larger groups (“social connectomes”) remain challenging tasks for future studies. The current study suggests that mutual understanding is an important factor in interpersonal attraction, and that further research into the role of a common neural vocabulary in interpersonal attraction will lead to a better understanding of the neurobiological factors that define human social relations.