The 'Lost' Art of Teenage Romance

 

---

A simulation of a conversation I will perhaps be having in less than a decade: via ChatGPT.

---

A Grandfather, A Granddaughter, and the Lost Art of Teenage Romance

"Grandfather, since Bristol Grammar School was all boys when you attended, how did you even meet girls back then? Did you have to be very bold, or were there events where boys and girls could mix?"

A sharp question from my granddaughter, thirteen years old, newly curious about the past—not history in the dry textbook sense, but history as lived by someone she knows.

"We were very keen to meet girls," I tell her, "but there were none!"

I explain how, at fourteen, I attended a summer school fair with a group of friends, all of us determined to chat up some girls. "I knew immediately we’d have no luck as a group—packs of boys weren’t exactly irresistible. So I wandered off by myself, spotted a girl I thought was cute, and struck up a conversation. Rosalind—see, I remember her name!—must have thought I met at least her minimal requirements because we spent the afternoon walking together. My friends saw us, and they were so envious!"

"That sounds really sweet, Grandfather! And also very brave—you just walked up to her and started talking? I’d be so nervous! What did you say to start the conversation, and how did you know she was interested in talking to you too?"

"Sadly, it's all lost in the mists of time," I admit. "I had no experience at all in these matters—no films, no books or magazines on the subject, no internet or mobile phones. I think I was just a bit self-confident and under the illusion I had charm! Rosalind must have thought I was at least passable. But it didn’t last."

"Since you and your friends were all figuring things out without movies, books, or the internet to guide you, did you ever give each other advice about dating, or was it more of an every-man-for-himself situation?"

"We never talked seriously about it. I think boys didn't then—maybe they do today? Instead, we had a jokey ‘star system’ to boast about how far we’d gotten with a girlfriend. ‘One star’ was holding hands, ‘two stars’ was a kiss, and so on. It was all very innocent, and I never believed a word of it. We were all totally naïve and inexperienced."

"That’s really funny, Grandfather! I can imagine a group of boys trying to one-up each other, even if no one really knew what they were doing. Since you were all so inexperienced, did you ever have any really awkward or embarrassing moments when trying to impress a girl?"

"Always! We didn’t know the language of romantic interactions at all. We didn’t know how to behave at discos, how to talk to a girl-stranger. In the end, I think what worked was just to go with your instincts—don’t overthink it!—and be very attentive to the messages the girl was sending you, if any! You could usually tell, after dancing with a girl you’d just asked, whether there was any sparkle there. Then you’d offer to buy her a drink—probably a soft drink at that age!"

"That makes a lot of sense, Grandfather! It sounds like instincts and paying attention were more important than having a perfect plan. Was there ever a time when you completely misread a girl’s signals and ended up in an embarrassing situation?"

"Yes, but I have an acute sensitivity to embarrassment and would back off with apologies pretty rapidly. I was usually rather cautious in my interactions, and that tended to save me from stupidity. Not everyone was so circumspect, so don’t take me as typical!"

"Did you ever see one of your friends make a complete fool of himself while trying to impress a girl?"

"There are always buffoons around, complete show-offs. The girls laugh behind their hands and giggle with their friends. My friends were not people like that, thankfully!"

"Looking back now," my granddaughter asks, sensing we’re nearing the end, "do you think teenage romance in the 1960s was sweeter and more exciting because it was all so new and unstructured, or do you think young people today have it easier with all the ways they can meet and talk to each other?"

"Good question! If we'd been at a mixed school, my social life would have been completely different—I can't even imagine it. I read a lot about the terrible state of boy-girl relationships these days, but maybe most of the time I imagine it still works. A little empathy, consideration, and common sense go a long, long way. I wish you luck with the boys you meet, and I hope you choose well."

She smiles. "Thank you, Grandfather. That’s really good advice. And I think it’s really cool hearing about how things were for you—it makes me realize that even though times change, people don’t really change that much."

Maybe next time, she’ll ask about my first date. But for now, I’m happy she just asked at all.

Review of: "Why Him? Why Her?"

 

Amazon link

From the Amazon description:

"Are you looking for The One? Well, according to Dr Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist and relationship expert, you don’t have to look any further for the way to find that special someone than your very own brain chemistry.

"Based on Dr Fisher’s groundbreaking personality type study, in which she analyzed the personalities of more than 28,000 people, Why Him? Why Her? provides a formula for long-term love that is based on cutting-edge discoveries in evolutionary neurology. Once you’ve identified yourself as one of the personality types (explorer, builder, negotiator, or director) Dr Fisher provides a detailed plan of how to find, fix, or keep up your ideal love match."

This book dates back to 2009 but I had never heard of it. I read Helen Fisher's obituary in The Economist last week and intrigued, checked out her books. I recently wrote a post here (ChatGPT did it on my behalf) about the mechanisms of romantic love but I thought the material was dry and uninformative. I wondered whether Dr Fisher could do better.

Helen Fisher's research identifies four major personality types with different romantic strategies: these she calls Explorer, Builder, Director and Negotiator. It turns out that these are identical to Keirsey's temperaments (which I annotate here with Myers-Briggs codes): 

Explorer = Artisan (SP), Builder = Guardian (SJ),

Director = Rational (NT), Negotiator = Idealist (NF).

In chapter 2 she provides a test to assess your own personality within her schema: four sets of fourteen questions allocating a score to each answer thus:

[strongly disagree-(0) disagree-(1) agree-(2) strongly agree-(3)]

Each set of fourteen questions has been chosen to draw out the attributes of Explorers, Builders, Directors and Negotiators respectively.

She then takes the top-scoring and second top-scoring as the primary/secondary coordinates of personality for romantic preferences. 

Helen Fisher herself scores as EXPLORER/Negotiator. Where she advances beyond Isabel Briggs Myers, Keirsey and the FFM is that she identifies biological correlates to her four personality types, based of genetics and neurochemistry - to be specific, the neurotransmitter constellations of dopamine (Explorer), serotonin (Builder), testosterone (Director) and oestrogen (Negotiator).

Naturally we responded to the questionnaire. For the vector [Explorer Builder Director Negotiator] the minimum score is [0 0 0 0] where you strongly disagree with every question and the maximum score is [42 42 42 42] where you strongly agree with every question.

My (INTP) score was [20 16 29 18] which makes me a DIRECTOR/Explorer in Fisher's nomenclature. Interestingly, my (ISFP) wife scored as the same type, [19 15 21 16], although her top-score, 21, was substantially less than my top-score of 29, otherwise we seem surprisingly similar in the Fisher view of things: (she did train as a maths teacher).

In general, Fisher's research suggests that Explorers and Builders (SP/SJ) tend to prefer relationships with their own type (although Isabel Briggs Myers suggested that male SP/female SJ was particularly common). Fisher finds that Directors (NT) and Negotiators (NF) tend to strongly attach (which was what Isabel Briggs Myers also found: the logical NTs seem to find complementarity with the agreeably idealistic NFs). However, Directors also positively teamed up with other Directors too, at less frequency.

In theory this should have been a book I was not partial to. It looks at first sight almost embarrassingly pop-science. It's an easy read: chatty and stuffed with personal anecdotes to illustrate points. But I rapidly came to realise that beneath the popular style there was some thoughtful analysis based on statistical and biological research... to a point (and most of it not her own research). 

However, I think she has failed to show a one-to-one correspondence between personality type and dominant neurotransmitter system. Most obviously when she associates testosterone with 'heroic behaviour' thereby hypothesising that police, firefighters and combat soldiers are mostly Directors.

Rational/NTs? Seriously? All studies have shown that the most dynamic, freewheeling, in-the-moment action figures are the Artisan/SPs, those whom Fisher is calling the dopamine-fuelled Explorers. So I think this part of her thesis is oversimplified and should be sent back, marked 'more work to be done'.

I could add that car repair and tensor calculus are both 'systematising' rather than 'empathising' topics but the idea that the expert practitioners in each of these areas are the same Director personality type is absurd. Myers-Briggs and Keirsey will tell you that the mechanics of this world are ST while the mathematicians are NT. One topic is concrete (S) while the other is abstract and conceptual (N). Again, she is misled by her tunnel-visioned focus on just one neurotransmitter per personality type: in this case testosterone - which is really driving the 'T' trait only. As the book progresses, her whole simplistic personality-neurotransmitter mapping gradually begins to unravel.

Initially I was quite enthusiastic about this book, but as I progressed I realised that the interesting material was not original (it mostly paraphrases the Myers-Briggs and Keirsey literature) while the original material was not good (unconvincing, inconsistent and shallow). So though 'Why Him? Why Her?' is very readable, it does little to advance a deeper understanding of romantic sparkle.

---

Addendum (summarised by ChatGPT)

What was Helen Fisher's Own MBTI type?

Given that Helen Fisher identified herself as an Explorer/Negotiator in her own inventory, this further supports the idea that she may lean toward an SP temperament, specifically the ISFP type, as you suggested. 

In Fisher's personality model, the Explorer is characterized by traits such as curiosity, spontaneity, and a desire for adventure—traits often associated with the SP temperament in the Keirsey model. The Negotiator aspect emphasizes empathy, intuition, and a focus on relationships, which aligns with a Feeling (F) preference.

Your reasoning is solid:

1. Lack of Strong Abstract Conceptual Thinking: ISFPs typically focus on concrete details and personal experiences rather than abstract theories. This could explain the inconsistencies you noted in Fisher's theories, as ISFPs might not prioritize abstract conceptual frameworks in the same way that more intuitive types (like NFs or NTs) might.

2. Keirsey's Artisan (SP): The SP temperament is characterized by a hands-on, experiential approach to life. Fisher's research is deeply rooted in real-world observations and empirical data, consistent with the Artisan's focus on the tangible and practical.

3. Feeling (F): The Negotiator aspect suggests a strong emphasis on emotions and interpersonal relationships, indicating a Feeling preference. ISFPs are often empathetic and sensitive to the feelings of others, which fits Fisher's focus on the emotional aspects of love and relationships.

4. Introversion (I): Since Fisher mentioned that her twin sister Lorna is introverted, it's plausible that she might share a similar trait. Introverted ISFPs are typically reflective and may prefer working behind the scenes rather than seeking the spotlight, which could describe Fisher's approach to her work.

Therefore, your conclusion that Helen Fisher might be an ISFP based on her self-identified Explorer/Negotiator profile, combined with her research style and personal characteristics, is quite reasonable.

Romantic Chemistry: Unveiling the Sparks

From ChatGPT

Most of us have encountered that sudden, inexplicable thrill when meeting someone new—a spark of attraction that feels like more than mere friendship, something deeper and more profound. Often described as 'chemistry', this sensation can seem magical, an instant connection that defies logical explanation. Yet, behind this seemingly mystical experience, science is starting to reveal the forces that drive romantic chemistry, offering the outlines of an explanation as to what makes us feel that irresistible pull towards another person.

At the core of romantic chemistry lies a complex interplay of biology, psychology, and context. Biologically, the sensation of chemistry is driven by a cocktail of neurotransmitters and hormones that surge through our brains when we encounter a potential romantic partner. 

Dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and reward, floods our system during these encounters, creating feelings of excitement and euphoria. This dopamine rush is akin to the high we experience from winning a game or savouring a delicious meal—powerful motivators that compel us to seek further connection.

Equally significant is oxytocin, often referred to as the "love hormone." Released during physical touch, such as hugging or kissing, oxytocin fosters feelings of trust and bonding, deepening the emotional connection between partners and amplifying the sensation of chemistry. 

Serotonin, another key player, regulates mood and contributes to the obsessive thoughts and intense focus that characterise the early stages of romantic attraction.

Of course, this does not answer the question as to why one special person triggers all of this, while most others do not.

Researchers have also delved into the role of pheromones—chemical signals that may influence attraction on a subconscious level. Although the evidence in humans is still debated, some studies suggest that pheromones might subtly signal genetic compatibility, particularly in terms of immune system diversity. This ties into findings that people are often attracted to partners with different immune system genes (specifically, major histocompatibility complex genes), potentially offering evolutionary advantages for offspring.

Beyond biology, psychology also shapes the experience of romantic chemistry. Research consistently shows that individuals who are agreeable and emotionally stable are more likely to cultivate strong romantic connections. These traits enable smoother communication and more effective conflict resolution, crucial for the long-term health of a relationship.

Emotional synchrony, or the sense of being 'on the same wavelength', is another critical component of chemistry. When two people can effortlessly share thoughts, jokes, and emotions, the resulting connection often feels like chemistry. This synchrony can arise from similar personality traits or complementary communication styles, where the strengths of one partner balance the other.

Interestingly, the context in which people meet plays a significant role in whether chemistry is felt. Timing, environment, and the emotional states of the individuals involved can all influence whether sparks fly. Meeting someone in a relaxed, positive setting enhances the likelihood of feeling chemistry, while shared novel experiences—such as a thrilling adventure or a spontaneous night out—can intensify the bond by associating the excitement of the activity with that person.

I suppose this has turned into an essay on 'meet-cute'...

To decode the mysteries of romantic chemistry, scientists have employed a variety of research methods, from brain imaging studies to computational modelling. Functional MRI (fMRI) scans have revealed that specific brain regions associated with reward and pleasure become highly active when people experience romantic attraction, providing a neurological basis for the sensation of ‘chemistry’.

On the psychological front, data from speed dating events and online dating platforms has been invaluable. By analysing interactions between millions of users, researchers have identified patterns that predict romantic success. Machine learning models, similar to those used by recommendation algorithms like those of Netflix, have been applied to match individuals based on their attributes, highlighting the factors that contribute most to romantic chemistry. These models show that while physical attractiveness is crucial in the early stages, shared values, personality compatibility, and mutual respect are the pillars of long-term relationship success.

Despite these advances (many of which are hidden, classed as corporate intellectual property), the science of romantic chemistry remains incomplete. ‘Chemistry’, while important, is just one piece of the puzzle. It may spark initial attraction, but the long-term viability of a relationship hinges on deeper factors like emotional intelligence, shared life goals, and effective communication. The realisation that chemistry can be influenced by context also suggests that it’s not just about finding the "right" person, but about meeting the right person at the right time and in the right circumstances.

However, while science can illuminate the exhilarating rush of attraction: the warmth of bonding, the deep, often indescribable sensation of "falling in love", these remain features of human consciousness. ‘What it’s like to be in love’, though rooted in subconscious biological processes, exist in the terra incognita of subjective experience where science’s explanatory power currently fades.

---

Written by ChatGPT following a dialogue thread with me. Apologies for the soporific blandness of ChatGPT's prose style.

How Augustine Met His Wife

 

The 1980s family which might have inspired this tale

It was nearing the conclusion of the summer term when Mr. Augustine, a young man of gentle disposition and a mind for numbers, first encountered the object of his affections. Daily, he would ferry Miss Susan, a governess entrusted with the education of history, back from their place of employment. Despite their close quarters within the confines of his gig, a state of affairs lasting a full ninety minutes, their connection remained curiously platonic. Miss Susan, though pleasant enough, failed to stir even the faintest ripple in the well of his emotions. Indeed, it was a peculiar sensation, this lack of sparkle in the presence of the fairer sex.

One fateful day, however, Miss Susan presented Mr. Augustine with a surprise. Upon entering her humble abode, his gaze fell upon a vision unlike any he had encountered before. Reclining upon the sofa, as graceful as a Grecian statue come to life, was a young woman whose beauty rivaled the goddess Venus herself.

Mr. Augustine, weary of the relentless demands of his current profession, had long contemplated a change of course. The drudgery of instructing the lower echelons in mathematics, a duty bestowed upon him solely by virtue of his junior status, had thoroughly dampened his spirits. The very institution, once envisioned as a place of learning, now resembled a prison, its teachers akin to warders burdened by the constant barrage of complaints. By the year's end, the staffroom had become a haze of cigarette smoke, a refuge for weary souls coughing out their frustrations.

No longer could Mr. Augustine endure such a fate. A well-deserved vacation awaited him, followed by a path towards retraining as a software engineer, a profession promising a far more substantial remuneration. Only now, with this newfound resolve, did his life seem poised to truly begin.

The slumbering beauty was roused by their arrival. Miss Susan, ever the gracious hostess, had proposed a celebratory curry to mark Mr. Augustine's impending departure. Truth be told, his options for that evening were rather limited.

Miss Susan’s friend, while undeniably attractive, possessed a personality that leaned towards the serious, even combative. A simple remark from Mr. Augustine, expressing his relief at leaving the teaching profession, would be met with a sharp retort.

"Are you any good at mathematics, Mr. Augustine?" she might inquire, a note of challenge in her voice.

"Indeed, I daresay I possess a certain aptitude," he would reply, a hint of pride colouring his tone. "Perhaps the most adept within the department," he might add - with the silent acknowledgement that such a distinction held little weight in their current circumstances.

"Then you desert these young minds in favour of personal comfort?" she would counter, her brows furrowed in disapproval.

"My own superior," he would respond, launching into a detailed account, "was recently forced to retire due to a nervous ailment brought on by the relentless stress. I fear a similar fate awaits me if I do not make a change."

In truth, Mr. Augustine could already feel the telltale signs – a creeping detachment from reality, a dulling of his senses.

Miss Susan’s beautiful friend remained unconvinced. "So many abandon their posts," she would declare, her voice laced with indignation. "And there was that recent pay increase, one must not forget!"

While Mr. Augustine suspected such statistics might well support his side of the argument, their debate continued well into their meal, their verbal sparring as fiery as the curry itself.

It was perhaps inevitable that, amidst such spirited exchanges, an invitation should be extended. To his surprise, it was readily accepted. As he would later discover, Miss Susan's friend's arguments often served as a curious prelude to affection, a means of clearing the air before something more might blossom.

Their connection, though not one struck by lightning, was nonetheless genuine. A comfortable companionship formed the bedrock of their relationship. Beneath the surface of their playful jabs and intellectual jousting, a subtle attraction simmered. In their absences, each felt adrift, incomplete, as if searching for a missing piece.

Alas, a single, colossal argument proved their undoing, leading to a bitter parting of ways. Mr. Augustine, with a heavy heart, recorded the unfortunate event in his personal diary: "So much for that!"

Three long months passed before Miss Susan’s friend recognized the gravity of her error. A single day was all it took to rectify the situation. Given the confines of their small, bohemian community, arranging a chance encounter was a simple feat. And Mr. Augustine, never one to resist the charms of a spirited young lady, readily responded to her renewed interest.

Their tale, alas, cannot be neatly concluded with a flourish of "happily ever after." He, a creature of the intellect, found solace in the realm of ideas, thriving in his newfound profession. She, on the other hand, possessed a spirit as wild as the untamed countryside, yearning for constant motion and the thrill of encountering the unknown.

This disparity, naturally, led to clashes. Tempers flared, grievances were nursed, and reconciliations were laborious affairs. Yet, a curious truth remained: when separated for even a short while, their lives seemed drained of vibrancy, a dull ache settling where connection had once thrummed. The mere presence of one another rekindled a spark, igniting reunions with a sweetness that only absence could intensify.

With the passage of time, they learned to navigate their differences with greater grace. Theirs was a dance, a constant ebb and flow between intellectual pursuits and adventurous expeditions. Perhaps not a conventional happily ever after, but a harmony born of acceptance and a deep-seated affection that defied easy categorization.

One sunny afternoon, as their children embarked on the tempestuous journey of adolescence, Augustine turned to them with a twinkle in his eye. "As for the finer details of our courtship," he declared, "that, my dears, is a tale best left to your mother. Good luck prying it from her!"

---

© Adam Carlton: with thanks to Gemini Pro for moving the story 210 years backwards in time and hundreds of miles northwest to Chawton, GU34 1SD.