-------------------------------------------
Whiteboard Wednesday #6: How to optimise Google Shopping for Black Friday | Clearhaus Learning - Duration: 3:50.
Hi. Welcome to Whiteboard Wednesday.
My name is Dennis Cassøe and I'm the CEO and co-founder of WakeupData.
Today, I'd like to talk a bit about Black Friday and the following Cyber Monday.
This year, Black Friday is on 23rd of November,
and it's one of those really key important days in e-commerce and e-commerce marketing.
I will not focus on Black Friday as a whole,
but only on that small area that is related to the Google Shopping campaigns that most e-commerce stores run.
Because there's quite a few things you can do for this specific day,
that is worth at least thinking about if you should do it,
that might improve on your performance on Google Shopping.
First and foremost, if you don't already have it, make sure you have the GTINs in the feed.
GTINs are those global trade identifiers that every item have.
You usually see it on the back of the barcode of the product,
and it's really important to add them to the Google Shopping feed if you can,
because it will allow the ads to be displayed more correctly
and also in the right comparison with all the competitors' products.
If you don't have it in your e-Commerce site, you might have it somewhere else
and then by merging those two sources together you can add it there.
Next part is split testing. We all have the assumption of what works and what doesn't work, and already now
you should start testing out different variations of titles to see what performs best.
Is it best to have brand or the product type, or the color or whatever combination makes the most sense
for different types of products?
So by testing this out instead of just basing it on assumption and the so-called best practices,
you'll be able to actually base it on what people like and when you get to Black Friday,
it might also be worth thinking about how those titles are being displayed
in comparison to what other companies are doing.
Third part is keywords, specifically for this date lacing your descriptions with keywords related to Black Friday
can increase your performance on Google Shopping.
And also just thinking about how should your title look on this specific day?
Because again, it might be a different way you should appeal to people on this day than others.
Fourth thing is mobile accessibility because even though we're here talking about the feed,
a part of the quality or the way that Google analyse
if they should display your ads compared to others, is how well does your site perform on mobile?
And also because specifically on these days people research a lot during the day on their phone
to figure out should I buy this item or shouldn't I. They might buy it on desktop later
but they'll research it on their phone
and it has impact also on the price you're paying on the Google Shopping campaigns.
The last thing I'll take out is frequency,
because the frequency of how often you update your feed on Google Shopping is highly important,
especially, again this day, because you might have campaigns the start at midnight and stop again
the next midnight, and you only want to display them in that period. If you don't update the feed regularly enough
you might show the wrong prices either the day before or the day after.
Also, if you're a site with a certain amount of sale that day, the quantity you have in stock might change a lot
and you might have items that go out of stock during the day,
and if you don't update the feed regularly, you might end up paying for products that's no longer in your inventory.
One of the ways to get started on learning if your products is actually working on Google Shopping,
is by running a test in our service called productfeedanalyzer.com,
which is a free service where you can test how well your feed actually performs.
If you can't do all these things in your own tools or in your own platform
Wakeupdata will gladly help you out both in helping you understand what you should do
and also we have the product, that can do the things for you. Thank you for listening
-------------------------------------------
Whiteboard Wednesday #6: Sådan optimerer du Google Shopping til Black Friday | Clearhaus Learning - Duration: 3:26.
For more infomation >> Whiteboard Wednesday #6: Sådan optimerer du Google Shopping til Black Friday | Clearhaus Learning - Duration: 3:26. -------------------------------------------
បានមើលបានសើច ភាគទី៨៣ | Khmer Funny Video 2018 CTN TV Cambodia - Episode 83 - Duration: 4:51.
For more infomation >> បានមើលបានសើច ភាគទី៨៣ | Khmer Funny Video 2018 CTN TV Cambodia - Episode 83 - Duration: 4:51. -------------------------------------------
ASMR Eating "SUGARCANE / Extreme Crunchy Sounds" Challenge Mukbang Party - Duration: 3:24.
ASMR Eating "SUGARCANE / Extreme Crunchy Sounds" Challenge Mukbang Party
-------------------------------------------
The Town That Facebook Built | The B1M - Duration: 11:35.
For more infomation >> The Town That Facebook Built | The B1M - Duration: 11:35. -------------------------------------------
'All This Fighting Is Making It Worse For Everyone' | Are You The One? | MTV - Duration: 1:36.
(upbeat electronic music)
- [Announcer] Last week Are You The One
ended with a cliffhanger.
Tonight, we'll see the fallout.
- Asia's running the show, she wants to be on top
and oversee everything and kind of put the pieces in place,
we haven't gotten more than four beams, Asia.
Like if this is your show, and you're running this thing,
what are you doing to better us?
You gotta talk a little, too.
Who's your match then, Asia?
- I've had the strongest connection with him.
That's where I'm at right now.
Who's yours?
Who's yours?
Who's yours? - who was it?
- Nutsa, and we have a lot similar attitudes.
- Yeah and you said don't put me in a booth with her,
as soon as you saw your name go up.
- [Brett] Okay.
- I don't get why everybody's getting
on each other's ass.
This is literally just breaking up the house.
- You're just as full of (beep)
as anybody you claim to be full of (beep)
you just hide it better, mask it better,
and you yell on top of it.
- Shut the (beep) up.
- I'm not finished yet, (beep).
- You want to talk first or you want me to talk,
what you want?
- That's the problem.
- We need to work together.
- That's what I'm saying.
- Everyone can see I'm (beep) right.
And then no one's taking the blame,
everyone's pointing fingers.
- This is not working together.
- Yo I'm not (beep) lying
so stop pulling that out. - You are lying.
You have lied. - No one's lying about (beep).
- Yes you have. - you're hearing something
from someone, you're taking it this way.
- You're (beep) lying, you're lying.
- Bro, what the hell is going on?
This house is insane, people popping off on each other
left and right.
All this fighting, all this fighting,
is just making it worse for everyone!
These people are crazy.
- Shut the (beep) up, Brett.
Shut the (beep) up.
- [Announcer] It all starts tonight at 10/9 central,
on MTV.
-------------------------------------------
50 Cool Ideas To Decorate Your Home With Moss | Garden Ideas - Duration: 8:00.
For more infomation >> 50 Cool Ideas To Decorate Your Home With Moss | Garden Ideas - Duration: 8:00. -------------------------------------------
Tip 47: Consider creating AMP pages | 50 tips in 50 days - Duration: 0:56.
For more infomation >> Tip 47: Consider creating AMP pages | 50 tips in 50 days - Duration: 0:56. -------------------------------------------
Zombie Town | Schoolies Cartoons | Halloween Songs & Rhymes For Children | Kids Channel - Duration: 1:02:21.
Zombie Town
-------------------------------------------
Speaking of Psychology - Making Love Last & Dating in the Digital Age with Benjamin Karney (SOP66) - Duration: 42:13.
Hello and welcome to Speaking of Psychology, a podcast produced by the American Psychological
Association. I'm your host, Kaitlin Luna. I'm joined by Dr. Benjamin Karney, a professor
of social psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles and co-director of
the UCLA Marriage Lab. Dr. Karney is a leading scholar of social relationships and marriage,
who studies change and stability in intimate relationships, with a particular emphasis
on minority populations, including low-income couples and military families. Welcome, Dr.
Karney. Oh, thanks for having me.
Happy to have you here today. So, you're a co-author of a study that was recently published
by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that examined what's known as �demand withdraw
behavior� and so to summarize that, that means one partner in a relationship asks the
other to change something and the partner who's asked to make that change basically
shuts down and withdraws. And in this study, you looked at how that behavior is impacted
based a bit impacts the couple's relationship satisfaction based on their income levels.
So, can you explain what you found? Sure. What we were building off of is an existing
literature on the negative implications of the demand withdrawal pattern. So, there's
been a lot of research on marriage that shows that when one partner seeks change and the
other partner is invested in the status quo, you get this negative cycle where the person
who wants change has to turn up the volume and ask more and ask more and the person who
loves the status quo, which is often the male partner, but not always, has to withdraw to
maintain this status quo and then that means that the person who wants change has to get
louder and louder. The person who withdraws has to get worse and worse and a lot of research
that's been done shows that this pattern has negative implications for marriage.
But couples that fall into this sort of negative cycle of demanding and withdrawing experience
-- lower marital satisfaction, experienced a client and marital satisfaction, experience
higher rates of divorce. So, that's the conventional wisdom.
The limits, the problem with that conventional wisdom is that all of that research and I
mean all of it, has been conducted on middle-class or more affluent, mostly white college-educated
couples. Okay.
So, the advice that's available for all couples is based on research on a very narrow range
of couples. And the assumption is well, demand withdraw
is going to be equally bad for everybody. So it doesn't matter that we actually have
never studied it in anyone except for a bunch of college-educated white couples.
Our work questions that assumption and says well, what if we think about couples that
are not affluent that might not have gone to college, that might not have the same options
that affluent college-educated couples have. What were the implications of that cycle in
that other context and what we were thinking is that what makes demand withdraw so negative
for affluent couples? Is the presumption, the implicit assumption
that people can change things if they want to in their lives. So, if I'm asking you for
change, I'm saying you could change if you wanted to and so you're not wanting to, you're
not changing means you don't want to which means baby don't love me, you don't care about
me. Right.
In non-affluent couples � in, in couples that might be poor or disadvantaged, that
assumption is true. You can't assume that people who don't change would, don't change
because they don't want to change. Couples that don't have resources might not be able
to change. So, let's say I'm a spouse and I'm asking
my partner hey, you know you should make more money. You should get a better job. You should
work harder for this family. Well, if I'm an affluent couple, I'm like well your failure
to do so means you don't care enough. But if I'm a poor couple your feeling to do so
might mean that you can't. I might be asking for something that you cannot do.
So, for a poor couple withdrawing in the face of that kind of demand might actually be adaptive.
That was the idea. And adaptive meaning?
It might actually help the relationship, that that might be the best available way of dealing
with your demand would be to withdraw because I can't address it any other way.
Okay. So, we tested it. We were one of them, I think,
the first study ever that got a diverse set of couples and actually used observational
data on poor and affluent couples. Most observational research on marriage took place only with
the affluent couples. But, we had a diverse, we went out of our
way to sample couples in low-income neighborhoods and couples that were more affluent. So, we
had a range of couples and we videotape talking about problems and we identified the demand
withdrawal pattern and here's what we showed. We showed this in two different samples -- that
the couples who were more affluent, the more they did this demand withdraw cycle, the worse
off they were. But the couples who were less affluent, the
more that it demand-withdraw, the better off they were. Demand -withdraw, that every advice
column says don't do this. You know, don't fall you don't allow yourself to fall into
the cycle. That advice would have been bad advice for the low-income couples. The poorest
couples in our sample actually benefited from engaging in a demand-withdraw pattern and
so that's the news here, that and the broader lesson is the advice that we give to couples
has to be tailored to their circumstances. The same advice that applies to couples that
have a lot of resources might not apply -- it might even be counterproductive for couples
that do, that don't have a lot of resources and that's what we found.
And a lot of your research as I mentioned when I was introducing you does include couple,
you know, minority populations, I would say and not necessary, racial, ethnic minorities.
But, income minorities, military families. So, why do you think it's important to include
such a diverse sample in your research? Can you explain your commitment to that inclusivity?
Absolutely. Um, there�s, there's two ways about it. I mean for me personally, it's,
a sort of an ideology that says science has not done a good job of representing the broader
population or diverse populations. It's easy for a scientist and you know, I
have empathy for social science, which is a hard thing to do. To try to make it a little
easier by studying conveniently available samples � cause boy, science is hard, so
at the least I can do is study an easy sample again. Problem is that the easiest sample
to get is white people, is people hang out around universities who tend to go to college.
It's a lot of extra expense. An extra effort if I want to try to find people who are different
than that who are somewhere else. It's only okay to look at convenient samples if the
conclusions of that research apply broadly to everybody. Here's the problem. They don't.
So, my thought is that to be a good scientist, you actually have to directly examine whether
your findings generalize to diverse populations. And now there's a political reason to do this,
as well or a policy-based reason, especially for me, a family researcher. And this is about,
about 15 years ago at the early 2000s, there were policies put into place by our federal
government to try to promote low income families and promote the health of low-income families.
And this was known as the Healthy Marriage Initiative and it was developed in the second
Bush administration to -- with a very noble goal, let's help poor families that are struggling.
The question is what kind of help was offered and the answer is the help that was offered
was help based on the research. Again, very admirable. Only promised that research had
only been conduct on affluent, white middle-class couples.
So, millions of dollars -- what I mean is hundreds of millions of dollars. What I really
mean is almost a billion dollars, was spent over the next ten years on programs to help
low-income families based on research on high-income families.
You can imagine what might, what the risk is for that is it that that it the advice
and all that money got spent on programs that proved ineffective. So, the problem so there's
real consequences, like a billion dollars worth of consequences of not knowing what's
really going on in those low-income couples. That is what motivates my commitment to studying
the couples that have a good study. Mmm-hmm. And going back to the results of
that other study, is in those low-income couples, is too much withdraw-demand behavior unhealthy?
Did you exceed? I know you believe the study was over eighteen months, correct, the period
of time it was? Again, there were two different samples there
and we found the same general pattern in both. We did not see what, what you're suggesting
is a curvilinear effect -- an effect that they're a little bit of demand withdrawal
might be good for those couples but too much would be bad. We didn't see it, but that doesn't
mean it's not there. It just means that one of the things is true in that in both of these
samples we were studying younger couples and it's quite possible that the couples that
we're seeing weren't the most distressed couples. It might be that, that if you're really studying
maybe couples have been together longer or couples that were really struggling with distress,
that at the end the extremes demand-withdraw might be bad or you know, too much withdrawal
might be bad for a lot of couples. But, we didn't see it. In the younger couples,
the couples who were still together, who were moderately satisfied and committed to each
other, we saw that a modest level of the demand withdraw pattern was okay.
By the way, to be clear, there's an effect where we looked at it there's an effect of
withdrawal. Withdrawal generally isn't a great thing, but withdrawal in the face of demand
turned out to be an adaptive thing for the low-income couples only.
Sort of giving that partner who's withdrawing a chance, like save face if you will, as you
say maybe not face the reality the you know the very basic realities they're dealing with.
It's beautifully said. That's beautifully said. Action in a condition where you cannot,
your face of the demand that you cannot meet, withdrawal might be the best of a bad set
of options. Think of what the other options are disappointing you directly or denying
your demand or confronting you or getting mad or getting defensive?
If those are your options, withdrawal start to look better.
Right, that makes a lot of sense and you mentioned also to in the bottom of the study -- you
know, the end of it usually concludes saying where future research could go and you did
note that the future research could possibly be on the same-sex couples or could be on
older couples to see how it would play out in different, you know, maybe not necessarily
from the UCLA Marriage Lab, from other researchers. Exactly. Our habit and our expertise is on
the earlier years of marriage. And in the same way that I very reluctant to generalize
to diverse couples from the only, from the couple that have been studied, I would be
reluctant to generalize from what I know about the early years of marriage to studying the
later years of marriage. You could easily imagine that demanding the
demands, the meaning of demand and the meaning of withdraw might evolve over the course of
relationship. Couples have been together 25-30 years, what does it mean to withdraw in the
face of a demand then? If the demand is something like, oh yeah, I've heard this hundreds of
times and it's not going to change, that my withdrawal might be interpreted differently,
it might have different implications and that's a future direction that we pointed out at
that paper. So, what can couples do with this information?
So, they have this study saying that you know, sometimes this behavior is helpful, sometimes
it's not helpful. But, what can as the average person in a relationship reading this, what
might they take away from it in their own lives?
That there are implications of this work for couples, which is, but I think the strongest
implications of this work are for policy makers. I think the real audience for this paper isn't
couples themselves, but policy makers because for too long policy makers have said again,
admirably, let's find the research and base our policy on the research.
Unfortunately, the question they haven't asked is, is there available research that applies
to the population we want to target? So, policy makers, the audience for this paper is to
say to policy makers you can't assume that a program that might work in an affluent couple,
a good affluent population is going to work in a low-income population. That's really
the lesson of this. So and the implication is if I as a policymaker want to improve or
target a particular population, I need to research this explicit of the population because
this paper shows that relationships might function quite differently in those two different
contexts. So, I think that's really the primary audience
and the primary value of this paper for making the world, you know, a better place is that
we might have hopefully be able to start developing policies that are more targeted and based
on more specific research that acknowledges the real differences in the way these intimate
relationships play out at different levels of socioeconomic status.
Okay great. And moving on to your general research with The Marriage Lab -- how do you
advise couples to deal with the inevitable conflicts that come up throughout a relationship?
So right, a big issue and that's just true in all the couples we studied � low-income,
middle income and high income, is conflict. Now the way social psych, I�m a social psychologist
-- the way social psychologists define conflict, it really, generally is anytime that my pursuit
of my goals gets in the way of your pursuit of your goals.
So, whenever that happens we've got a conflict. And if you define conflict that way, it follows
that conflict�s inevitable. That's always going to become. We're always getting in each
other's way and the closer we are, the more we get in each other's way.
Think about, you know, dancing. If the closer we are, the more we're going to separate each
other's toes. That's a good analogy.
So, the issue in relationships isn't why do we have conflict, because conflict is part
of the game. We�re not going to want the same thing at the same time, all the time.
We're going to have different desires for when to be on the couch and how often have
sex and what do we have for dinner and whether what time we have kids and all of that.
The issue for couples is how, what do we do when we hit those conflicts? What do we do
when we encounter those conflicts? And our research has talked a lot about what do the
what a couples do that makes it makes those couples -- makes those conflicts easier to
manage and what do couples do that makes them harder to manage?
So, and there's a lot on this you know we could go on and on, but there's one big issue
that's come up is there are different structures of conflict and we distinguish between a vertical
conflicts and horizontal conflicts. Okay.
What's the difference? A vertical conflict is a conflict where one side is objectively
right, and the other side is objectively wrong. Let me give an example. If you and I start
arguing about what the capital of Portugal is -- I actually don't know what the capital
of Portugal is. But, let's assume that we disagreed about it -- one of us might be right.
The other one would be just wrong. And we could discuss it until we convinced each other
like this is the right answer, that's the wrong answer.
Now the problem with vertical conflicts is they were almost never in them. Our conflicts
are not typically vertical conflicts. The comforts of relationship partners have are
typically horizontal conflicts. And a horizontal conflict is a difference in values or preferences,
where there isn't an objectively right or wrong answer -- where both sides are valid.
Here's an example of a horizontal conflict. Let's go to dinner. I want to go to Chinese,
you want to go to Italian. Okay, that's a conflict. We want different
things, but you're not wrong, it's not wrong to want Italian, you know Chinese objectively
better, it's just we want different things. Almost all conflicts, our horizontal conflicts
and relationships, but people approach them as if they�re vertical conflicts. So, if
couples disagree and you know, what religion should we raise our kids? You know, one person's
like well, my religion�s right and yours is wrong and maybe if I see I think that I'm
right and you're wrong -- how often should we have sex -- you know, what's the most appropriate
time? Like well, we should have sex the amount that
I want it and you're wrong to want it your amount. You're like weird is four too much
or too little, like that's wrong. When I think I'm in a vertical conflict, I'm
going try to debate you. I'm going try to convince you that you're wrong. I'm going
to try to instruct you but teach you none of that works.
Yeah, it's not going to get you anywhere. It's not going to get you anywhere. Nobody
wants to be convinced by their partner or debated by their partner or instructed by
their partner. And yet if I think that there's a right answer
and I've got it, that's what it leads me to do.
So, the advice that we often give couples is remember that you're in a horizontal conflict.
Remember that you can disagree, and both sides are still valid. You just want what you want
your partner wants something different. If you start from there, now you're in a negotiation.
If you start from there, you're not in a debate but you're now just going okay we want you
what now we're going to be compromised. Can we take turns?
You still might not get what you both want, but it feels a lot better to start from a
position that both of our positions are valid. And that's what thinking about horizontal
conflicts does. So, that's like one thing that couples can do to address the inevitable
conflicts. That kind of sounds like politics to I guess
even that could be it really. It's most likely a horizontal conflict and not a vertical kind,
even though we try to paint it as a vertical conflict. I know we're going off in a different
territory, but soon as you said that that's immediately what I thought I was like. Is
it really one side, right or wrong it's more so different values and how do you compromise,
so. Absolutely. Now, it's a little off the topic
of couples it's not but there are social psychologists who've been studying the deep structure of
political conflict. And, of course, it is a values discussion
that the two sides are having. One side says you know the most important value is, let's
say equality and another side says quality. I'm not against equality but the most important
value is security. You're not wrong to like security. I'm not
wrong to value equality. We're just valuing different, we�re prioritizing different
things, but that's not how it -- that's not how it plays out in the political realm. Not
that we want different things how are we going to negotiate this? Plays out as I'm right
and you are evil Satan. The same thing happens in couples -- bring
it back. Yeah bring you back to the relationships but
there's a lot of parallels. I mean, it's human interaction.
An unhappy couple, they don't just say oh we want different things. The unhappy couples
say why do you want -- how dare you want what you want?
You're wrong and mean and malevolent for wanting something different than what I want � which,
that is not a road toward compromise. That's not a road toward connection. Thinking about
it as differences of values allows you to say, oh I'm not going to debate you, I'm not
trying to convince you. Let's just negotiate, which always feels better even though it's
still hard. Is this advice you give to couples to how
to stay together for the long haul -- for a long period of time is - how to navigate
these, these conflicts and to see them in a different light?
I mean, yes. Now generally, we're, you know, my lab is a research lab. I'm a social psychologist,
not a clinical psychologist. I'm not really in the advice business.
That said, I do research that I think matters for people and I think has implications for
how we live our lives. So, you know we always give the advice with a very light, a light
touch because it's basically saying this is an implication of the observations we've made
in our lab. A second observation we've made in our lab
around conflict all the time has to do with the psychological framing of the conflict.
And it is, you can frame a discussion with your partner or even a disagreement with your
partner as a specific problem or a global problem and a lot of times we have flexibility
in how we do that. And so, you know if we're arguing about the toilet seat, it could be
I want it raised and you want it lowered. Or it could be I think that I've asked for
something and you don't care enough to give it to me. So, the fact that you aren't lowering
the toilet seat is actually a sign that you don't love me. You don't care about me. You're
not paying attention to me. Yeah well, that second one is more global
right and it's a lot harder a problem to solve. Right, it's not a simple thing. It's applied
to a much larger issue. Exactly. The happier couples, the couples
that manage conflict more effectively are the couples that keep it specific -- a dishwasher
problem is a dishwasher problem. I'm not going to link this to -- I'm not going to say that
the problem is, you're a selfish bastard because how am I going to solve that one? Let's just
focus on the dishwasher. So, another piece of advice that sort of comes
out of this work is the more that you can keep your specific disagreements specific,
the better for your relationship. So, containing the disagreements -- containing
conflict is a good skill to practice. And shifting gears a bit, but you also have
studied the health in relationships. Not health of the relationship but being healthy together
as a couple. And you and your co-director wrote a book �Love Me Slender,� which
is very cute play on words, but he explained the importance of for couples being healthy
and how that helps a relationship. I mean where is that correlation?
Sure, that's so that's a book my co-director and collaborator is a guy named Tom Bradbury,
who's a clinical psychologist at UCLA and Tom and I wrote this book several years ago
called �Love Me Slender� and it came out of work that we had done on how couples support
each other and we'd studied for years what makes couples more or less effective at supporting
each other's goals. And it wasn't until some years later that
we asked hey, what are those goals? What are they supporting each other and doing? So,
we went back to we had you know thousands of video tapes and we went back and said in
those discussions where they're given an opportunity to support each other, what are they supporting
each other with? And what we found out is that over half of
the couples we're asking each other for support about one issue and that was health and fitness,
a diet and weight. In other words, their bodies. Couples, when they look to each other for
support, half the time are saying I want you to help me be healthier. Either to lose weight
or to eat better or to go to the gym more. So, we looked at those tapes and we said are
couples doing a good job and helping each other do this thing if they really want help
with? And what we noticed in the tapes was on one
hand all these couples -- we tend to study younger couples who are pretty happy. They're
committed to each other. These couples wanted to help each other. Like
they wanted to, you look at me. You're like, I want to be healthy and like, oh my god,
I'm committed to you. We're going to be married for years. I want you to be healthier. I want
to help you with your thing. And yet it turned out to be a very hard thing
to do -- providing effective support around health turned out to be fraught with difficulty.
Let me give an example. If I say to you, do you think I look fat? Do you think I need
to go to the gym? What's the helpful response? No, you look great. No, you�re fine. Yeah.
No, I don't go to the gym. I don't get healthier. Here's another option. Yeah, you do � you
are gaining some weight. You should go to the gym. Oh yeah, how does that feel? It�s
tough. Yeah, it�s tough.
So, that's why we wrote the book. We're like, oh man, it's not easy. Even the couples would
love each other, it's not easy. So, we started really looking into it and
what came out of the where's a couple big insights and one is health is not individual.
If you're in a relationship, there's no such thing as individual health. There's no such
thing as so I'm just going to be healthier because so much of our lives are interdependent.
You know, if you have a spouse or a co, if you live with somebody, how many kitchens
does the average house have? A house, there's lots of bathrooms, only one kitchen. So, you're
going to be eating from the same fridge. So, there's no way that you could just say, oh
I'm just going to have my fridge over here you have your fridge over here, that's just
not how couples work. Yeah and cooking meals and you know, going
to the grocery store and everything, yeah. Absolutely. These are social events. These
are and so when somebody says I want to eat differently, it affects their partner. And
yet that's not how diet books are written. That's not how, how books are written. Diet
books are written as if you make a change. You can't make a change that doesn't affect
your partner. So, you know once you acknowledge that, you're
like wait a minute, I'm not going to be successful unless my partner's part of it. And that's
a big part of the book. Another thing that we pointed out is that
providing support is authority because people want help, but they don't want bad help. And
there's lots of help that is the kind of help we all can do without as my childhood book
said. So, in the book we have all sorts of examples
from our tapes of couples that are trying to be helpful and kind of failing and you
know one way is it's exactly what you came up with, which is no honey, your beautiful.
You don't need to change a thing. Aren't, aren't I being loving? And I am being loving,
but I'm not being helpful. Yes.
So, you know we talked about how you can thread that needle and say, hey, I love you, but
did you say you want to do something? Well if that's what you want to do, I'm going to
help you. Not because I think you need to change, but because I hear you saying that
you think you need to change and I'm validating your goal. And we've seen couples do that.
The example that we talked about in the book is a wife who says to the husband -- and she
says it with real sadness, I feel bad about my body and I don't feel attractive and he
says, oh, that's a big problem. It's a huge problem that you don't see the beautiful woman
that I see when I look at you. That's terrible. What can we do about that together? How can
we work on this problem? So, that's a real deft move that he did. He
was able to say that's a serious problem. I'm totally on board with helping you solve
that problem. At the same time, they were saying, I don't share the opinion, I don't.
It's not a problem for me and that's skillful. And so, we wrote the book to sort of try to
articulate that skill and share it with others. That's what that book was about.
Great and so switching gears to dating. You know, many people are looking for love on
apps today, like Tinder, Bumble, OkCupid, and you and I spoke a bit about this and you
said that how we�re dating has changed. So, we're not maybe necessarily meeting someone
at a bar or at work as often. Perhaps we're using apps, but you said Howard hangs changed
but the actual dating and dating actions and dating itself has not changed. Can you explain
that? Sure.
This seems like, I think it would people to say oh it's totally different now than it
was 20 years ago. You know, it's different. You could focus
on continuity and you could focus on change and there's a lot that's changing and there's
a lot that staying the same. So, what's changing? So as to where as technology another what's
changing about in the domain of how do people find intimate partners? This is of interest
to us. We study intimacy, so we're interested in how do people find intimate partners?
And clearly, the technology available to do that is changing and it's changing a lot,
whereas before to find it 20 years ago, 25 years ago before we had smartphones if you
want to find into a partner you had to go somewhere where people were likely to be,
talked to a lot of people and hope that you find the available people.
But, nobody is wearing a t-shirt saying I'm available.
Some people might. Tell you they might and good for those. Yes,
but for the most part they worked. You'd have to sort of like to say hey, hi are you interested
and like no, I'm gay -- no I'm married look at my ring or whatever.
But now with apps you have a way of identifying people who are definitely available and local
and willing to talk all before you get in the room. That's amazingly convenient. Like
that's, that's, for some people life-altering. So, if you were out at a job or a circumstance
where you meet a lot of people, maybe it doesn't make that much difference. But, if you're
a modern person that works a lot of long hours, doesn't meet how many people at work, but
you want to meet someone socially, how do you do it?
You know, the old advice is to join a club and that's still good advice. But now there's
a new way which is I can actually go online, and multiple apps will give me a long list
of people who are interested in dating me who are relatively my age and who are within
a short drive of my house. That�s astonishing. It�s as astonishing as the fact that I can
order on Amazon something in the morning and it will be delivered to my house at night
if I live in a major city. So, this is incredible -- Earth-shattering. The convenience of it,
that's the good news. The bad news is that some things haven't changed and the establishing
of romantic chemistry, well that's not anything. That hasn't changed at all.
And we haven't discovered any magic bullets for that. And now, you know, there was a period
where the dating apps were promising a magic bullet that didn't really exist. You had dating
apps like chemistry.com and harmony.com that were advertising very heavily with the promise
that they had a magic algorithm that could select partners from the pool better than
you could by yourself. That they would say, we�re going to ask you some questions, do
a magic mathematical equation and spit out people that you are guaranteed or at least
have a high likelihood of matching with. That turned out to be snake oil that has now been
very well established to be bunk. But it was a persuasive idea. It was an appealing
idea. Lots of people paid a lot of money for it. And the reason they paid a lot of money
for it is that there's something compelling about the idea that if I give you a list of
what I want in a partner, I want someone who votes like me, who likes Chinese food, who
enjoys watching HBO limited series and you know, likes modern jazz.
And if I find someone like that, great. I'm probably going to like that person. That assumption
turns out to be false. Yeah, you said that it doesn't necessarily
mean you'll hit it off just because you have the same interests.
At all. Yeah, it doesn't and the reason it doesn't is that we have thousands of interests
and anyone you meet if it's not that if I share the right interests with you, I'm going
to like you. It's the opposite. If I like you, we�ll gravitate towards the interests
that we have in common. And we will gravitate away toward the interests that we don't have
in common. Within a broad circle, you know, I want someone
who's nowadays someone who generally shares my politics. Nowadays, it's being of the opposite
or being of the wrong political party is more stigmatized in dating than being of a different
race or religion. That's a new development. How long is that been happening do you think?
You know, in my lifetime - in the last 20 years that kind of polarization, people have
said I wouldn't mind if my child came home with a partner of a different race, but I
would never want my child to come home with a partner of a different party.
Wow, so it's not super recent but that's the it is super reason it's decades but not necessarily
in the past like two or three years. It speaks to the divisions in the country.
But, there's lots of people who share your political persuasion in the world. A lot of
people who share your religion and within that it turns out that a list of things you
like, a list of your hobbies, doesn't predict who you're going to like romantically because
it turns out that romantic attraction is not about these sorts of stable characteristics
or interests. Romantic attraction has a lot more to do with behavior, interaction in the
moment. Romantic attraction arises from how the exchange of behavior makes me feel. And
if it makes me feel, you know, understood in the moment and your capacity to behave
in a way that makes me feel understood and excited and interested have to do with what
you do, not you know what foods you like to order in from.
Once that feeling arises of romantic chemistry, then people look for it, well what are we
having common? Well, we have this in common. Great. Let's go do that thing and people are
complicated. We'll find something we have in common.
So, that's why no matter how much you work on your profile, no matter how many hours
you study the other person's profile, you're not going to know what's going to happen when
you meet until you meet. So, dating apps can do something great and
there's something they can't do. They can find people who are available�
Which is helpful obviously, but� It�s very helpful, it�s amazing. But they
can't tell you who you're going to like. Only interaction can tell you who you're going
to like. So, the apps are great. Use them. Find people and then get in front of them.
So, is that your advice to dating in 2018 and moving forward, just get away from your
phone? Yes, or even skyping, the face to face or
the facetime, as it were, but I wouldn't spend that much time working on profiles because
profiles are not where it's happening. Well, is there anything else you'd like to
add? Any other research you wanted to talk about or other topics?
Back to the policy issue -- the things that, that I'm interested in pursuing are one of
the other hidden ways, invisible ways that public policy affects intimacy because it's
not something that gets discussed a lot. When we talk about -- public policies like
health care, like tax increases or decreases, like the minimum wage, all of those big public
policy discussions are discussed in terms of well, how will it affect income? How will
it affect employment? How will it affect you know, debt?
The implication of some of the work we're doing lately is that all of those policies
should affect intimacy, as well. Intimacy, the decisions people make, should I get married,
should I have a kid, am I satisfied with you, are very much affected by the policy environment
in which it takes place -- in which these decisions take place.
So, one thing that we're interested in pursuing is looking at the very private intimate implications
of these very public global policy changes. And so that's something that we're pursuing
now and we're specifically doing analyses on what happens to marriage and divorce in
states that raise the minimum wage? You'd think that for poor couples there might
be an effect and it seems like there is but that's really, you know, I shouldn't talk
about that too much because that still work we�re working on now.
It follows from the paper that we started talking about, which is if you want to help
couples, you can help them by trying to teach them stuff. You can help poor couples by trying
to teach them stuff. Or you can help them by making their lives easier. And it turns
out there's some evidence that if you make people's lives easier, intimacy improves,
even if you don't teach people anything. Huh, that's very interesting, so it's not
much you think of relationship is just a small thing here, but it can obviously expand out
more and to include a lot of other factors. You've heard the expression the personal is
political. The political turns out to be personal, as well.
I actually just off the top my head read an article recently about how the divorce rate
from millennials is going down. New information shared, but you know, basically was saying
people are choosing to marry later you know changing their habits in that way so that
but that's interesting as well do you mean thoughts on that?
Yeah, absolutely I read that same article and the analysis showed very clearly that
divorce rates are declining for millennials who went to college. It's not true of couples
who didn't go to college and so and here's the point is that nowadays people who have
access to education and have access to good careers are delaying marriage until their
education and careers are in place. So, people who get married once their education and careers
are in place have more stable marriages. Makes perfect sense. People who don't go to college
are marrying less but marrying earlier and when they marry they don't have careers in
place then their lives are going to be harder and they struggle, and their marriages struggle
too. Makes perfect sense. That's really fascinating. Interesting, interesting
to see what comes of that and you know, more studies are done or what news comes of that
as we move. Absolutely. I�m very interested, as well.
Well, thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Karney. It�s been a really fascinating talk.
Kaitlin, thank you for having me. I'll have this chat with you anytime.
Speaking of Psychology is part of the APA podcast network, which includes other great
podcasts like APA Journals Dialogue, about the latest and most exciting psychological
research and Progress Notes about the practice of psychology. You can find our podcasts on
iTunes, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also visit Speakingofpsychology.org
to find more episodes and a few resources on the topics we discuss. I'm your host, Kaitlin
Luna for the American Psychological Association.
-------------------------------------------
Мультфильмы для детей все серии! Про игрушки: Вспыш и чудо машинки. Герои в масках. Щенячий патруль - Duration: 19:40.
For more infomation >> Мультфильмы для детей все серии! Про игрушки: Вспыш и чудо машинки. Герои в масках. Щенячий патруль - Duration: 19:40. -------------------------------------------
2019 Kawasaki ZX-6R 636 New Color Expected - Kawasaki Sportbiker 636cc 4 cylinder 2019 | Ninja 636 - Duration: 2:06.
For more infomation >> 2019 Kawasaki ZX-6R 636 New Color Expected - Kawasaki Sportbiker 636cc 4 cylinder 2019 | Ninja 636 - Duration: 2:06. -------------------------------------------
BonsaiHP/Thăm vườn bonsai tầm cỡ quốc tế nếu bỏ qua thì lãng phí quá - Duration: 18:58.
For more infomation >> BonsaiHP/Thăm vườn bonsai tầm cỡ quốc tế nếu bỏ qua thì lãng phí quá - Duration: 18:58. -------------------------------------------
New Yamaha R25 / R3 Facelift 2019 Designed With Smaller LEDs | Yamaha Sportbike 250cc 300cc 2019 - Duration: 2:06.
For more infomation >> New Yamaha R25 / R3 Facelift 2019 Designed With Smaller LEDs | Yamaha Sportbike 250cc 300cc 2019 - Duration: 2:06. -------------------------------------------
Korean households' M2 money supply falls for the first time in over five years - Duration: 0:44.
the amount of cash and deposits held by households felt in August for the first
time in more than five years the Bank of Korea says households m2 money supply
that is liquid money including cash and depth deposits with a maturity of less
than two years dropped by 444 million u.s. dollars on month in August marking
the first decline since February 2013 the BOK attributed the dip to a rise in
households buying new houses in recent months but thanks to more liquidity
among corporations and financial institutions Korea's total m2 supply
increase in August by 6/10 of a percent on-month and 6.7 percent on-year
totaling about 2.3 trillion dollars
-------------------------------------------
Amazing Paper Flowers Stick | Easy DIY Flowers Crafts | Handcraft Paper Flowers - Duration: 5:38.
Amazing Paper Craft | Easy DIY Flowers Paper Crafts Ideas | Handcraft Paper Flowers
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét