To Fall in Love with Anyone, Do This
January 11, 2015 9:32 AM   Subscribe

Through a series of increasingly intimate questions, the author sees if she and her acquaintance can make themselves fall in love. (NYTimes link)
posted by amanda (130 comments total) 80 users marked this as a favorite
 
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.

Those aren't trivial caveats, most especially entering the process hoping for a particular outcome.

But that sounds like a far more interesting evening than most first dates, and the questions (link) would actually leave you knowing something about what that person is like, unlike normal small-talk questions.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:38 AM on January 11, 2015 [14 favorites]


Tl:dr they do.

Though I wonder if she just used writing this article as a means to make a play for a guy she already liked.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:39 AM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


I'd like to know what the study found about people who reached this point of intimate knowledge with each other, but the things they were learning about each other conflicted. Meaning - if in the course of asking these questions, I learned that the guy I was partnered with was, like, a white supremacist, wouldn't I be repulsed instead of smitten?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:44 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


EmpressCallipygos, that's in effect what OKCupid did (on a less extreme scale), when evaluating the effectiveness of their matching algorithms: if OKCupid's suggestions are no more likely to result in successful dates than random assignment, then they're not doing a good job.
posted by honest knave at 9:52 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


...wouldn't I be repulsed instead of smitten?

How cute is he?

I think the emphasis here on building adult intimacy and why it seems increasingly difficult the older we get is the real take-away from this article. I'd be intrigued to actually try these questions on a circle of women friends I have – we hang out frequently and see each other with regularity and yet I don't feel like we are especially close. It's frustrating.

But finding out that you have a basic incompatibility seems to take almost as long to discover as an adult as finding out that you are a great match. When you're a kid you decide pretty quickly who will be your friend and who won't. Better to get the deal-breaker element out into the open sooner than later.
posted by amanda at 9:53 AM on January 11, 2015 [22 favorites]


One does not deliberately fall in love. That's why it is a fall.

This is more like climbing in love.
posted by srboisvert at 10:02 AM on January 11, 2015 [17 favorites]


Maybe I'm cynical, but I want to know if they're STILL in love now.
posted by Obscure Reference at 10:12 AM on January 11, 2015 [9 favorites]


A few months later, she went back to the restaurant and stared intently at her BLT for four minutes. They are now happily married and expecting a turkey club in the fall.
posted by delfin at 10:21 AM on January 11, 2015 [80 favorites]


The love story here felt sweet and cheesy, like a danish, and about as poignant. I think amanda is right that the difficulty of having "first night of camp"-type relationships as you get older might be the most interesting part.
posted by clockzero at 10:41 AM on January 11, 2015 [9 favorites]


I think the emphasis here on building adult intimacy and why it seems increasingly difficult the older we get is the real take-away from this article.

That's true; if you want to be in a relationship after a certain age, you replace romance with pragmatism, settling for tolerable-with-some-positive-qualities, and set up your joint living arrangements as not to exceed each other's thresholds of tolerance.
posted by acb at 10:45 AM on January 11, 2015 [28 favorites]


acb, that's quite bleak and depressing. But what's even more depressing is the realization that you're probably right.
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:51 AM on January 11, 2015 [11 favorites]


Meaning - if in the course of asking these questions, I learned that the guy I was partnered with was, like, a white supremacist, wouldn't I be repulsed instead of smitten?


I can tell you that recently, after years of bad timing and missed opportunities with someone very special (and really, really fun and cool) I went from "We'll be like James Carville and Mary Matalin! It will be cute!" to "No, you're lying to yourself." and all it took was a link to Brietbart. FWIW, our answers to the 36 questions from TFA might not reveal how conservative he'd become, but I'm assuming the answer to question one would be John Bonham and not Dick Cheney. Maybe it should ask for two names.

By the way, I learned a great rule of thumb from that experience. If you don't think your SO would be a good fit for MetaFilter (and I don't just mean politically) that's probably a red flag.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:00 AM on January 11, 2015 [35 favorites]


I think a big part of falling in love is chemistry. These two obviously had enough of it that the idea of the experiment "working" wasn't repulsive enough to not try it. I think these two could have ended up together, even if they didn't have this question set. But what the question set did, was to condense three months of intimacy down into three hours, getting a jump-start on things.

I'm planning to try to get my partner and I to ask these questions back and forth on our 8th anniversary, coming up next month. Because, after living with someone for so long, I wonder if I am truly seeing them, or just my own reflection. And so I think this would be a really nice exercise.

Cynically, I wonder how long until the PUA / redpill folks add these questions to their arsenal? But, if it works... is that so bad?
posted by rebent at 11:05 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


I was just thinking about posting the questions here.

Question 1: Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest? That would take me hours to answer because there are a lot of interesting people in the world, but they wouldn't necessarily be entertaining at the dinner table.
posted by betweenthebars at 11:19 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


For some reason the phrase "emotional dynamite" comes to mind.
posted by localroger at 11:19 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


Cynically, I wonder how long until the PUA / redpill folks add these questions to their arsenal? But, if it works... is that so bad?

Either it helps the PUA motherfuckers achieve their "goals" or it helps them find meaningful and fulfilling relationships outside of their current model, and I personally want neither for them, so I'm saying "bad."
posted by Navelgazer at 11:20 AM on January 11, 2015


The original study sounds interesting, but this article is about another topic altogether: the story of two people who already knew each other, were attracted to each other from the outset, and had a really great first date, not about a real attempt to recreate the study in any meaningful sense.
posted by The Gooch at 11:24 AM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


Honestly though this is kind of a great idea for a first date. Much better than going out with someone for a while and having a record-scratch WTF moment when they drop a bomb.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:38 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


It's just a silly phase they're going through.
posted by TedW at 11:39 AM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


Love is a choice, not something that happens to you. If it were something that happens to you, then it could never be a foundation for intimacy because it could never be trusted, since what happened could always (and does often) un-happen. In exploring these questions and in the intimacy of the silent gaze, each person is able to see the obstacles they themselves raise to, and the conditions they place on, their own choice to extend themselves in love. Once exposed, these conditions may be seen for what they are: narcissistic, arbitrary, defensive, greedy, needy, etc. And they may dissolve upon inspection, opening up a space of freedom to choose love. That's why I believe that this probably does work for two people inclined to genuine love.
posted by haricotvert at 11:43 AM on January 11, 2015 [29 favorites]


I'd like to know what the study found about people who reached this point of intimate knowledge with each other, but the things they were learning about each other conflicted. Meaning - if in the course of asking these questions, I learned that the guy I was partnered with was, like, a white supremacist, wouldn't I be repulsed instead of smitten?

It would be real interesting to see how this scenario would play out if you went ahead with the four-minute eye-gazing and found yourself peering deeply into his beautiful naked white-supremacist soul.
posted by Serene Empress Dork at 11:44 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


Love has always been intentional. This just helps people to realize that.
posted by michaelh at 11:44 AM on January 11, 2015 [9 favorites]


Sounds like an experiment someone who just got dumped hard would do. Good luck.
posted by hal_c_on at 11:50 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


I've never found love to be either a choice or intentional. One can choose to allow whether to follow it or not, but for me it's definitely a thing that happens.

And then, as you say, un-happens. :/
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:51 AM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


Intimacy is a hell of a drug. See also: having a scary experience with a stranger or minor acquaintance.

Obviously "love" is not a measurable thing, you can't test their blood for love levels. People can fall in love for a few hours or days or weeks or months, and lots of long relationships boil down to "well, we never had the 'white supremacist moment' so we just keep going and it seems to be working out." I've seen lots of long relationships begin to crumble when that one thing does emerge - either hidden all along or just a new thing that comes up as people get older. The un-happening, like fffm just named it.

And everyone knows someone who has a talent for overlooking the Klansman in the room, often because they want so badly to be loved by someone but don't believe they're good enough for a high-quality someone. Everyone's done it, even if it was just for a few minutes or a night or six months.

Anyway, I thought everyone owned a copy of The Big Book of Questions. I saw more than a few college romances take flight between the pages of that book.
posted by Lyn Never at 11:57 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


And then, as you say, un-happens. :/

Then it's not love. It's what people call "falling in love," which is something else -- and something pretty great for a few months on average -- but really is only opportunistically related to real love (in the sense that the object of that narcissistic/sexual/hormonal whirlwind we call "falling in love" typically winds up being someone we spend a lot of time with and get to know pretty well, and therefore a likely candidate for us to eventually try to actually love, should we be so inclined).

The way you know it's love is that you also know there's nothing the other person could ever say or do that could alter it, because it's not based on your need for them to be one way or another. That's not to say you condone bad behavior or become a doormat. Just that whatever action you take comes out of that deeper acceptance that is real love.

And why is everybody so concerned about dating a member of the KKK? Is that something that is happening a lot?
posted by haricotvert at 12:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


Dating pool ain't that big in some places. Manhattan for example.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:07 PM on January 11, 2015


And why is everybody so concerned about dating a member of the KKK? Is that something that is happening a lot?

It's a perfectly good symbol for "person has completely unacceptable worldview on some topic." Might be racist, might be sexist, might be rapey, whatever it is it's the thing on which compromise is not an option.

The whole article and ensuing discussion here is about "falling in love." I think everyone is aware that that's a different thing from a long-term intimate partnership.
posted by Lyn Never at 12:14 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


Man, life was so much simpler when all I wanted was sex.

About the white supremacist problem, yeah it happens. It happens when you are having dinner with his family who then tell you about how they oppose out marrying; that the younger son was involved in a hate crime with his young Republican club at the university and oh hey, you are trapped in the foothills with only the boyfriend for transportation. After that, I kind of gave up using GPA and major as a rubric for dating.
posted by jadepearl at 12:18 PM on January 11, 2015 [11 favorites]


Though most of the long-term relationships I've personally seen end has been, ultimately, over not agreeing on enough stuff anymore. It's not always as radical as one partner's reversal on previously-agreed-upon positions on racism, sexism, or monogamy, but sometimes it is. A lot of times those values don't get challenged really hard until parenting begins, which is unfortunate.

I think racism and sexism are probably the biggest ones, though, either as an early filter or a late-stage accumulation.
posted by Lyn Never at 12:21 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


or it helps them find meaningful and fulfilling relationships outside of their current model, and I personally want neither for them, so I'm saying "bad."

It's pretty terrible want someone to never have a meaningful and fulfilling relationship just because you don't approve of their "current model," which everyone wants them to give up and grow out of.

If this stuff helps them form a genuine connection with another human being, instead of something fake and manipulative, that's a good thing.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 12:23 PM on January 11, 2015 [11 favorites]


There is love the emotional / bio-chemical state, love the retroactively recognizable pattern of behavior, and finally the fictional third version that mixes both of those with the certainty that they will continue in the future.
posted by idiopath at 12:28 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


Oh god, these questions all sound like really personal ice breakers. Sitting through these on a date would be my own personal hell.

No love life hacks for me, thanks.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 12:34 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


The prospect of answering any of these questions to anyone, let alone to a stranger, sets my teeth completely on edge. Am I alone in that?

(On preview, I guess not!)
posted by en forme de poire at 12:36 PM on January 11, 2015 [7 favorites]


the fictional third version that mixes both of those with the certainty that they will continue in the future.

It's not fictional. I will love my wife no matter what she may say or do in the future. Let your imagination go wild in terms of antisocial/horrible things she might (won't, but might) do. Won't change the love even an atom, because the love is not based on me trying to get my needs fulfilled. So I can never be disappointed. That said, if she joined the KKK, I suppose I'd probably ask for a divorce. Still wouldn't change the love, though. My dad is a crazy Fox News neocon -- I have profound love for him, too, in spite of his asshole beliefs.

The whole article and ensuing discussion here is about "falling in love." I think everyone is aware that that's a different thing from a long-term intimate partnership.

Not sure about that. IMO "falling in love" is mostly about fucking while attempting to maintain the delusional belief that another human being can complete you. I got the sense that the author was aiming for a somewhat greater level of profundity.
posted by haricotvert at 12:39 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


Not one of these questions had a turtle in it. How am I supposed to find out if they are an android?

(not androidist)
posted by arcticseal at 12:39 PM on January 11, 2015 [26 favorites]


Life hacks or brain hacks? Some of these sound like they're constructed to force a bond with an unknown individual, not let one develop if you had the desire.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:54 PM on January 11, 2015


Honestly I went on one date where someone tried to use similar questions to get to know me quickly, and it just felt so forced and awkward that it completely killed the date for me. I felt like I was being interviewed to see if I'd be admitted to some kind of social club, or to see if I'd pass the "personality test" part of a job interview.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:59 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


haricotvert: there is no point in trying to convince you that you don't have perfect information about your future feelings and actions. I'll simply note that to me that kind of certainty about future behavior and emotion is absurd.
posted by idiopath at 1:06 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


And then, as you say, un-happens. :/

Then it's not love.


I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't tell me what I have or have not felt in my life. There is a reason why in my comment I said "I have" and "for me." Thank you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:08 PM on January 11, 2015 [21 favorites]


There is no way I could do this on a date without falling into a James Lipton impression.
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:09 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]



There is no way I could do this on a date without falling into a James Lipton impression.


That would totally improve your chances with me actually. Larry King impression, not so much. Barbara Walters, could go either way.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:10 PM on January 11, 2015 [7 favorites]


Here are all the questions!

Set I

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?
2. Would you like to be famous? In what way?
3. Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?
4. What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?
5. When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?
6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?
7. Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?
8. Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.
9. For what in your life do you feel most grateful?
10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?
11. Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.
12. If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?

Set II

13. If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?
14. Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?
15. What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?
16. What do you value most in a friendship?
17. What is your most treasured memory?
18. What is your most terrible memory?
19. If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?
20. What does friendship mean to you?
21. What roles do love and affection play in your life?
22. Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.
23. How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?
24. How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

Set III

25. Make three true “we” statements each. For instance, “We are both in this room feeling ... “
26. Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share ... “
27. If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.
28. Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.
29. Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.
30. When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?
31. Tell your partner something that you like about them already.
32. What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?
33. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?
34. Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?
35. Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?
36. Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

posted by Greg Nog at 1:24 PM on January 11, 2015 [51 favorites]


This is Fffresh Air; I'm Terry Gross!
posted by en forme de poire at 1:25 PM on January 11, 2015 [7 favorites]


How about Lynne Rossetto Kasper? Might work well over dinner.
posted by Dreidl at 1:29 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


I wonder if she just used writing this article as a means to make a play for a guy she already liked.

Could be she'd already made the play and then figured she'd get an article. Sort of a corollary to Strout's Law, never make a play for anyone you can't get a pub out of.

(As for me, I know my rights. Name, rank, and serial number is all I have to provide.)
posted by octobersurprise at 1:35 PM on January 11, 2015


I hate "invite to dinner party" questions. I never have dinner parties, and when I do have parties, I am in Hostess Mode and so focused on what my guests need (at least till the last two hours, when it's drunken bullshitting and sending random people out for more ice).

I have no way of knowing if a person I admire would be any good at that sort of thing. I would rather go out to lunch with them and have a nice chat.

(I suppose all of that would be my answer).
posted by emjaybee at 1:36 PM on January 11, 2015


I have a cold, black heart, but I feel like the general lesson laid out by the article is that if you want to fall in love with someone, you should ask them about themselves, pay attention to what they're talking about, and let the manner and method of how they're answering your questions lead the way, which just seems like a standard human thing -- with few exceptions, people tend to enjoy talking about themselves, especially to interested-seeming onlookers.

So it really seems like question 27 is the only one that really matters -- "If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know" -- and everything else is just garnish. Oh, and I guess you're also supposed to stare at the other person for a while, so the last question really needs to be, "Hey, would it be OK if I stared at you in silence for the next four minutes?" or the person whose idea it was to ask all these eerily intimate questions is probably going to get ditched and/or pepper-sprayed.

IMO "falling in love" is mostly about fucking while attempting to maintain the delusional belief that another human being can complete you.

OK, I know I just said that I have a cold, black heart, but I LOVE THIS. QFT4E.
posted by divined by radio at 1:39 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


I think it's a good set of questions to have figuratively "in your back pocket" as conversation starters. As a quiz, not so much.

Just like a lot of the OKC questions, a lot of those questions are pretty non-simple. They'd require non-simple answers that start with "well, it depends" or "[simple answer]; however, ..." Then I'd be pretty disappointed (or even offended) if the questioner just went "Huh, interesting. Next question..." instead of continuing the conversation.

Would you like to be famous? No. And Yes. Here's what I would like to be known for, here's what would be fun about being famous, here's what would suck, how would I attempt to mitigate what sucks, etc. At least in a real meeting you'd get to explain, unlike OKC where you get a short answer, and it doesn't really matter anyway because people are skimming your multiple-choice answers.
posted by ctmf at 1:42 PM on January 11, 2015 [7 favorites]


OK, I know I just said that I have a cold, black heart, but I LOVE THIS. QFT4E.

Indeed. Metafilter: etc.
posted by ctmf at 1:45 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


And then, as you say, un-happens. :/
Then it's not love.

This really isn't true, not for me at least. People fall in and out of love all the time (which I don't think is what you were referring to), but people also stop loving someone that has been the centre of their world for many years. Coming to love someone takes time and, in my experience, getting to the point where you don't love them any more takes even longer, but it happens.

The thing with the article is, the process was not really the same at all as the experiment - a significant amount of filtering had already been done in that they kind of knew each other and that they shared at least some interest, so it's not at al the same as going through the same process with two strangers. So there was obviously some attraction there, which dramatically increases the odds of them liking each other. I can't access the original study from the link here, but I'd also be interested in how many pairings were part of the experiment - that one couple that ended up married doesn't really prove anything. According to the extract, only one of three studies produced positive results.

Still, it would be an interesting exercise and, for me, somewhat easier than trying to think of things to ask or talk about, given that small talk isn't in my skill set.
posted by dg at 1:51 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


If a man walked up to me and said,"Let's fall in love!" My first question would be,"What's your wife's name?"
posted by Oyéah at 1:52 PM on January 11, 2015 [13 favorites]


The gazing exercise is a lot like White Tantric Yoga.
You know the mods are toying with you when the text program throws in flapdoodle.
posted by Oyéah at 1:55 PM on January 11, 2015


Whatever you do, don't ask yourself these questions while staring at yourself in the mirror!
posted by blue_beetle at 1:59 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


flapdoodle is what happens at the later part of a date, depending.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


Whatever you do, don't ask yourself these questions while staring at yourself in the mirror!

Too late!


I am the prettiest princess
posted by KathrynT at 2:01 PM on January 11, 2015 [33 favorites]


Whatever you do, don't ask yourself these questions while staring at yourself in the mirror!

When you ask questions of the abyss, the abyss also questions you.
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:03 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


Here are all the questions!

It's a fairly unsophisticated replicant that can be identified with only 36 questions.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:08 PM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


"If it were something that happens to you, then it could never be a foundation for intimacy because it could never be trusted, since what happened could always (and does often) un-happen."

A whole lot of people think about and act as if that's precisely what love is.

I think they'e wrong, but I also think you're wrong. It seems really weird to me to insist that it's necessarily all one or all the other and especially to universalize this to all people.

Surely it's a combination of things that happen to you and things you choose and work on?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:35 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


I do more or less buy into the idea that attraction is often as much about proximity, opportunity, and atmosphere as it is about more romanticized ideals like "destiny" and "soul mates". I'm positive I'm not alone in being able to identify a few hookups (some of which stretched out into more longer term relationships) in my life that were mostly about being in someone's close vicinity while in a highly charged, sexualized environment (being the only non-coupled people at a party where copious amounts of drinking is taking place, for example), rather than the result of romantic attraction growing organically over time.

This is why the author's article seems like such a false attempt to recreate the study. It was basically the exact opposite of this: two people who already knew each other and had at least a tinge of romantic feelings for one another setting up a somewhat typical date.
posted by The Gooch at 2:38 PM on January 11, 2015


If somebody asked me number 7 (do you have a secret hunch about how you will die) I'd probably feel like this
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:53 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


They forgot 38: What makes you come?
posted by ReeMonster at 2:54 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


They forgot 38: What makes you come?

Awkward icebreakers! Oh yeah, make me feel self-conscious!
posted by en forme de poire at 2:57 PM on January 11, 2015


MDMA also works.

Accelerating those early weeks into hours doesn't make for, you know, a love that lasts forever. Just saying.
posted by clvrmnky at 3:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


do you have a secret hunch about how you will die

horribly and alone thx 4 askin
posted by octobersurprise at 3:19 PM on January 11, 2015 [12 favorites]


I will love my wife no matter what she may say or do in the future. Let your imagination go wild in terms of antisocial/horrible things she might (won't, but might) do. Won't change the love even an atom, because the love is not based on me trying to get my needs fulfilled. So I can never be disappointed. That said, if she joined the KKK, I suppose I'd probably ask for a divorce. Still wouldn't change the love, though.

All y'all realize that I was talking about discovering something unsavory about someone you just met, the way the experiment was working, right? And not about discovering something unsavory about someone you'd known for a while?

It's my understanding that the experiment they described took pairs of strangers and had them ask these questions of each other,and then look into each other's eyes, and a lot of those strangers ended up feeling profoundly connected and yadda yadda. What I want to know is, were there any instances where they had a pair of strangers, and one of the people answered one of those questions in a way that made the other person think "ew", and if so, how did that affect the final outcome?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:25 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't tell me what I have or have not felt in my life. There is a reason why in my comment I said "I have" and "for me." Thank you.

I would never presume to tell you what you feel or have felt. I don't even know you. All I said was that if it happens and un-happens, it isn't love. I stand by that. Love is not a feeling.

Excuse me. In my opinion, love is not a feeling. Better?
posted by haricotvert at 3:43 PM on January 11, 2015


“We could stand on the bridge,” he said, turning toward the window.

Not that looking into anyone's eyes at night, on a scenic bridge while moonlight plays on the water, has ever been involved in any kind of romance.

I'm waiting for these questions to turn up in an app. Seriously, people sometimes ruin a date because they're nervous and they say weird or stupid stuff. Someone who is desperately trying to figure out how to interact on a date could do worse than taking a cue from this list.
posted by doctor tough love at 3:47 PM on January 11, 2015


I asked these questions of Cleverbot and I'd like to announce we are now engaged.
posted by um at 3:48 PM on January 11, 2015 [12 favorites]


There's already a mobile/responsive/html5/{other tech buzzwords here} web version of the questions here, in case your idea of a romantic/interesting night out is staring at a tablet or phone w/ someone. (via Product Hunt)

The questions are interesting, at least.
posted by raihan_ at 3:50 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


in case your idea of a romantic/interesting night out is staring at a tablet or phone w/ someone

I suspect that without a minimum percentage of eye contact the experiment will not work.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:51 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


(The PH tagline of "an app to fall in love" is just atrocious, btw. This is why I love MetaFilter; discussion here is generally on-point.)
posted by raihan_ at 3:51 PM on January 11, 2015


I would never presume to tell you what you feel or have felt. I don't even know you. All I said was that if it happens and un-happens, it isn't love. I stand by that. Love is not a feeling.

You have just presumed, because you have told me what I have felt is not what I have felt. What I have felt is love. You're saying it's not. Stop telling me how I feel. Thanks.

Love, as they say, is a many-splendored thing. And just because for you that constellation of thoughts and emotions and expectations fits into a certain category, it doesn't mean that you are able to universalize that to everyone else. Which is exactly what you are doing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:51 PM on January 11, 2015


They forgot 38: What makes you come?
*listens*

Um, that's nice, but I was trying to say 'what makes you come to this bar every Friday night?' and you interrupted me.
posted by dg at 3:52 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


They forgot 38: What makes you come?

The right kind of friction applied to my genitals in the right way at the right time.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:54 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


"Excuse me. In my opinion, love is not a feeling. Better?"

You seem to have written that grudgingly and not actually sincerely, and you did so because you seem to think it's a meaningless qualification.

But it's not.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:55 PM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


I'm not attacking you, person with a very long screen name, but you seem to feel that I am. That is not my intention. You seem to feel very strongly about using the word "love" to describe your experience, whatever it may have been. Use it with my blessing. There's no point in arguing over definitions. I was trying to make a distinction that I felt was meaningful. Maybe you keep "love," and we'll call my thing "glorb." I'm glad you found love, and I wish you and everyone on this thread the profoundly transformative experience of glorb.
posted by haricotvert at 4:02 PM on January 11, 2015


I would never presume to tell you what you feel or have felt. I don't even know you. All I said was that if it happens and un-happens, it isn't love. I stand by that. Love is not a feeling.

You have just presumed, because you have told me what I have felt is not what I have felt. What I have felt is love. You're saying it's not. Stop telling me how I feel. Thanks.

Love, as they say, is a many-splendored thing. And just because for you that constellation of thoughts and emotions and expectations fits into a certain category, it doesn't mean that you are able to universalize that to everyone else. Which is exactly what you are doing.


Get a room, you two!
posted by doctor tough love at 4:06 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeahhh, if the transformative experience of "glorb" also makes you more likely to say condescending, self-congratulatory things couched in faux-therapy jargon about how highly evolved you are, I think I'll pass, thanks.
posted by en forme de poire at 4:10 PM on January 11, 2015 [13 favorites]


dg: The thing with the article is, the process was not really the same at all as the experiment - a significant amount of filtering had already been done...

Are we sure that the original experimenter didn't think up the experiment as a clever way to get a couple of people hooked up who he figured would be good together? He had the lab, he had an idea, he figured it would make a good article either way, might as well get a couple of compatible people together...
posted by clawsoon at 4:11 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


Yeesh. Definitely not feeling the love right now. Could I please stare into all of your eyes for a few minutes?
posted by haricotvert at 4:13 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


haricotvert, this is my last comment on the issue, but can you please stop? Love has been profoundly transformative in my life. Not glorb. Love. You seem to be really invested in the notion that only what you feel is love, and what the rest of us have felt is something lesser--i.e., not profoundly transformative.

I don't think you're aware of how deeply invalidating and dismissive what you are saying is. Wuv, twue wuv, comes in as many different flavours as there are people who experience it; the love one feels for their cat, their sibling, their parents, their partner, their children, their cherished blankie--they are all different. Indeed, the love one feels for one's partner now, and the love one feels for a different partner later in life, those are going to be different too.

But they're all love. I'm glad you have found it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:14 PM on January 11, 2015 [17 favorites]


The right kind of friction applied to my genitals in the right way at the right time.

This is very sad. You have missed out on the infinite possibilities of wrong.
posted by srboisvert at 4:19 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


I should have included 'friends' on that list. I have a couple of friends who I love deeply, in the 'help them hide the bodies' or 'take a bullet for' sense, and in no way is that the same as the love I bear for people with whom I have or have had different relationships.

Heinlein's seriously problematic for me in many ways, but I think he deserves respect for coming up with the best definition of love I've ever read: the condition in which the health and well-being of another human is intrinsic to your own.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:20 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


This is very sad. You have missed out on the infinite possibilities of wrong.

If it worked, by definition it was right ;)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:22 PM on January 11, 2015


I fall in love at least twelve times a day riding the subway. I don't need this shit.
posted by fungible at 5:05 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


Well thanks for putting the incredibly creepy Thank Heaven for Little Girls in my head, fungible
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:14 PM on January 11, 2015


That's true; if you want to be in a relationship after a certain age, you replace romance with pragmatism, settling for tolerable-with-some-positive-qualities, and set up your joint living arrangements as not to exceed each other's thresholds of tolerance.

The way you put it, it sounds incredibly bleak and cynical ... but I was in one of those puppy-love-all-mushy-gooshy-romance-all-the-time relationships, and it lasted all of 2.5 years before it fizzled out, leaving me an emotional wreck. Lots of people start out in those kinds of relationships and end up divorced. So I dunno ... maybe a pragmatic relationship where you can tolerate each other in the long term isn't such a bad thing?
posted by evil otto at 5:17 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


do you have a secret hunch about how you will die

Ha ha, well, I don't know that I'd call Panther Food Court a SECRET
posted by Greg Nog at 5:46 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


greg nog explain please


I suspect you hear that a lot
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 PM on January 11, 2015


That's true; if you want to be in a relationship after a certain age, you replace romance with pragmatism, settling for tolerable-with-some-positive-qualities, and set up your joint living arrangements as not to exceed each other's thresholds of tolerance.

The way you put it, it sounds incredibly bleak and cynical ... but I was in one of those puppy-love-all-mushy-gooshy-romance-all-the-time relationships, and it lasted all of 2.5 years before it fizzled out, leaving me an emotional wreck. Lots of people start out in those kinds of relationships and end up divorced. So I dunno ... maybe a pragmatic relationship where you can tolerate each other in the long term isn't such a bad thing?


But there is sooo much grey area between these two things, though. I mean, what a given person wants varies, so if the pragmatic eh-I-don't-hate-you thing is your bag, party on. I need more than that to bother with a marriage, because marriages entail some amount of work/sacrifice for another person. I need to have more than an "eh" feeling about someone to be motivated enough for that.

Look at it this way; if you stay married long enough, you are going to go through old age together. Your bodies will start to fail, so the love/passion stuff gets complicated if it's just based on that. But you will also be stressed by these changes, so you will need any reserves of love/compassion/closeness that you've built up to get through that.

It's a crap shoot, either one of you could get hit by the hypothetical bus and that's it, but, it's best to plan for a long, difficult haul to the finish line just in case. And in that scenario, you don't want a half-assed or half-dead relationship. Better to be single with a good circle of friends or family who will see you through.
posted by emjaybee at 5:55 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's my understanding that the experiment they described took pairs of strangers and had them ask these questions of each other,and then look into each other's eyes, and a lot of those strangers ended up feeling profoundly connected and yadda yadda. What I want to know is, were there any instances where they had a pair of strangers, and one of the people answered one of those questions in a way that made the other person think "ew", and if so, how did that affect the final outcome?

The link to the actual study by Aron in the NYT article is borked, but if you google "arthur aron" the 6th or 7th result should be a link to a pdf of the paper at www.stafforini.com. Which I still couldn't get to directly, but looking at the web cache opens it up.

The paper is called "The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings", and just to throw a pedantic wet blanket over the whole proceeding, of course it's not really an experiment to make two strangers fall in love in a lab.

From the abstract:
This article presents a practical methodology for creating closeness in an experimental context, so that whether or not a subject is in a relationship, the particular pairings of individuals in the relationship, and the circumstances under which the relationship develops all become manipulated independent variables. That is, we have tried to make being in a relationship accessible to laboratory study and experimental manipulation in the same way as the minimal group paradigm, mood induction procedures, or self-esteem-lowering methods have opened up previously impractical research horizons.
Later on in the introduction, the paper says;
We also incorporated two other well-substantiated findings in the attraction and relationship literature: (a) We matched individuals so they did not disagree about attitudinal issues of importance to them (e.g., Byrne, 1971;Rosenbaum, 1986) and (b) we created the expectation that each subject's partner would like him or her (e.g.,Aron, Dutton, Aron, & Iverson, 1989). Finally, following the model used in other research areas (e.g., memory, perception), we made becoming close an explicit task.
Which, if I'm reading it correctly, means the actual experiment had already done some pre-selecting to make sure the subjects were at least minimally compatible, psychologically prepped them to expect greater compatibility than usual, and (since the experiment was about testing a methodology rather than people), specifically asked the subjects to work towards compatibility.

IOW, two radically different strangers never actually participated in the experiment together.

In the conclusion, Aron seems to think that this pre-experiment prep work may not have had much effect, but the results are not conclusive regarding this.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:10 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


Reading my comments, I can see how they could be interpreted as invalidating others' experiences of love. This was not my intention. I do not consider myself superior to others, or more evolved, or in possession of special knowledge. When I stopped seeing love as something that happens to me, and started seeing it as a choice, my life transformed. That much I can report with certainty. All the happiness and security I was seeking through love came to me and has remained with me (so far, idiopath! So far!), and I feel myself free to love in a way I never could when I needed to feel a certain way, or needed my friend or lover to behave a certain way -- when I was waiting for love to happen to me. That is my personal experience, and that's really all I came here to say, and I apologize for all the rest of it.
Love and glorb be with you all.
posted by haricotvert at 6:29 PM on January 11, 2015 [10 favorites]


This seems to both have great potential and creep me the hell out.

On the one hand, this could be useful for a few situations:
(a) arranged marriages
(b) when you're trying to find someone to "settle for" so you can have kids before it's too late--hey, that way you can fall in love with them too!
(c) you know that friend of yours who always goes for horrible men? Find her a good one, sit them down and do this, and voila, it fixes her taste in men!

On the other hand, as the world's pickiest person, I'm creeped out at the idea of say, being forced to do this with someone I find repulsive and then uh....I mean, I find it very hard to imagine that I would fall for someone who normally gives me the heebie-jeebies. But....well, who knows, it's not like I pick them well either, maybe I should just settle for the first dude willing to answer personal questions and stare a lot.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:42 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


- I would invite my friend Steve for dinner for obvious reasons.
- I would love to be famous if I was famous for an incident similar to the great biscuit incident of '84.

Rest of the questions are too hard.
posted by 724A at 7:02 PM on January 11, 2015


Wouldn't this give you more opportunities to be picky, jenfulmoon? (I say this as a picky person with lapses in judgement)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:15 PM on January 11, 2015


Death premonitions? Well throughout my whole childhood I was terrified of long bridges, which was rather inconvenient living in New Orleans, and had nightmares about going over the edge.

Today I commute across the longest of those bridges in the entire world. One which, incidentally, is involved in a noisy project to revamp its barriers because vehicles keep going over the edge.

I don't have nightmares about that at all. No, really.
posted by localroger at 7:16 PM on January 11, 2015


I doubt this needs to be so interview-like, but presumably it does require both parties participation. Also, there are different aspects of intimacy, presumably people hook up more with physically intimate forms of dance, like tango or contact, than with not very intimate forms like swing.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:28 PM on January 11, 2015


Swing seems to me to be more physically intimate, in a sense. It's less overtly sensual, for sure, but it requires a lot of trust doesn't it?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:57 PM on January 11, 2015


I suppose trust is another point. Yeah, tango doesn't require too much trust, although contact can require more trust in a sense. To me, swing always seemed extremely cold due to the focus on memorizing steps.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:01 PM on January 11, 2015


Which one of you weirdos wants to stare into my eyes for four minutes in a busy public place just to see how people react
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:23 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


Let's fall in love!

Q. 37: If you were to "do it," would you rather be:

a) a bird
b) a bee
c) an educated flea

Discuss.
posted by ilana at 9:17 PM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


I did about a third of these questions with my best friend of four years, combined with a few similar questions from other sites, and found out that he was cheating on me while we were dating, and despite my feelings toward him, he does not and will never feel the same about me. I broke off our friendship tonight.

That sounds awful, but it would have been more awful to keep buying into his lies and my our shared fantasies about the future that were never truly shared by him. It's a hard lesson I needed to learn.

If you've been best friends and occasional dates for four years and he hides his flings from you, something's up. Thank you, Metafilter, for helping to show me this wound and let me eventually heal. I needed to know. An affectionate nature might be my curse, but it isn't necessarily a weakness.

On future dates, I will ask more intimate questions.
posted by quiet earth at 9:24 PM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


"How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?"

My mother? I'll tell you about my mother.











Worst Voight-Kampff test ever.
posted by clvrmnky at 9:34 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


The prospect of answering any of these questions to anyone, let alone to a stranger, sets my teeth completely on edge.

Truth. Serious, serious truth.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 9:38 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


Boy oh boy, I know I'm over the hill, but if this is the way people are "falling in love" today, I'll just go find someplace to weep quietly.

Eventually all the magic will be gone out of the world - we're sure working on it.

What do they do when they kiss - stop and discuss what tingled and what didn't?

Is anyone certain that these aren't programmed robots instead of humans?

How sad. Not as sad as George's story, but still sad.
posted by aryma at 11:05 PM on January 11, 2015


- I would love to be famous if I was famous for an incident similar to the great biscuit incident of '84.

I thought we were not going to tell anyone about that. It was a strange time in my life.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:12 AM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


When I thought about my answers to these questions I realized I'd probably lie for about a third of them, which I guess says something about me.
posted by kinetic at 2:39 AM on January 12, 2015


1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

Well it depends. Are they doing the cooking or not? Answer changes accordingly.

Actually this process has a parallel in situations where establishing emotional trust is part of the working technique, like in the workshops of some kind of acting/performing practice. Those do have a reputation for generating quick, intense love affairs that don't outlast their context.
posted by glasseyes at 2:59 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


I just wanna say to everyone who is commenting by answering one or more of the questions in this post - it's working. I just fell in love with you. So I hope you're not, like, in a relationship with anyone already, because I don't think I could cope with that. I mean, I've been hurt before, you know. Yeah - you probably knew that. But still, you just couldn't help yourself, could you? You just had to go and make me fall for you. Well you know what? I'm tired of being the "other person" in this relationship. In fact, I think it's time we ended it - we just can't go on like this, it isn't working for either of us. So please ... Let's just be adults about this, and let's just walk away. We'll always have the memories of this thread ... this one, hot, sweaty thread when we both gazed deeply into one another's comments and we touched one another's souls. Like you get THAT with your "significant other". Ha! No but tell her I said Hi. Or him - whatever. And please, dont get drunk tonight and send me a "booty memail". Again. God you are insatiable, aren't you? You minx.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:40 AM on January 12, 2015 [9 favorites]


Quick methodology question. When someone says "We alternated asking each other questions.", do they mean they asked each other the same questions, or they alternated and wound up asking every second question?

i.e.

a) I ask you question #1, you answer it, then you ask ME question #1, and I answer it, then we do the same with question #2, only this time you get to go first, etc -- in this scenario, the "first asker" of a question gets to hear the other person's opinion and formulate a reply.
or
b) I ask you question #1, you answer it, then you ask me question *#2* -- in this scenario, things escalate quickly, but people only get half the information.

I suspect the answer is 'b', but just wanted to make sure. You know, for a friend.
posted by Mogur at 4:24 AM on January 12, 2015


I bet this wouldn't work with my German accent.
posted by pseudocode at 4:29 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


My girlfriend and I tried these questions last night. We're already in love, so we had no idea what to expect. By the time we were finished (I mean, the first question alone is like 20 minutes worth of consideration and discussion), we were very hungry, but it was well past 10 in the evening and too late to cook anything. So instead we ate what was left of yesterday's popcorn and finished watched Darjeeling Limited (I've seen it a couple times, she hadn't).The upstairs neighbor's 5-month-old baby started crying loudly, but fortunately quieted down by the time we decided to go to bed. We fell asleep holding hands.

In conclusion, love is a land of contrasts.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:33 AM on January 12, 2015 [9 favorites]


I have a feeling that the questions are a placebo. These people chose intimacy and opened themselves up to love. The questions were just an exercise in vulnerability and trust, and the eye thing a little romantic self hypnotism. It's cool, but I too want to see the follow-up a year from now and every year thereafter.
posted by echocollate at 8:08 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I thought it might be fun to do the questions and the staring with my boyfriend, just to see what happens if you already love someone and do it. Then I read the questions and I realized I can answer them for him and he can answer them for me, so I thought I would have us try that instead, but maybe if you do it in reverse like that it's the antidote and you stop being in love. Eeeek!
posted by millipede at 8:53 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Then I read the questions and I realized I can answer them for him and he can answer them for me, so I thought I would have us try that instead, but maybe if you do it in reverse like that it's the antidote and you stop being in love.

This was the entire premise for The Newlywed Game, if I remember right. I don't know how many couples that show destroyed, but I'm convinced Bob Eubanks is a diabolical genius.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:13 AM on January 12, 2015 [5 favorites]


Meaning - if in the course of asking these questions, I learned that the guy I was partnered with was, like, a white supremacist, wouldn't I be repulsed instead of smitten?

From my own experience as a libertarian capitalist from NYC falling in love with bomb-throwing anarchist rednecks (well, they don't actually throw bombs, but that's what I thought at the time), I would say no. The intimacy and the trust and the sharing of secrets and thoughts and hopes and dreams does act like a drug, even if it's something you would normally oppose really strongly. Because you're not just getting the bullet points, you're also getting the "how they got there." And as soon as you can say, "I can see how you would get there, even if I disagree" you are already lost.
posted by corb at 9:37 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


I just recently went through a process of answering a lot of these questions with someone before I even knew the questions existed and were an article in the NYT. In the process I felt love and intimacy and in the end felt very overexposed and vulnerable when the openess was not completely reciprocal. I have not directly communicated with the other person since and am still feeling a great loss. My point is that this is not just a simplistic on-line exercise but results in a real human experience in which one may feel love and great joy but also the risk of over exposure, rejection, and pain.
posted by Xurando at 9:46 AM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


From my own experience as a libertarian capitalist from NYC falling in love with bomb-throwing anarchist rednecks (well, they don't actually throw bombs, but that's what I thought at the time), I would say no. The intimacy and the trust and the sharing of secrets and thoughts and hopes and dreams does act like a drug, even if it's something you would normally oppose really strongly. Because you're not just getting the bullet points, you're also getting the "how they got there." And as soon as you can say, "I can see how you would get there, even if I disagree" you are already lost.

Hm, I dunno. I think there are some things that for some people really are a bridge too far. Plus, beliefs such as "I am a white supremacist" usually don't arise from a vacuum, but are built on a lot of other fundamentals. Politically-minded people tend to view the world and people around them through their politics, and that will show in how they talk about other things in their life, where you'll often see that reflected (e.g., white supremacy often carries with it a belief in "strong family values", religious conviction, general conservativism and so forth - not necessarily, but often).
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:49 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


arcticseal: Not one of these questions had a turtle in it. How am I supposed to find out if they are an android?

(not androidist)
You know what they say about people who have to point out they're not androidist?

Oops, did I just Turing-Complete the thread?
posted by IAmBroom at 10:06 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


This threads proves most of you are skin-jobs.

Yeah, I said it.
posted by clvrmnky at 10:43 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


A friend of mine sent me this link, I suppose, as food for thought before a date. I wasn't sure what to make of it; I appreciate his efforts towards some theoretical happy coupledom, though this method struck me as odd.

A large part of this is, if this *worked*, I'd never be sure if any romantic love that arose would have the same validity to me--the forced/artificial intimacy, gaming/hacking the system--for a person who tends to overanalyze things, that sort of second-guessing would be toxic and corrosive to the whole picture. Does my date feel closer to me because we revealed so much so quickly? Will my date be willing to overlook all the small details that were never discussed and never came up but might be super annoying later on? Is this bond any less real because of how we synthesized it?

At a certain point, I'm sure a rose grown hydroponically would work just as well as one that hadn't. Water reclaimed from sewage tastes just as sweet as water from a mountain aquifer.

But is it the same? Does it matter?
posted by qcubed at 10:49 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Uhhhh ... doesn't this questionnaire assume that people would be honest with each other in their responses and not create something just to impress the other person?

And isnt that the the whole problem in creating a relationship? that we are not honest about who we really are and mostly try to create images which we think would impress the other person?

If I could ensure that other person is honest with me and I am honest with them, the world would be full of love and kumbaya and happiness and peace ... and everything nice, wont it?

to me, this questionnaire seems to be begging the question, so to speak.
posted by TheLittlePrince at 1:43 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Answering, and asking the 36 on a date would give me a cluster headache. I tend to side with the Wittgenstein who wrote that "Love is not a feeling. Love is put to the test, pain not. One does not say: "That was not true pain, or it would not have gone off so quickly." (Zettel § 504)
posted by abakua at 5:04 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Not one of these questions had a turtle in it.

They're in the answers.

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

a turtle

4. What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?

seeing a turtle

10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?

more turtles
posted by Greg Nog at 6:04 PM on January 12, 2015 [11 favorites]


Greg Nog: "6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?"

I don't really have the right storage facilities for either, but I guess the brain would take up less spa...where are you going?
posted by scrump at 4:35 PM on January 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


They're in the answers.

I like turtles.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:03 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


To Fall Out of Love, Do This [New Yorker link]
posted by psoas at 4:04 PM on January 21, 2015 [9 favorites]


What would constitute a “perfect” day for you? Why do we always just go home and watch Netflix instead of doing any of that stuff?

ahahahhhahahah. omg this is brilliant. thanks psoas.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:05 PM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


Guy asks his cat the 36 questions that lead to love (The Daily Dolt)

Direct (youtube)
posted by rebent at 9:18 AM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


« Older Comfort Objects   |   Two NYRB essays on recent biopics and their issues... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments