Friends With Benefits

Love the movie When Harry Met Sally, and the music from Friends.

I wrote something a lot longer on this, but I think I got a little too heated. So let me just ask you this: are you trying to say that scientists should only publish results that go against "what everyone knows"? Or that if someone has made a movie, or written a story on something, that we should just pack up the lab and go home? (I hope nobody did any work on sharks after Jaws!)

I doubt you meant that. But if you do respond to this comment, remember that the words you wrote were a snarky jibe against the authors of a study who are trying to advance scientific knowledge in an area where everybody thinks that they're an expert. I may have caricatured your words a bit, but is this really the message that you want to send on a scientific blog?

I disagree that this is a "crickets chirping" study. You may have some basic idea of how relationships work, but if you went to college, you know how loony a lot of "academic" work on sex and relationships is. And outside academia, the sexual revolution preached that of course FWB is sustainable and fulfilling, human nature presents no boundaries to free love, bla bla bla. It's hard to think of something the sexual revolutionists got right.

On the other hand, it's good to see that common sense is making a comeback in the culture. Thirty years ago, the study's authors would be harangued by protestors for exploiting the scientific method to further entrench patriarchal norms in society.

Winawer,

As a social psychologist and professor I feel you may be being oversensitive to the tone of this article. The author admits she doesn't have the details on the research and my interpretation is that she's highlighting an interesting article she came across in this week's Times as a scientist from another discipline. From a personal standpoint, I appreciate like that my field is getting some attention. It all works to bring attention to an overlooked and interesting area of research.

She also asks the kind of interesting questions which I encourage from my students daily. So to Sheril I would like to say in contrast, thank you for choosing this topic and I enjoyed your fresh perspective.

Well put, Gene P.

Besides the cultural commentary, Sheril did an excellent job of showing the kind of questions one should ask when given the findings of a study. So many nonscientists would just hear the three or four second blurb about something like this over the TV or radio and either shrug it off instantly as nonsense or take it for the gospel truth. By instead trying to follow understand the context and limitations of the study, one can better judge not just the content, but also the methodology.

I also like how Sheril asks questions that go beyond the report. That natural curiosity, whether within or outside one's field, is the mark of a good scientist.

The NYT says:

Paradoxically, and perhaps predictably, the study suggests, these physical friendships often occlude one of the emotional arteries of real friendship, openness. Friends who could once talk about anything now have an unstated taboo topic -- the relationship itself.

This is ridiculous. No friendship is entirely open, and in my experience it is not unusual to have feelings about friends that don't get discussed. FWBs just have a very clear category of feelings that don't get discussed.

I come at this from another viewpoint and saw that it is important to go to the source, the study itself, and find out what it really said. I surely don't want to make up my mind about anything based on what I read in the NY Times, or any other newspaper. They might give you a good idea as to whether something is important, but just as there were different interpretations of what Sheril meant, the Times is going to give you only an interpretation of what the study said, meant, implied or why it was important.

Journalist Norman Oder illustrates in painful detail (~160 pages) just how slanted the NY Times news can be.

Harry Abernathy's comment

I also like how Sheril asks questions that go beyond the report. That natural curiosity, whether within or outside one's field, is the mark of a good scientist.

juxtaposed with this from an adolescent over at Scienceblog.com

the comment i have about science is that some of the things are intresting and some aren't. i think we should jazz the science classes up some more or at all.

led me to think about the importance of curiosity and following questions in science.

Click my name to see my blog entry for today, "Science and All That Jazz."

I suppose I could have called it "When Harry Met Sheril."

Thanks to both of you.

I agree with Gene. Sheril, you're right to ask these kind of questions. Isn't that what you advocate here almost everyday?

You bring up good questions and you admit you have not seen the entire article. It seems that you base your take from what the Times presented. Which is not only fair, it's the same take that my friends and I have been discussing since it was published.

On your question, no men and women can't be just friends. The sex part always gets in the way, even when it's not mentioned. My two cents.

I'm commenting mostly to say nice job Sheril. Glad you picked this one up. I'd like to see more topics like this although I know it's not your specialty you have a good take on things and I always learn something or laugh. Your posts are a joy to read. Congratulations on your new blog too.

@ Gene P., Harry:

Admittedly, I don't have all the details and recognize it's common to spin science on it's head for a good story. That said, if I understand the abstract correctly, this NYTimes worthy research - heralded as the first study to explore the dynamics of such pairs - suggests that sex is not always so great for friendship.

[cue chirping crickets]

Okay, sounds like sex makes things complicated, but wait, wasn't there a movie about this in the 80s? And didn't the topic motivate the plot of some popular TV show for a decade? It's no doubt an interesting subject, and definitely draws media attention, but I don't know... it sort of leaves me puzzled over why we seem to be once again, stating the obvious. I mean, for PZ's sake, Helen of Troy noticed sex can lead to trouble a few thousand years ago.

So after the jump, it's my turn to reexamine, dissect, and have a little fun with this stimulating finding...

Gene or Harry, can you tell me what it is in this text I'm being overly sensitive to? "Cue chirping crickets"? The author of this post seems to be stating fairly clearly that she finds the research unworthy of attention because it contains information that "she already knew" (which would be more convincing if she had read the paper and could address any of its content). Gene, how are you happy for this kind of attention to your field? The fact is that this *is* a fascinating area of research; I've even dabbled in it myself (though from a much more biological standpoint). And I can't help feeling that there is a disservice being done by the tone that the author of the post has taken.

Sometimes, when scientists study something that everyone thinks they understand, they find that we didn't really understand it at all.

Sometimes they find that we really did understand it.

Sheril, do you really expect us to believe that you don't understand why scientists would perform a study on a topic most people think they know about, or why their findings should be shared even if they're only confirming what we thought we knew?

Caledonian, you said it brilliantly.

Winawer,
Relax. I don't think it's a critical attack on the research. She's giving her opinion of the NYT article. Frankly, it's the same opinion I have - probably put a little bit more articulately ;>

Nice one Sheril. I also agree with Sara - No they can't be just friend. Your XY friends probably have more in mind then you realize. But like storm seasons - there are anomolies.

Thanks. With all of the posts I make, they can't all be trash... ;-)

I say absolutely and have several wonderful genuine XY pals to prove it... and some of them are even straight. Really.

I like how the sexuality of the male is questioned, rather than the female. My 3 cents. (This is coming from a male who's sexuality could be questioned in a social sense due to several of his hobbies that may be considered feminine.)
And yes, I agree that men and women can just be friends, I have several such friends, too.

Your XY friends probably have more in mind then you realize.

Paul, what makes you think that XX friends of XY automatically can't have anything in mind? What's with the assumption that XX humans are capable of being 'just friends' but XY aren't?

Winawer, I wasn't commenting on her initial response to the validity of the study, which was rather flippant. What I liked about the post was that AFTER the chirping crickets comment, she then started posing questions about the sample population for the study and about the questions being asked. Sound methodology questions.

Whether she intended it to or not, her natural curiosity got the better of her as she saw the complexity of trying to research something as common sensical as FWBs.

She may not think such social psychology topics are "worth" researching, but I'll let her speak to that herself. Of course, maybe some social psychologists would find the sea cucumber to be too benign a research topic...

Meh, all my life I've had male friends who were just friends, and we hung out together, argued movies and politics and nothing more "heated" than that, and I'm straight and they were straight. We were always just friends, without any real tension about it, and although one or two of them might have dated me, that this wasn't going to happen was never really an issue -- at least as far as I could tell, anyway. Being married hasn't changed anything, either -- a number of my friends are male, and my husband doesn't bother being jealous of them. He has female friends who I don't bother being jealous about, either. (Interestingly, one of his female friends who I get along with wonderfully is the girlfriend that he had before he met me. It is all quite weirdly amicable.)

Caledonian -- hey, even a broken watch is right twice a day. :-p

Investigating the obvious is important, IMO. Otherwise, the earth would still be flat, the sun would still go around us and an object in motion would pretty obviously tend to slow down and stop. I mean, duh.

Okay, some things are more important to investigate than others. Obviously. We don't even need to investigate it to know that!

the "Friends" theme song hasn't aged well.

This ain't really new. The Big Chill did it for FWB's + 15 years. And it had a better soundtrack.

"Age old question"? How is this even up for debate? How do you think scientific research gets done? Usually, it's done collaboratively by people who enjoy working together and talking about ideas even in a not-strictly-work context. That is, friends. The lone-genius model represents a very small proportion of the work that's being done today.

Of course, scientists are an overwhelmingly male group. So, Paul, when you say that men and women can't just be friends, that Sheril's male friends have "more in mind" (clearly sex is "more" than a woman could possibly have to offer intellectually), you're really saying that women are more or less unable to function as scientific researchers.

As long as you're okay with that.

the15th: stop your passive-aggressive Commisar-ing. It is a public nuisance. "As long as you're okay with that" -- you sound like a 14 year-old girl telling her friend, "Oh no, I mean, I think that skirt looks a little slutty, but maybe the guys will be OK with that."

Collaborators and friends are not the same thing. Members of a football team cooperate to stomp the other team, but off the field only some of them are friends with each other. They treat each other with respect, but that's not being friends. Or when you're under attack, you may team up with others facing the same opponent -- doesn't make you friends.

Scientists are more like team members than good friends.

I think guys and girls can be friends after the guy is about 25 or so. It's just too easy to think prurient thoughts about your female friends, or fall madly in love with them, when you're a volatile young 'un. Of course, if both feel the same way, the worst you can do is give in -- as we've seen, it's unlikely to lead to good things.

When you maintain propriety in that case, it has the pleasant side-effect of heightening the romantic tension between the two of you, similar to restrictions on romance between co-workers -- forbidden love. I know it's not very modern to crave tension and suspense, but it's worth it.

I didn't mean "as long as you're okay with that" to sound the way you described. I really think that a lot of people who say, "Oh yeah, men and women can't really be friends" aren't aware of the implications that this attitude has for women's careers and intellectual lives. Of course, some of them are perfectly aware, and like it that way.

the sad truth: very easy to be friends with a dumpy guy or girl, very hard to be friends with a hot guy or girl. it's about that simple. sorry.

Ever notice how Our Hosts so frequently respond to praise but so rarely respond to criticism?

Actually Caledonian, it's more that your hosts have other jobs :) Usually, I'm pretty quick responding, but yesterday I was hosting Duke's Seafood Symposium all day and am first able to read comments now...

Gene et. al, you're right that my intention was not to cast off social psychology as a discipline, but rather this is something I've been pondering since I read the NYTimes story Tuesday. As an undergraduate I took a good deal of psychology and this topic has sparked much conversation among friends all week. So I decided to explore that as a Friday blog topic with all of you and apparently it sparked some insightful discussion.

As one of the many who (as I admitted) read the story without access to the full article, I mention some of the immediate questions that came to mind as far as understanding these relationships and peoples' behavior. On this subject, my opinion is that successful partnerships are FWBs at their core - that is, a mere romance or attraction is not adequate or fulfilling alone.

And Paul, Sarah, and others... I suppose it could be said that I love my very best friends - male and female - because they are special individuals in my life and these are real friendships without sexual undertones. B-rad, what a silly suggestion. Friendships are built upon shared experiences, time, and honesty, and respect. Gender may influence some of this depending on perspective, but usually has little to do with those factors.

The results indicated that people in FWB relationships most often avoided explicit relational negotiation.

Well, there's your problem - and not just in FWB relationships. Why does it seem that our culture has this rule that you're not supposed to discuss the important stuff?