June 10, 2025 • 28 mins
What if love isn't just a mysterious emotion but something that follows predictable patterns? Relationship theorist Zoey Charif joins us to reveal how her groundbreaking research can actually predict relationship success with mathematical precision.
After experiencing heartbreak during her criminology studies, Charif spent 18 years developing a revolutionary formula that measures relationship compatibility. She explains how we can calculate our "self-score" by rating ourselves on our top five values—things like family, purpose, and dependability. This self-evaluation creates a numerical representation of our self-respect and self-love, forming the foundation for healthy partnerships.
The magic happens in the numbers. Through extensive surveys of 300 couples, Charif discovered that successful relationships consistently show a fascinating pattern: partners view each other approximately 4% higher than they view themselves. This slight elevation creates a sustainable dynamic of mutual admiration and respect that allows relationships to thrive. Couples who demonstrate this pattern stay together, while those with misalignments eventually separate.
Charif also breaks down relationship personality types, distinguishing between "practical" individuals who prioritize values and "emotional" types who emphasize feelings and attraction. She warns against extreme emotional tendencies that romanticize obsession and fantasy—patterns often reinforced by Disney movies and pop culture narratives about "love at first sight."
Whether you're struggling to understand why past relationships failed or seeking to strengthen your current partnership, Charif's formula provides a revolutionary framework for relationship success. Her book "Love Can In Fact Be Calculated" offers a complete guide to applying these principles in your own life. Follow our podcast for more insights that challenge conventional wisdom and provide practical guidance for navigating the complex world of modern relationships.
Thanks for listening!
Check out this site for everthing to know about women's pleasure including video tutorials and great suggestions for bedroom time!!
https://for-goodness-sake-omgyes.sjv.io/c/5059274/1463336/17315
Take the happiness quiz from Oprah and Arthur Brooks here: https://arthurbrooks.com/build
NEW: Subscribe monthly: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1805181/support
Email questions/comments/feeback to tamara@straightfromthesourcesmouth.co
Website: https://straightfromthesourcesmouthpod.net/
Instagram: @fromthesourcesmouth_franktalk
Twitter: @tamarapodcast
YouTube and IG: Tamara_Schoon_comic
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Straight from the Source's Mouth
podcast.
Frank talk about sex and dating.
Hello everyone, tamara here,welcome to the show.
Today's guest is Zoe Sharif.
She's an author and arelationship theorist, and we'll
be talking about self, love andher book.
Love Can, in Fact, beCalculated.
Thanks for joining me, zoe.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hi, thank you so much .
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Yeah, I think this will be a great another great
educational topic.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
So looking forward to hear what you have to say when
I just jump right in and say howyou got into this topic, sure,
Back in the day, when I wasstudying criminology, I had a
very deep intrigue for humanbehavior and it just so happens
that I think in my third year, Iwas cheated on by my long-term
(00:47):
boyfriend and he's someone thatI loved truly with all my heart.
And when I found out that hecheated on me, I was absolutely
heartbroken to fixate on wantingto understand relationships,
wanting an explanation for whathappened, right?
(01:09):
Because, of course, as I wasstudying criminology, that's
what we do we look forexplanations for crime.
Well, in this case, I'm like Iwant an explanation for love and
I want an explanation forheartbreak, because it's not
fair.
And how can I avoid this break?
Because it's not fair, and howcan I avoid this?
(01:31):
You know, moving forward.
So I didn't realize that at thattime, when I was learning about
love and and how it relates tobrain chemistry, and how it
relates to evolutionarypsychology and how it relates to
spirituality and metaphysicsand all of that, I didn't
realize that I was actuallystarting my journey in
understanding and applying atheory that I have now published
(01:52):
.
So the theory is that love canin fact be calculated, and
that's actually also the name ofmy book, but it's essentially.
But it's essentially, I wouldsay, 18 years worth of work in
terms of refining the theory,then gathering surveys, then
applying data analytics andconfirming that I can, in fact,
(02:15):
predict whether two people willstay together or not.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, so I assume you're familiar with Gottman
their work as well.
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Absolutely, and it's actually in line with what I
pitched to, because I believeGottman, one of the traits or
one of the factors that hedetermined could predict whether
two people will stay togetherin the long run was if the woman
, the female, has influence overthe man, right?
(02:47):
So I thought that was veryinteresting, but I think that my
theory actually provides a bitmore context to that, because I
mean, I would definitely have toread how he portrayed it and
how he articulated a bit more.
But that can very easily bemisunderstood, as she's either
(03:09):
manipulative, or she's notaccepting someone who's you know
, against what she's saying, orshe needs someone to always back
her.
You know, I mean, when you sayinfluence, that's a pretty big
word and when you say it's ifthe woman has more influence,
that can really spiral, thatnarrative can really spiral.
So actually, what I found in mybook is yes, it's true, but
(03:34):
here's the context For therelationships who tended to stay
together, it's because theyview them slightly better than
themselves, slightly better, andI'll explain what I mean.
So the way the formula works isfirst you evaluate your
self-respect and self-love,which I call a self-score.
(03:57):
So there's a way to determinethat and the way you determine
it is first you pick your fivetop values.
That and the way you determineit is first you pick your five
top values and, based on thosetop values, you give yourself a
score for each one in terms ofhow you feel you show up right.
So if, for example, one of mytop values is family but I feel
like I'm really dropping theball in going to family
(04:19):
gatherings, I feel like I'm nottalking to my parents enough.
I feel like, you know, I'm nothanging out with my nephew
enough.
Whatever it may be, I might notgive myself a top score there
Right.
Another example could bepurpose.
Am I pursuing purpose?
I respect people who do that.
(04:39):
I would love to show up assomeone who's purposeful, but am
I really truly showing up asthat person that I think I would
respect?
Right?
So essentially, with these fivevalues, you tally up your score
.
So, let's say family, I givemyself 15 out of 20, right.
Um, for, uh, what was the otherone purpose?
(05:00):
I give myself maybe another 15out of 20.
Maybe for finances?
I had a really big year and Ifeel like I'm on top of my game,
so maybe I'll give myself a 20out of 20, right, whatever it
may be.
I tally that up and thatself-score is a measurement of
my self-respect and my self-love.
(05:21):
Now let's assume I give myselfan 80%.
Now I am now measuring mypartner and how he shows up
based on my values.
Okay, and he's going to havehis own set of values and he's
going to evaluate me based onhis values.
The values don't always have tomatch right Exactly to the T.
(05:42):
Usually they do, but not always.
So now let's assume that mypartner has an 80%.
Okay, that's perfect.
It's perfect because we are nowdetermining matched lifestyles,
matched values and also howwe're both showing up.
Okay.
But here's the thing Oursurveys showed that the couples
(06:05):
who tend to stay together thepartner has four percent on
average partner scored than theself score.
That means that the perfectrelationship for me is if I'm
evaluating myself as an 80percent.
An 85 percent would be theperfect relationship for me and
85% would be the perfectrelationship for me.
(06:27):
And what do you know?
Vice versa.
So the same was true for men.
Men tended to want to stay inrelationships when they admired
their partner by an average of4%.
So, going back to Gottman, it'sabsolutely true.
Influence, though the way Iarticulate.
It is more admiration, it'srespect, and when you have
(06:48):
admiration and respect, thattranslates to influence.
And that's essentially what wesaw, adding on to Gottman's
theory, where I agree with whathe's saying.
I I'm just just the context.
(07:10):
I think my the narrative mightspiral again.
I'm not sure exactly how hearticulated it and I should
definitely educate myself onthat in case I'm asked about it
again.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
But yeah, no, I mean you definitely.
Yeah, adding the context isgood too.
Like I know, I think they talkabout four traits or ways you
react to each other, predictedor not.
So like or be like.
It's basically the negativeside, like if you're
contemptuous or if you do this,then it's not going to work.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
So yeah, exactly so, contempt is actually a huge
thing too, and I feel like thatcan also be validated by the
theory.
The number one, also bevalidated by the theory.
The number one value that wefound that both men and women
had when they were looking for apartner was dependability and
(07:55):
reliability.
So, essentially, you're lookingfor a rock, essentially you
want someone to support you, andthat's the number one, no
matter the age group, no matterthe gender.
That was what everyone waslooking for.
So what happens?
If someone drops the ball rightLike, you're going to feel
unsafe, you're going to feelbothered, resentful, right.
(08:19):
So again, going back to Gottmanand in my opinion I'm adding
context to what he's sayingContempt is true, but I think
that's because that's the mainvalue.
So when you start to lose, whenyou start to get lazy in that
particular category, theconsequences of that is contempt
(08:41):
, the consequence of that isresentment.
So, yes, those traits that hefound, I believe are symptoms of
something deeper than that, andI think the deeper layer there
is that they're not showing upbased on the standards that you
know the person has.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Yeah, that definitely makes sense.
Yeah, so how do you apply thescience to all this?
Or I know you mentioned somesurveys like how does all that
work?
Or if you were continuing onthe other, then you can keep
going.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Yeah, so okay, based on 300 surveys, we had five
different categories.
Four of those categories werecouples who were currently
broken up, and only one of thosecategories were couples who
were currently together, theones who were broken up.
We split it up.
We.
Only one of those categorieswere couples who were currently
(09:31):
together, the ones who werebroken up.
We split it up.
We.
The four categories of that washe, she, they broke up with me
or I broke up with them, right?
That was the second category.
The third one is we are on abreak, and the fourth one was it
was a mutual break or, sorry, amutual breakup, breakup, right.
So all of those.
So we found different levelsactually of differences of
(09:52):
scores for those broken up, andthere was only one category
where the partner score washigher than the self score, only
one, and that's the ones whoare currently together.
Hence influence, right, yourpartner has to be able to
influence you for you to want tostay that stay there.
But again, influence is thesymptom of respect.
(10:14):
Influence is a symptom ofadmiration.
That's the deeper layer thatwe're looking for here.
We're not looking for arelationship where the woman or
man can influence their partner,we're looking for admiration
and again, that will naturallylead to influence.
Right the ones who werecurrently on a break, the
(10:38):
partner score was lower by anaverage of 5%.
So there's a slightmisalignment there.
So apparently, according againto this data, you either have to
be an exact match or thepartner has to be above you.
If they're below you, you'relikely not going to be fulfilled
(10:58):
and that lack of fulfillmentwill likely cause distortions.
So I have a section in the inthe book called distortions.
One of them, for example, is aself-sacrificer versus a
self-focused, dynamic right.
So if you think that yourpartner is that much above you
like oh sorry, let me rephrasethat.
(11:22):
So, going to the other categoryof the ones who are broken up,
it was mutual breakups.
The mutual breakups had apartner score of under 10%, so
clearly something was notworking out right.
Clearly there was a misalignmentthere, and oftentimes when
(11:42):
there is a misalignment, that'sgoing to project onto the
relationship.
So if, for example, I'm nothappy with how my partner is
showing up, right, whetherthey're not dependable, or the
family values are just not whereI need them to be, or their
finances are not great, soeverything is on my shoulders,
whatever it may be, well, I'mgoing to start projecting that
(12:03):
into the relationship.
So what's going to happen whenI do that?
I may not meet my partner forthe values that they have.
If his values is alsodependability and reliability, I
can very easily say you'rebarely showing up for me, why
would I show up for you, right?
Or if let's say, he's notshowing up for how I need him to
(12:24):
family wise, well, why would Ishow up to things that he needs
for me?
So that's where it starts toproject.
And you know the goal is not tounderstand it and then just wipe
your hands clean and say, okay,I'm out.
That's clearly not the goal,right?
The goal is communication.
(12:45):
The goal is getting back to aplace of alignment, whether
you're just starting today,whether you're in a long-term
relationship.
About red zone, which is twopeople with low self-esteem
right, so low sells, a low selfscore and a low partner score.
Then there's a yellow zonewhere you have one low score and
(13:09):
one high score right, so it canbe a low self score and a high
partner score, or it can be theother way around.
That's yellow because we'reseeing a large discrepancy and,
as the data shows, that willeventually lead to misalignment
and if there's nothing holdingyou guys together, such as kids
or a mortgage or something,it'll be easier to kind of go
(13:31):
your separate ways, right?
And even if you do have allthose things binding you
together, the goal is not to bemiserable and just to stay
because you have to out ofobligation, right, you want to
be happy and you want to befulfilled, and what comes with
that is a your partner showingup for you and also you showing
up for your partner, but againalso you showing up for you.
(13:51):
So your self-score is also veryimportant and it's a big part
of the equation here for ahealthy relationship.
So, leading to that, we havethe green zone.
Green zone is when you have ahigh self-score and a high
partner score.
Again, those are therelationships that tend to last.
The 80 versus 85%.
Those are very high scores.
(14:11):
In fact, women on average havea self-score of 76%.
Men on average, have aself-score of 73%.
If you're just about there,you're probably healthy.
You're probably just like therest of us, right?
If you're above that, thatmeans you have a very healthy
(14:32):
sense of self, which is great.
Which is great, and it'sactually what you need in a
healthy relationship, because ifyou have anything below 70,
you're not likely going to showup well in that relationship.
You're likely going to projectyour stuff into the relationship
and into the dynamic and thenyour partner eventually might be
(14:56):
over it, right, and then he orshe is going to project stuff
into the relationship.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Yeah, and then both get defensive back and forth,
like you said.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So we also found the tworemaining categories where I
broke up with them or they brokeup with me.
Right, the they broke up withme.
The partner score still had amuch lower score, which I
thought was interesting.
Right, and again it goes backto if you're not happy with them
(15:26):
, you're likely going to projectthat into the relationship.
They're not going to show up.
Well, right, you're both notshowing up for each other,
essentially, right, um, but yeah, you can be broken up with and
still assume that the otherperson has a low score.
Right, again, because theyprobably projected bad things
into the relationship.
Right, cause they were probablychecked out.
And then, other way also is ifyou did the breaking up, um,
(15:51):
same thing, right, like they're,they're not showing up for you,
misalignments happen, and thenthere you go, you both decided
to call it quit yeah, I meanmakes sense all that yeah yeah,
I just it always brings me backto my own, where I'm.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
We're doing all of that stuff.
So it's like for once.
You know, I used to date people.
That definitely wasn't the case, like all the the misalignments
and all the negativity Idefinitely had in the past.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
So I see both sides of it for sure.
It happens, happens, it happens.
We're all human.
You know, when the lovelanguage just came out, it was
so popular because there was away that people could explain
hey, I do love you, it's justnot the way you need me to love
you, right, I am doing my bestto show up for you, you're just
not receiving it because it'snot your language, right?
(16:37):
This is actually of lovelanguages on steroids.
This actually says hey, hereare the list of things that I
need.
Here's a numerical explanationof where you stand, right, based
on my perception.
And again, everything is basedon perception here, right,
(16:59):
there's no truth per se, butit's absolutely a tool for
communication.
And I'll be honest with you, myhusband and I, look, marriage is
not easy.
It's really not right.
When we first met, he was 4%above me and we both had high
scores, which is great.
And then, of course, you startto live together.
(17:19):
Had high scores, which is great.
And then, of course, you startto live together.
You, you've got the weddingplanning, you've got the wedding
, and then you start to seedifferent sides of each other.
You start to projectfrustrations, right, um?
And then you start stop showingup with each other as much.
So we got to a point where wewere not aligned and I actually
(17:42):
pulled up the book and I'm like,babe, like we need to get back
into where we were, because thisisn't working for either of us,
and we were both just not happy.
I essentially listed out thethings, the values.
He did it as well, and we bothrealized that we got lazy.
(18:05):
We got lazy and you know, Imean, it's not how do I put it?
When you're that specific aboutfamily, I'm giving you X, right
, of course you're going to haveexamples for that.
You're going to're gonna say,well, that time that you did
this, I felt this and this andthat's why I'm not giving you a
full mark here, right, yeah, andsame thing with him.
(18:28):
It's like, well, I feel likeyou've been kind of getting
sloppy, you know, with, like,the house maintenance or
whatever.
Um, so in communicating that,then the goal is to each of you
start showing up better for theother person.
Earlier I mentioned theimportance of a self score.
(18:49):
A high self score, which againmeans high self respect, high
self esteem, high selfconfidence.
Right, if I'm showing up in myrelationship and I'm very
unhappy with where I'm at inlife.
You know that cliche you can'tlove someone else unless you
love yourself.
I literally, numericallyexplain that the data shows that
(19:12):
unless you have a highself-score, you're not going to
show up well in a long-termrelationship and it'll likely
dissipate, it'll likely end dueto frustrations, due to toxic
patterns, toxic communicationdistortions and all of that and
(19:33):
I've had so many guests latelythat we talk about similar, like
different takes on similarstuff.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
but yeah, yeah, the core values, like that's kind of
like a given that you know, themore shared values you have,
just the more it's going to workout.
And I definitely agree and havenow that I have that, I'm like,
oh yeah, it's so much betterthis way.
Yeah, but do you want to?
Is there more to your science?
Or do you want to talk abouthow they can find your book and
(20:01):
if they work with you other ways?
Speaker 2 (20:03):
I mean with the science.
There's another thing weidentified personality types in
terms of how you do yourcalculations and how you score
your partner.
So one that seems to be mostrelatable is the practical
versus the emotional.
So the practical personalitytype is will essentially look at
(20:29):
only values, right?
So throughout this wholeepisode I only spoke about
values.
But there's a secondary part tothis calculation, which is
traits, and that's attraction.
Okay, it's how you measureattraction.
If you're more driven to engagein relationships based on
attraction but rather thanvalues, that makes you an
(20:51):
emotional right.
The emotional personality typeIf you are more driven based on
values and not as much onemotions, so you are a practical
personality type.
Now, both of those have healthysides and extreme sides.
So you can be a healthyemotional, where you're just
(21:13):
slightly leaning towards traitsbut still very much taking
values into account.
Or you can be an extremeemotional, where you don't care
about the values.
You just care about how youremotions feel and how the sex
feels and how magnetized you areright.
So logic kind of goes away hereand I think that a lot of us
(21:35):
tend to fall into the extremeemotional personality type.
Now, the least commonpersonality type was the extreme
practical, which actually Ithought was great to see.
I'm like, I'm so glad thatwe're not all using each other
and we're not transactional ashumans, because that's what the
data showed.
So the extreme practicals willsay I just care about values, I
(21:57):
don't even care about emotions,I don't care about attraction,
whatever right, that's not whatdrives my relationships.
But although it did show up inour surveys, it was a very small
percentage of the population.
So again, I'm just really happyto see that.
But going back to the extremeemotionals, I think that we've
all been there where we live infantasy and we're like oh my God
(22:21):
, my angels must have sent thisperson.
Oh my God, if I feel thisstrongly, it must be meant to be
.
There must be past lives there,there must be a soulmate
connection, a chaser runner, andI'm not denying that those
things are true and that theyexist.
But what I am saying is thatyour angels do not want you to
self-harm.
You're not put here on earth tobe a self-sacrificer or to be
(22:46):
an emotional servant to anotherhuman.
You're here to make yourselfhappy.
In my opinion, by the way,you're here to be purposeful and
be happy so that you canproject that happiness and that
love back into earth, back toother humans.
If you are completely drainedand you're not performing well
in your own life, you're notgoing to project health into
(23:08):
this world and then we're justgoing to feed off of each
other's energies, right, all tosay, when you fall into this
spiral of overthinking ofanother person, overthinking
their behaviors, overthinkingwhether you know it's the runner
chaser dynamic, and againyou're romanticizing self harm
(23:29):
and you're romanticizingobsession and romanticizing
again just these dynamics thataren't healthy, that are not
balanced, yeah, you're probablyfalling into an extreme
emotional distortion and you'reprobably not going to be able to
hold on to that relationship,because that's another thing we
saw with the extreme.
(23:50):
The healthy emotional can notthe extreme emotional.
So if you're putting all youreggs in the basket of emotions
and not enough in the values,you're not even going to hold on
to that relationship.
So like, catch yourself, catchyourself, catch yourself when
you spiral and, by the way, it'svery normal, we've all been
(24:11):
there, we are all human, we alllove to love, I get that Right.
But I think just theromanticizing of, oh, like the,
just the romance of it, that'swhere we need to take a step
back because it's not healthy.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Yeah, I mean all the.
We grew up with all theprincesses and all that stuff
and Prince Charming saving us so, especially as women.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
So yeah, which is a red flag.
I mean, I do believe in fairytale endings.
I do believe that some peopleare just meant to be.
They meet when they're so youngand they're just so beautiful
together, right up until 4050years old, like I do believe in
those stories.
But I also believe that thisera of dating will pull you into
(24:54):
thinking that you just fellinto that pattern, or that you
not the pattern, but you fellinto that situation and you're
right.
We grew up with Disney movies,beautiful Disney movies, and we
grew up in believing in the truelove is immediate.
The true love Well, maybe notimmediate, but true love is
immediate.
The true love well, maybe notimmediate, but true love exists
(25:14):
yeah, I would say like love atfirst sight.
You know just yeah, thank you,that's.
That's what I was looking for.
Love at first sight there canbe in the enjoying of traits at
first sight right, but you gotto balance it out with values at
the end of the day.
The whole jasmine aladdin thingthat's not typical.
(25:36):
It'd be great, but it's nottypical.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Romeo and juliet I don't think that was disney,
that was shakespeare yeah, I'vebeen that person before, like
distorting and like making upstuff, and then and even he'll
remind me my current partnerhe's like.
He's like that's not reality.
He's like you know like we'regonna have differences, we're's
like.
He's like that's not reality.
He's like you know, like we'regonna have differences, we're
gonna have this.
He's like I'm like, yeah, but Iwish we wouldn't.
He's like but that's notreality.
So he like brings me back.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
I get that Like I truly believe that we just love
to love, like I believe we enjoyit so much.
Right, and if you look at brainchemistry, though, you know,
essentially it's a dopamine hit,it's like an influx of oxytocin
and it feels great, buteventually you're going to crash
.
So the goal is to just kind ofkeep it stable, right.
(26:22):
So, as an extreme emotional,when you're constantly looking
for that high, the crashes mighthappen.
You might start to um, distort,you might start to distort
reality, you might start toassume someone feels the same
way for you when they do not,and you start creating fantasies
in your mind, you startobsessing, and then, if you
(26:43):
combine that with an anxiousattachment personality type, or
you combine that with traumapersonality type, or you combine
that with trauma, which I won'tsay that all extreme emotionals
have trauma, but I will saythat if you have trauma, you're
more likely to fall in thatcategory, because you're afraid
(27:04):
of abandonment.
And, yeah, you just, you knowthere's just distorted,
distorted and dysfunctional love.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Unfortunately, so is there a place that's easiest to
get your book or anything elseyou want to share about yourself
?
Yeah, so you can pick up mybook through Amazon.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
It's called Love Can In Fact Be Calculated, or Barnes
Noble.
Barnes Noble website has it.
If you're in SouthernCalifornia it's available at the
Spectrum location andHuntington location.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Okay, anything you want to say, like for closing,
or did you?
Was there more to finish beforeyou even had a closing thought?
Speaker 2 (27:41):
No, I appreciate you having me so much.
I hope that I described thetheory well enough and that it
was not too confusing.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
No, no, yeah, it was good, and then they can get the
book if they needed to get moreinformation.
So awesome.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Well, thank you so so much.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Yes, thank you, and if you love this episode, be
sure to tell your friends aboutit and follow the show as well.
All right, thank you everyone.
Frank talk, frank talk sex anddating educate.
Welcome to the Straight from the Source's Mouth
podcast.
Frank talk about sex and dating.
Hello everyone, tamara here,welcome to the show.
Today's guest is Zoe Sharif.
She's an author and arelationship theorist, and we'll
be talking about self, love andher book.
Love Can, in Fact, beCalculated.
Thanks for joining me, zoe.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hi, thank you so much .
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Yeah, I think this will be a great another great
educational topic.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
So looking forward to hear what you have to say when
I just jump right in and say howyou got into this topic, sure,
Back in the day, when I wasstudying criminology, I had a
very deep intrigue for humanbehavior and it just so happens
that I think in my third year, Iwas cheated on by my long-term
(00:47):
boyfriend and he's someone thatI loved truly with all my heart.
And when I found out that hecheated on me, I was absolutely
heartbroken to fixate on wantingto understand relationships,
wanting an explanation for whathappened, right?
(01:09):
Because, of course, as I wasstudying criminology, that's
what we do we look forexplanations for crime.
Well, in this case, I'm like Iwant an explanation for love and
I want an explanation forheartbreak, because it's not
fair.
And how can I avoid this break?
Because it's not fair, and howcan I avoid this?
(01:31):
You know, moving forward.
So I didn't realize that at thattime, when I was learning about
love and and how it relates tobrain chemistry, and how it
relates to evolutionarypsychology and how it relates to
spirituality and metaphysicsand all of that, I didn't
realize that I was actuallystarting my journey in
understanding and applying atheory that I have now published
(01:52):
.
So the theory is that love canin fact be calculated, and
that's actually also the name ofmy book, but it's essentially.
But it's essentially, I wouldsay, 18 years worth of work in
terms of refining the theory,then gathering surveys, then
applying data analytics andconfirming that I can, in fact,
(02:15):
predict whether two people willstay together or not.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, so I assume you're familiar with Gottman
their work as well.
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Absolutely, and it's actually in line with what I
pitched to, because I believeGottman, one of the traits or
one of the factors that hedetermined could predict whether
two people will stay togetherin the long run was if the woman
, the female, has influence overthe man, right?
(02:47):
So I thought that was veryinteresting, but I think that my
theory actually provides a bitmore context to that, because I
mean, I would definitely have toread how he portrayed it and
how he articulated a bit more.
But that can very easily bemisunderstood, as she's either
(03:09):
manipulative, or she's notaccepting someone who's you know
, against what she's saying, orshe needs someone to always back
her.
You know, I mean, when you sayinfluence, that's a pretty big
word and when you say it's ifthe woman has more influence,
that can really spiral, thatnarrative can really spiral.
So actually, what I found in mybook is yes, it's true, but
(03:34):
here's the context For therelationships who tended to stay
together, it's because theyview them slightly better than
themselves, slightly better, andI'll explain what I mean.
So the way the formula works isfirst you evaluate your
self-respect and self-love,which I call a self-score.
(03:57):
So there's a way to determinethat and the way you determine
it is first you pick your fivetop values.
That and the way you determineit is first you pick your five
top values and, based on thosetop values, you give yourself a
score for each one in terms ofhow you feel you show up right.
So if, for example, one of mytop values is family but I feel
like I'm really dropping theball in going to family
(04:19):
gatherings, I feel like I'm nottalking to my parents enough.
I feel like, you know, I'm nothanging out with my nephew
enough.
Whatever it may be, I might notgive myself a top score there
Right.
Another example could bepurpose.
Am I pursuing purpose?
I respect people who do that.
(04:39):
I would love to show up assomeone who's purposeful, but am
I really truly showing up asthat person that I think I would
respect?
Right?
So essentially, with these fivevalues, you tally up your score
.
So, let's say family, I givemyself 15 out of 20, right.
Um, for, uh, what was the otherone purpose?
(05:00):
I give myself maybe another 15out of 20.
Maybe for finances?
I had a really big year and Ifeel like I'm on top of my game,
so maybe I'll give myself a 20out of 20, right, whatever it
may be.
I tally that up and thatself-score is a measurement of
my self-respect and my self-love.
(05:21):
Now let's assume I give myselfan 80%.
Now I am now measuring mypartner and how he shows up
based on my values.
Okay, and he's going to havehis own set of values and he's
going to evaluate me based onhis values.
The values don't always have tomatch right Exactly to the T.
(05:42):
Usually they do, but not always.
So now let's assume that mypartner has an 80%.
Okay, that's perfect.
It's perfect because we are nowdetermining matched lifestyles,
matched values and also howwe're both showing up.
Okay.
But here's the thing Oursurveys showed that the couples
(06:05):
who tend to stay together thepartner has four percent on
average partner scored than theself score.
That means that the perfectrelationship for me is if I'm
evaluating myself as an 80percent.
An 85 percent would be theperfect relationship for me and
85% would be the perfectrelationship for me.
(06:27):
And what do you know?
Vice versa.
So the same was true for men.
Men tended to want to stay inrelationships when they admired
their partner by an average of4%.
So, going back to Gottman, it'sabsolutely true.
Influence, though the way Iarticulate.
It is more admiration, it'srespect, and when you have
(06:48):
admiration and respect, thattranslates to influence.
And that's essentially what wesaw, adding on to Gottman's
theory, where I agree with whathe's saying.
I I'm just just the context.
(07:10):
I think my the narrative mightspiral again.
I'm not sure exactly how hearticulated it and I should
definitely educate myself onthat in case I'm asked about it
again.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
But yeah, no, I mean you definitely.
Yeah, adding the context isgood too.
Like I know, I think they talkabout four traits or ways you
react to each other, predictedor not.
So like or be like.
It's basically the negativeside, like if you're
contemptuous or if you do this,then it's not going to work.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
So yeah, exactly so, contempt is actually a huge
thing too, and I feel like thatcan also be validated by the
theory.
The number one, also bevalidated by the theory.
The number one value that wefound that both men and women
had when they were looking for apartner was dependability and
(07:55):
reliability.
So, essentially, you're lookingfor a rock, essentially you
want someone to support you, andthat's the number one, no
matter the age group, no matterthe gender.
That was what everyone waslooking for.
So what happens?
If someone drops the ball rightLike, you're going to feel
unsafe, you're going to feelbothered, resentful, right.
(08:19):
So again, going back to Gottmanand in my opinion I'm adding
context to what he's sayingContempt is true, but I think
that's because that's the mainvalue.
So when you start to lose, whenyou start to get lazy in that
particular category, theconsequences of that is contempt
(08:41):
, the consequence of that isresentment.
So, yes, those traits that hefound, I believe are symptoms of
something deeper than that, andI think the deeper layer there
is that they're not showing upbased on the standards that you
know the person has.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Yeah, that definitely makes sense.
Yeah, so how do you apply thescience to all this?
Or I know you mentioned somesurveys like how does all that
work?
Or if you were continuing onthe other, then you can keep
going.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Yeah, so okay, based on 300 surveys, we had five
different categories.
Four of those categories werecouples who were currently
broken up, and only one of thosecategories were couples who
were currently together, theones who were broken up.
We split it up.
We.
Only one of those categorieswere couples who were currently
(09:31):
together, the ones who werebroken up.
We split it up.
We.
The four categories of that washe, she, they broke up with me
or I broke up with them, right?
That was the second category.
The third one is we are on abreak, and the fourth one was it
was a mutual break or, sorry, amutual breakup, breakup, right.
So all of those.
So we found different levelsactually of differences of
(09:52):
scores for those broken up, andthere was only one category
where the partner score washigher than the self score, only
one, and that's the ones whoare currently together.
Hence influence, right, yourpartner has to be able to
influence you for you to want tostay that stay there.
But again, influence is thesymptom of respect.
(10:14):
Influence is a symptom ofadmiration.
That's the deeper layer thatwe're looking for here.
We're not looking for arelationship where the woman or
man can influence their partner,we're looking for admiration
and again, that will naturallylead to influence.
Right the ones who werecurrently on a break, the
(10:38):
partner score was lower by anaverage of 5%.
So there's a slightmisalignment there.
So apparently, according againto this data, you either have to
be an exact match or thepartner has to be above you.
If they're below you, you'relikely not going to be fulfilled
(10:58):
and that lack of fulfillmentwill likely cause distortions.
So I have a section in the inthe book called distortions.
One of them, for example, is aself-sacrificer versus a
self-focused, dynamic right.
So if you think that yourpartner is that much above you
like oh sorry, let me rephrasethat.
(11:22):
So, going to the other categoryof the ones who are broken up,
it was mutual breakups.
The mutual breakups had apartner score of under 10%, so
clearly something was notworking out right.
Clearly there was a misalignmentthere, and oftentimes when
(11:42):
there is a misalignment, that'sgoing to project onto the
relationship.
So if, for example, I'm nothappy with how my partner is
showing up, right, whetherthey're not dependable, or the
family values are just not whereI need them to be, or their
finances are not great, soeverything is on my shoulders,
whatever it may be, well, I'mgoing to start projecting that
(12:03):
into the relationship.
So what's going to happen whenI do that?
I may not meet my partner forthe values that they have.
If his values is alsodependability and reliability, I
can very easily say you'rebarely showing up for me, why
would I show up for you, right?
Or if let's say, he's notshowing up for how I need him to
(12:24):
family wise, well, why would Ishow up to things that he needs
for me?
So that's where it starts toproject.
And you know the goal is not tounderstand it and then just wipe
your hands clean and say, okay,I'm out.
That's clearly not the goal,right?
The goal is communication.
(12:45):
The goal is getting back to aplace of alignment, whether
you're just starting today,whether you're in a long-term
relationship.
About red zone, which is twopeople with low self-esteem
right, so low sells, a low selfscore and a low partner score.
Then there's a yellow zonewhere you have one low score and
(13:09):
one high score right, so it canbe a low self score and a high
partner score, or it can be theother way around.
That's yellow because we'reseeing a large discrepancy and,
as the data shows, that willeventually lead to misalignment
and if there's nothing holdingyou guys together, such as kids
or a mortgage or something,it'll be easier to kind of go
(13:31):
your separate ways, right?
And even if you do have allthose things binding you
together, the goal is not to bemiserable and just to stay
because you have to out ofobligation, right, you want to
be happy and you want to befulfilled, and what comes with
that is a your partner showingup for you and also you showing
up for your partner, but againalso you showing up for you.
(13:51):
So your self-score is also veryimportant and it's a big part
of the equation here for ahealthy relationship.
So, leading to that, we havethe green zone.
Green zone is when you have ahigh self-score and a high
partner score.
Again, those are therelationships that tend to last.
The 80 versus 85%.
Those are very high scores.
(14:11):
In fact, women on average havea self-score of 76%.
Men on average, have aself-score of 73%.
If you're just about there,you're probably healthy.
You're probably just like therest of us, right?
If you're above that, thatmeans you have a very healthy
(14:32):
sense of self, which is great.
Which is great, and it'sactually what you need in a
healthy relationship, because ifyou have anything below 70,
you're not likely going to showup well in that relationship.
You're likely going to projectyour stuff into the relationship
and into the dynamic and thenyour partner eventually might be
(14:56):
over it, right, and then he orshe is going to project stuff
into the relationship.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Yeah, and then both get defensive back and forth,
like you said.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So we also found the tworemaining categories where I
broke up with them or they brokeup with me.
Right, the they broke up withme.
The partner score still had amuch lower score, which I
thought was interesting.
Right, and again it goes backto if you're not happy with them
(15:26):
, you're likely going to projectthat into the relationship.
They're not going to show up.
Well, right, you're both notshowing up for each other,
essentially, right, um, but yeah, you can be broken up with and
still assume that the otherperson has a low score.
Right, again, because theyprobably projected bad things
into the relationship.
Right, cause they were probablychecked out.
And then, other way also is ifyou did the breaking up, um,
(15:51):
same thing, right, like they're,they're not showing up for you,
misalignments happen, and thenthere you go, you both decided
to call it quit yeah, I meanmakes sense all that yeah yeah,
I just it always brings me backto my own, where I'm.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
We're doing all of that stuff.
So it's like for once.
You know, I used to date people.
That definitely wasn't the case, like all the the misalignments
and all the negativity Idefinitely had in the past.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
So I see both sides of it for sure.
It happens, happens, it happens.
We're all human.
You know, when the lovelanguage just came out, it was
so popular because there was away that people could explain
hey, I do love you, it's justnot the way you need me to love
you, right, I am doing my bestto show up for you, you're just
not receiving it because it'snot your language, right?
(16:37):
This is actually of lovelanguages on steroids.
This actually says hey, hereare the list of things that I
need.
Here's a numerical explanationof where you stand, right, based
on my perception.
And again, everything is basedon perception here, right,
(16:59):
there's no truth per se, butit's absolutely a tool for
communication.
And I'll be honest with you, myhusband and I, look, marriage is
not easy.
It's really not right.
When we first met, he was 4%above me and we both had high
scores, which is great.
And then, of course, you startto live together.
(17:19):
Had high scores, which is great.
And then, of course, you startto live together.
You, you've got the weddingplanning, you've got the wedding
, and then you start to seedifferent sides of each other.
You start to projectfrustrations, right, um?
And then you start stop showingup with each other as much.
So we got to a point where wewere not aligned and I actually
(17:42):
pulled up the book and I'm like,babe, like we need to get back
into where we were, because thisisn't working for either of us,
and we were both just not happy.
I essentially listed out thethings, the values.
He did it as well, and we bothrealized that we got lazy.
(18:05):
We got lazy and you know, Imean, it's not how do I put it?
When you're that specific aboutfamily, I'm giving you X, right
, of course you're going to haveexamples for that.
You're going to're gonna say,well, that time that you did
this, I felt this and this andthat's why I'm not giving you a
full mark here, right, yeah, andsame thing with him.
(18:28):
It's like, well, I feel likeyou've been kind of getting
sloppy, you know, with, like,the house maintenance or
whatever.
Um, so in communicating that,then the goal is to each of you
start showing up better for theother person.
Earlier I mentioned theimportance of a self score.
(18:49):
A high self score, which againmeans high self respect, high
self esteem, high selfconfidence.
Right, if I'm showing up in myrelationship and I'm very
unhappy with where I'm at inlife.
You know that cliche you can'tlove someone else unless you
love yourself.
I literally, numericallyexplain that the data shows that
(19:12):
unless you have a highself-score, you're not going to
show up well in a long-termrelationship and it'll likely
dissipate, it'll likely end dueto frustrations, due to toxic
patterns, toxic communicationdistortions and all of that and
(19:33):
I've had so many guests latelythat we talk about similar, like
different takes on similarstuff.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
but yeah, yeah, the core values, like that's kind of
like a given that you know, themore shared values you have,
just the more it's going to workout.
And I definitely agree and havenow that I have that, I'm like,
oh yeah, it's so much betterthis way.
Yeah, but do you want to?
Is there more to your science?
Or do you want to talk abouthow they can find your book and
(20:01):
if they work with you other ways?
Speaker 2 (20:03):
I mean with the science.
There's another thing weidentified personality types in
terms of how you do yourcalculations and how you score
your partner.
So one that seems to be mostrelatable is the practical
versus the emotional.
So the practical personalitytype is will essentially look at
(20:29):
only values, right?
So throughout this wholeepisode I only spoke about
values.
But there's a secondary part tothis calculation, which is
traits, and that's attraction.
Okay, it's how you measureattraction.
If you're more driven to engagein relationships based on
attraction but rather thanvalues, that makes you an
(20:51):
emotional right.
The emotional personality typeIf you are more driven based on
values and not as much onemotions, so you are a practical
personality type.
Now, both of those have healthysides and extreme sides.
So you can be a healthyemotional, where you're just
(21:13):
slightly leaning towards traitsbut still very much taking
values into account.
Or you can be an extremeemotional, where you don't care
about the values.
You just care about how youremotions feel and how the sex
feels and how magnetized you areright.
So logic kind of goes away hereand I think that a lot of us
(21:35):
tend to fall into the extremeemotional personality type.
Now, the least commonpersonality type was the extreme
practical, which actually Ithought was great to see.
I'm like, I'm so glad thatwe're not all using each other
and we're not transactional ashumans, because that's what the
data showed.
So the extreme practicals willsay I just care about values, I
(21:57):
don't even care about emotions,I don't care about attraction,
whatever right, that's not whatdrives my relationships.
But although it did show up inour surveys, it was a very small
percentage of the population.
So again, I'm just really happyto see that.
But going back to the extremeemotionals, I think that we've
all been there where we live infantasy and we're like oh my God
(22:21):
, my angels must have sent thisperson.
Oh my God, if I feel thisstrongly, it must be meant to be
.
There must be past lives there,there must be a soulmate
connection, a chaser runner, andI'm not denying that those
things are true and that theyexist.
But what I am saying is thatyour angels do not want you to
self-harm.
You're not put here on earth tobe a self-sacrificer or to be
(22:46):
an emotional servant to anotherhuman.
You're here to make yourselfhappy.
In my opinion, by the way,you're here to be purposeful and
be happy so that you canproject that happiness and that
love back into earth, back toother humans.
If you are completely drainedand you're not performing well
in your own life, you're notgoing to project health into
(23:08):
this world and then we're justgoing to feed off of each
other's energies, right, all tosay, when you fall into this
spiral of overthinking ofanother person, overthinking
their behaviors, overthinkingwhether you know it's the runner
chaser dynamic, and againyou're romanticizing self harm
(23:29):
and you're romanticizingobsession and romanticizing
again just these dynamics thataren't healthy, that are not
balanced, yeah, you're probablyfalling into an extreme
emotional distortion and you'reprobably not going to be able to
hold on to that relationship,because that's another thing we
saw with the extreme.
(23:50):
The healthy emotional can notthe extreme emotional.
So if you're putting all youreggs in the basket of emotions
and not enough in the values,you're not even going to hold on
to that relationship.
So like, catch yourself, catchyourself, catch yourself when
you spiral and, by the way, it'svery normal, we've all been
(24:11):
there, we are all human, we alllove to love, I get that Right.
But I think just theromanticizing of, oh, like the,
just the romance of it, that'swhere we need to take a step
back because it's not healthy.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Yeah, I mean all the.
We grew up with all theprincesses and all that stuff
and Prince Charming saving us so, especially as women.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
So yeah, which is a red flag.
I mean, I do believe in fairytale endings.
I do believe that some peopleare just meant to be.
They meet when they're so youngand they're just so beautiful
together, right up until 4050years old, like I do believe in
those stories.
But I also believe that thisera of dating will pull you into
(24:54):
thinking that you just fellinto that pattern, or that you
not the pattern, but you fellinto that situation and you're
right.
We grew up with Disney movies,beautiful Disney movies, and we
grew up in believing in the truelove is immediate.
The true love Well, maybe notimmediate, but true love is
immediate.
The true love well, maybe notimmediate, but true love exists
(25:14):
yeah, I would say like love atfirst sight.
You know just yeah, thank you,that's.
That's what I was looking for.
Love at first sight there canbe in the enjoying of traits at
first sight right, but you gotto balance it out with values at
the end of the day.
The whole jasmine aladdin thingthat's not typical.
(25:36):
It'd be great, but it's nottypical.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Romeo and juliet I don't think that was disney,
that was shakespeare yeah, I'vebeen that person before, like
distorting and like making upstuff, and then and even he'll
remind me my current partnerhe's like.
He's like that's not reality.
He's like you know like we'regonna have differences, we're's
like.
He's like that's not reality.
He's like you know, like we'regonna have differences, we're
gonna have this.
He's like I'm like, yeah, but Iwish we wouldn't.
He's like but that's notreality.
So he like brings me back.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
I get that Like I truly believe that we just love
to love, like I believe we enjoyit so much.
Right, and if you look at brainchemistry, though, you know,
essentially it's a dopamine hit,it's like an influx of oxytocin
and it feels great, buteventually you're going to crash
.
So the goal is to just kind ofkeep it stable, right.
(26:22):
So, as an extreme emotional,when you're constantly looking
for that high, the crashes mighthappen.
You might start to um, distort,you might start to distort
reality, you might start toassume someone feels the same
way for you when they do not,and you start creating fantasies
in your mind, you startobsessing, and then, if you
(26:43):
combine that with an anxiousattachment personality type, or
you combine that with traumapersonality type, or you combine
that with trauma, which I won'tsay that all extreme emotionals
have trauma, but I will saythat if you have trauma, you're
more likely to fall in thatcategory, because you're afraid
(27:04):
of abandonment.
And, yeah, you just, you knowthere's just distorted,
distorted and dysfunctional love.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Unfortunately, so is there a place that's easiest to
get your book or anything elseyou want to share about yourself
?
Yeah, so you can pick up mybook through Amazon.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
It's called Love Can In Fact Be Calculated, or Barnes
Noble.
Barnes Noble website has it.
If you're in SouthernCalifornia it's available at the
Spectrum location andHuntington location.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Okay, anything you want to say, like for closing,
or did you?
Was there more to finish beforeyou even had a closing thought?
Speaker 2 (27:41):
No, I appreciate you having me so much.
I hope that I described thetheory well enough and that it
was not too confusing.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
No, no, yeah, it was good, and then they can get the
book if they needed to get moreinformation.
So awesome.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Well, thank you so so much.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Yes, thank you, and if you love this episode, be
sure to tell your friends aboutit and follow the show as well.
All right, thank you everyone.
Frank talk, frank talk sex anddating educate.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.