From Axes to Exes: A Modern Treatment of Interpersonal Relationships
With the rise of big data, sociologists are increasingly discovering patterns in our intimate lives. Data scientists have written books on successful online dating [1]; clinicians are selling the secrets to long-lasting marriages [2]; two researchers spent 238 hours watching monkeys have sex [3].
As a data scientist, I want to add to this pool of knowledge by providing a theory on interpersonal relationships that has literally no data backing whatsoever. Why? Because:
- This has functional use in society as a succinct break-up line
- Now I don’t have to defend bad p-values
And so, I present:
Theorem 1. All people can be plotted on a 2-D plane having two axes: stable and interesting. Nearly everyone you know can be classified as either (a) highly stable but less interesting, or (b) highly interesting but less stable.
The astute reader might ask: what exactly do “stable” and “interesting” mean? My answer is: whatever you interpret them to mean. Like horoscopes and Malcolm Gladwell-isms, I need to keep this maximally relatable to you. It is worth noting that the stable and interesting metrics are relative: while you may individually fall into one quadrant, you may exist in a different quadrant when considering a two-body problem. Juliet, on her own, is stable and uninteresting. With Romeo, however, Juliet curves hard to the unstable side (but who wouldn’t, after premarital sex with Leonardo DiCaprio).
To illustrate this concept, consider the following scenario. You are at an airport in an exciting layover city, en route to a destination that you need to get to eventually, but with no urgent rush. Your flight is suddenly cancelled; you are rescheduled to a new flight in 12 hours. Is your gut instinct to: (a) immediately go to the ticket counter to negotiate an earlier flight, or (b) go out and explore your layover city? This is an indicator of skewing towards Quadrant 2 or 4, respectively, with about the same accuracy as when you lick your finger to figure out which way the wind is going. This example can be applied to you, or a partner. Or anyone! Judge away.
Examples of the reliable yet less adventurous (Quadrant 2) brethren/sistren include: Jerry Seinfeld, silent Uber drivers, and anyone who still works at Xerox. Meanwhile, some intriguing but often MIA (Quadrant 4) folks are: Cosmo Kramer, sensitive loners with hair like Timothée Chalamet’s, and manic pixie dream girls.
Now, let’s apply Theorem 1 specifically to relationships.
A reasonable question is: should you aim to be with people who lie in Quadrant 2 or Quadrant 4? Actual science is conflicted on whether opposites attract [4] or birds of a feather flock together [5]. This leads to…
Corollary 1. In romantic relationships, on average, stability increases over time with a corresponding decrease in a partner being perceived as interesting.
So, maybe it makes sense to go for Quadrant 4, but who knows. Daniel Kahneman, ping me when you come out of retirement to study this. You need to redeem yourself for all the debunked studies in Thinking Fast and Slow [6].
A final question to ponder: is it useful to add more axes to Figure 1? Well, geometry is hard, and three dimensions are too much for Planet Money to explain. I’ve only ever used a version of the right-hand rule not endorsed by high school physics [7]. But, If you’re able to visualize things in higher dimensions, try including a third axis for “attraction” (interpret however is most relevant to you). This exercise is left to the reader.
From showing the above research to some Friends Who Do Actual Research, I have unleashed chaos among the masses. There have been arguments about labels. There have been passive aggressive stories about exes. There has been a couple unraveling at the realization of “you’re boring” (N.B. “But you’re so stable!” apparently does not suffice to heal these wounds). People have been reduced to two dimensions.
Does this seem wrong? A little. But, at least everyone has an action item: if you find someone consistently stable and interesting, trap their ass. (And let me know about it, for science.)
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dataclysm-Identity-What-Online-Offline-Selves/dp/0385347391
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347298908983
[4] https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/complementarity-of-interpersonal-circumplex-traits
[5] https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/turns-out-opposites-dont-attract-after-all