Scientists studied thousands of conversations and found the repeatable pattern behind ‘chemistry’

Chemistry doesn’t have to be romantic. You can have friendly chemistry and professional chemistry. Of course, romantic chemistry is always great, too. It’s often believed to be one of those things that two people either have or don’t. There’s no way to define it or force it. Sometimes, you just hit it off. Other times, not so much. Social scientists, however, might disagree with that notion. A team at Dartmouth College has been hard at work analyzing thousands of conversations to define the indefinable: what makes for a good conversation? Analyzing thousands of conversations reveals conversational patterns Psychologists at Dartmouth College were not content with the idea that a good conversation is something that’s “difficult to define, but we know it when we see it.” So they set out to find a way to measure what makes a conversation enjoyable. They’re not the first to study good conversations. Previous research has shown that people with high similarity in the words they use and the topics they talk about score higher on romantic interest, group cohesion, and other metrics. But the authors of this study astutely pointed out that most existing research treats these attributes as an overall average—for example, for how much of the conversation were the participants aligned? Instead, they argue that similarity is a “dynamic signal.” Conversations have a give-and-take. There will be places where people agree, where they’re similar, and where they diverge. That was the data the team really wanted to dig into. After studying thousands of conversations between random strangers, friends, podcast hosts, and even speed-dating encounters, a few patterns emerged and were published in the journal Science Advances. Borrowing terms from signal processing, they described conversations that bounce all over the place quickly with no rhythm or pattern as “white noise.” “Red noise” came up when “partners are closely aligned; they remain aligned for long stretches, continuing to repeat, elaborate, or restate the same ideas. When they diverge, they remain apart, with limited reconnection.” Pink noise conversations, or the ‘Goldilocks zone’ If white noise was too chaotic and red noise was too boring, then it was a pattern called “pink noise” that was just right. Hence, the researchers called it the “Goldilocks zone.” Pink noise happens when conversation partners slip in and out of agreement and similarity at a comfortable pace. They can enjoy some common ground for a while before someone introduces something new, something that might cause them to diverge. But they find their way back to common ground and similarity in due time. It’s not overly rigid and boring, nor too random and chaotic. It’s just right. When pink noise levels were high, conversation partners rated enjoyment, connection, and engagement highly. To a lesser degree, they were even more memorable. What’s fascinating about the research is that whether a conversation featured white noise, red noise, or pink noise had nothing to do with how similar two people were overall. It was a study of the conversation’s pacing and rhythm: how often and how quickly they aligned and diverged throughout. The findings held whether people were strangers or old friends. The researchers even found that measuring pink noise in speed dating encounters could predict how likely participants were to want to see each other again. How pink noise can improve chemistry The full study on pink noise in semantic spaces is quite complex, full of rigorous data analysis and scientific concepts. But that doesn’t mean it does not apply to our real-life interactions. First, it’s a good reminder that conversational rhythm is everything. Even if you have a lot of common interests with someone, moving through them too fast or chaotically can make the conversation less enjoyable. Similarly, staying in the comfort zone of agreement for too long is a snooze. Try to find the Goldilocks zone. Productive tension in a conversation is good. People on the red noise scale had a lot in common, but didn’t explore those similarities in an engaging, memorable way. Segueing the conversation into new territory, perhaps with a “That reminds me of…” is a pro move, especially when you’re not sure the other person can relate. Exploring the dissimilarities and then finding your way back to common ground is a big part of the chemistry recipe. Chemistry can improve with practice. The study found that podcast co-hosts dramatically increased their pink noise levels over their first 50 episodes. The more you get to know someone, the better you understand how to find that perfect rhythm. The exciting new study proves that good conversation, chemistry, or whatever we want to call it, can not only be defined, but also measured, predicted, and even improved over time. But great conversations are still a two-player game, and you can’t do it all on your own. Meeting someone who really gets it, and gets you, is still an exciting find.