TED Radio Hour - How does your brain perceive the world?

Episode Date: March 20, 2026

Do you see images in your mind? Do you have an inner monologue? Do you have memories you swear are real? Our minds have tremendous variation. This hour, insights on how our brains construct reality. Guests include the editorial director of TED-Ed animations Alex Rosenthal, psychologist John Wixted and love coach Francesca Hogi.This episode of TED Radio Hour was produced by Katie Monteleone, James Delahoussaye and Matthew Cloutier. It was edited by Sanaz Meshkinpour and Manoush Zomorodi.Our production staff at NPR also includes Harsha Nahata, Rachel Faulkner White, Fiona Geiran and Phoebe Lett. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Our audio engineers were Damian Herring and Zo van Ginhhoven.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

This is the TED Radio Hour. Each week, groundbreaking TED Talks. Our job now is to dream big. Delivered at TED conferences. To bring about the future we want to see. Around the world. To understand who we are. From those talks, we bring you speakers and ideas that will surprise you.

You just don't know what you're going to find. Challenge you. We truly have to ask ourselves, like, why is it noteworthy? And even change you. I literally feel like I'm a different person. Yes. Do you feel that way? Ideas worth spreading.

From TED and NPR. I'm Anoush Zamorodi. Today on the show, an exploration of the mind, and how we each perceive the world a little differently. Our minds are black boxes to each other. I think if we actually switched consciousnesses, if we had like a freaky Friday situation, initially we'd be totally lost in the wilderness.

This is Alex Rosenthal. He is an editorial director at TED, and he had me do what might seem like a simple visualization exercise. With your eyes open or closed, visualize the following. A rocket ship crash lands on an alien planet, and a creature comes up to the hatch and knocks, and someone opens it. And then I like to ask questions.

So in what you just visualized, what color was the planet? It was white. What was the alien like that you imagined? It was like a squiggly line with googly eyes. And do you see like one shot of all this happening, like a wide shot? Or do you like zoom in? No, I zoom in and then I cut to different shots. Like looking out the capsule to see the alien through the glass.

And then I cut back to a wide shot in my brain. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So you're like doing a film. in your mind. Yes. I like this example because everyone I talk to sort of

talks about it differently, both their answers to these questions, but also how they visualize these things. Okay, but so Alex, when you imagine the rocket ship, what do you see? I see nothing. I got nothing. You see nothing. Yeah, no, it's like a description. Like, the planet is a

concept, not like a thing that I'm like visualizing. Alex doesn't see pictures in his mind like most people do. And it turns out there's a word for this, Aphantasia. Aphantasia is the absence of a mind's eye, or at least not having access to your mind's eye. So if you're asked to visualize something, you are not able to. You may be able to think about it, but you're not able to visualize it. And for some people, it's just total blank slate.

Some people get like a very brief flash of things sometimes. I can sometimes get like a tiny flash like for like a fraction of a microsecond. And then it's gone. I'm thinking of the Beatles song like, Picture yourself on a boat on a river. Do you picture yourself on a boat on a river? Oh no, no. I never thought of it as like a command.

It was always a command to me. I see myself. I am on a boat. I am on a river. Oh, yeah. Wow. The short answer is, like, visualizing, I think, is extremely complicated, but it's one of these things that, for each of us, we do it in our own way,

and so it doesn't necessarily seem like it has this huge variety until you start talking to other people and just trying to square, okay, like, you can do what when you're thinking about this? And when I first encountered Afantasia, the, like, person-to-person differences were immediately fascinating because it was just this whole dimension of existing that was totally new to me. Humans come in different shapes and sizes. We're all different.

We hear it all the time. But what if we're also experiencing the world and interactions with each other completely differently? Today on the show altered perceptions, rethinking ideas about the mind's eye, memory, and social norms that may make you see your own behavior very differently. For Alex Rosenthal, learning about Afantasia opened up a whole new way for him to relate to his friends and colleagues. It puts us into confrontation with the fact that two minds can perceive the same reality entirely differently.

Here he is on the TED stage. I have a condition called Afantasia, which is where I don't have access to my mind's eye. It turns out that the mind's eye is a spectrum. On one end are about two to four percent of us with Afantasia. and at the other extreme is hyper-fantasia. That's where you can visualize an exquisite detail, sometimes even able to superimpose what you're imagining on reality. That's about 3 to 6% of people.

Everyone else is somewhere in between, but there's a huge range of experience here. I mean, the root of it is fantasia, which means fantasy, so meaning that you don't have fantasies? So I definitely, have fantasies or like I definitely spend time imagining things. It's just not super visual. And like if if your if your way of imagining or fantasizing is visual, then I think it's a little hard to explain

what that is. But it's it's very similar to when I read a novel. I love to read. I, but like when I experience it, it's not, I'm not seeing, like when you read a book, are you seeing scenes play out or casting characters. Oh, yeah, for sure. Yeah, it's not, it's not like a movie for me. It's sort of like this, like, conceptual world that I can immerse myself in where things happen and I'm, I'm still really invested in it, but I'm just like not, I'm not seeing it. When you talk to other people who described having a similar not sort of mind's eye, did you feel sort of, I don't know, camaraderie, like relief that you weren't alone? Yeah, definitely. I mean, there are a lot of people out there. But again, I think even that experience varies a lot. And so, for example, like, do you have an interior monologue?

Yes, I do. What do you think, I? Yeah, 100%. And me too. And like, you do. Well, I also, and for me, it's like, I'm imagining what it would be like without interior monologue is so incredibly difficult for me, maybe because partially because of Fantasia, because I'm like, okay, what would be left? But I have a very active interior monologue, and there are people with no interior monologue. And so, a very long-winded way of answering your question, even when I find other people with Afantasia, I often find that still our way of processing information and thinking can be quite different. So, Aphantia changes the way that those of us who have it perceive information and consume and process information. I have a five-year-old daughter. I can't in this moment imagine her face.

That has a big effect on my memory, and it's also not just my mind's eye, it's also my mind's ear. I think I have a little bit of a mind's ear, but I don't have a mind's nose or a mind's mouth. I can't, for example, imagine the taste of peanut butter. And what's it like to think in the absence of a mind's eye? That's a really tough question.

That's not that far off from asking, what's it like to be a dolphin or a spider? and in the absence of being able to inhabit each other's consciousnesses, we can communicate about them. I mean, I guess it never even occurred to me to think that someone couldn't picture people's faces. Yes, I can recognize people's faces, but I can't conjure them into my mind. And I think that's one of the clues that, like, this visual processing is happening somewhere. Yes.

Like, people's faces are stored in my mind, but I can't. summon them to mind, including the people that I see the most, my daughter, my wife, my parents. Do you feel sad that you don't get some of this visualization? Yeah, sometimes. I mean, the place that it bums me out the most is with memory. For me, I think memory is very visual, but I don't have access to the visualization. And so it's really hard to conjure memories. Oddly enough, I can remember photographs of my childhood more than I can remember the events of my childhood. And so, like, I know there's a photograph of me, like, in a pool on an inflatable alligator

visiting my grandparents in Florida. I can't remember that as a memory of, like, what it was like in that pool or, you know, being a kid visiting my grandparents. And some people I talk to where they're like, yeah, like, I can remember something it's sort of like a movie that I'm going through, and it also just re-evokes the memories of being in that space and doing that thing. I realize there's a leap of faith here in this idea that our minds can be so alien to each other,

and I struggle with that too, but what's become increasingly apparent is that the mind's eye is just one of many constellations we're starting to draw in a night sky full of neurological diversity. That includes having or not having, an interior monologue. It includes the autism spectrum, ADHD, dyslexia, and a lot more, probably a lot of things we have yet to even give a name to because we're just figuring all of this out. It really, I think, makes us realize that all the people we spend time with

may be experiencing the world very differently than we are to the point that they are. Are, like, aliens in a way to us? Like, if I was able to, like, put your brain in my brain for a day, what do you think it would be like for me? Yeah. So I think our minds may be entirely alien into each other. I think it's this kind of fundamental unknowable thing. And so, and it's one where we each have exactly one data point.

And the tempting thing that I think everybody falls into is basically like, okay, this is the baseline and this is like this is what quote unquote normal is and I think this is just completely wrong like I think that collectively with billions of people we probably have billions of interior experiences that that are so different from each other because I think it's a big commentatorial space and like I think it's much more exciting for people to be way different than than way the same because it's just a much more rich experience of life and humanity. That's been a big experience for me.

A wonderful thing is getting older. Because I found that when I was younger, I was looking for people like, you know, you're looking for your people, right? People are on the same wavelengths. But the older I get, the more I enjoy spending time with people who say things that I'm like,

where did you even come up with that idea? You see the world so differently for me. Totally. So basically, I think if we stop trying to, shove all of humanity into a box that is defined by borders that are defined as as normal functioning of the mind or not functional normal functioning of the mind and said just say like okay there's a lot of different ways of being let's help you like be the best within that and also connect with other people who can who who are complementary to you then I then like that just has

huge implications for how we think about ourselves and how we work together and and how we work together and how we learn. And that's like the greatest joy in my life is all these collaborations that like, that surprising and unique things happen because we're not toiling individually. We're like coming to a shared space

and trying to build something new. And I think there's just like nothing more incredible than that. That was Alex Rosenthal. He's an editorial director at TED. You can watch his full talk at TED.com. On the show today, altered perceptions. I'm Anoush Zamorodi, and you're listening to The TED Radio Hour from NPR. We'll be right back.

It's the TED Radio Hour from NPR. I'm Manus Shumeroody. On the show today, altered perceptions, stories about how we each view the world all a little bit differently. We just heard how Alex Rosenthal, who has Afantasia, has trouble recalling memories because he can't visualize them. But many of us do have memories that are very vivid to us. Like John Wixton, who can picture exactly where he was on the morning of 9-11. Devastating happening this morning there. My memory is I was standing just outside my kitchen.

My wife was inside the kitchen. There was a friend of ours over at our house visiting. She was bringing her kids over for a play date. And my kids were upstairs. and the events started to unfold, and it was horrifying. And I remember saying that I hope everybody got out of that building. It was so shocking to see that. And the woman who was visiting our house said,

I can't help but think of all the firefighters who just lost their lives. And it was chilling to me because I realized she's having that thought because her husband here in San Diego was a firefighter, and she would be aware of the fact that there would have been firefighters, even if all the people got out. firefighters would still be in that building. And that's a crystal clear memory to this day. So the

two of you watching the TV, seeing this happen, and her turning to you and saying this, it's very clear to you. And my wife standing just a little ways away in the kitchen, the three of us. It's crystal clear. I can see it happening right now when I think back to that morning.

If you're old enough, you probably have your own memory of that day and you've likely shared it with other people, which is what John did, a couple years later. I'm telling that story and my wife is there and I thought she'd just chime in and agree with me instead. She said, that's not what happened. I'm like, what do you mean? That's not what happened. She said, that woman was not visiting our house that morning. Nothing like her describing happened. I didn't know who was right. I assumed she was wrong. She just forgot. But then we encountered that

a few weeks later. And she said, no, I wasn't at your house that morning. We did have a conversation like that, but that was weeks later. Huh. And that was amazing to me. John thinks he may have merged the two memories in his head, but even then, he's not so sure. Last night, I said to my wife, do you remember me falsely remembering that that woman was visiting? My wife said to me, not only that, you weren't there.

I'm like, wait a second. I know that woman wasn't. What do you mean I wasn't there? Of course I was here. I mean, it's just amazing. I actually don't know whose memory is right. We've all had faulty memories. John Wixdid has not only experienced them, he studies them.

He's a psychology professor at the University of California, San Diego, and the head of the Wixstead Memory Lab. I like to say that I study all aspects of memory. A lot of what I do is studying how memory works in the brain, the cognitive models. And for the last decade, he has focused his research on court cases with eyewitness testimony. There's been a long-running debate. between those who rely on this testimony and those who say it can't be trusted. But John's lab has shown that an eyewitness account can be trusted if it's collected and used the right way.

Take, for example, a case from 1985. A warning, this story includes accounts of crimes of sexual violence. Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton is the most famous case and has convinced a lot of people how unreliable memory is. In 1985, a man named Ronald Cotton was convicted of raping a woman named Jennifer Thompson. Jennifer Thompson, a rape victim, misidentified him as her attacker. John Wixstead explains from the TED stage. As she would later recall her testimony from his criminal trial,

I was absolutely positively, without a doubt, certain that he was a man who raped me when I got on that witness, Dan, and nobody was going to tell me any different. The jury understandably found her testimony. convincing. Cotton was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. But Ronald Cotton did not rape Jennifer Thompson. Instead, it was a known rapist prowling her neighborhood that night. Cotton spent almost 11 years in prison before DNA testing finally proved his innocence and revealed the identity of the true rapist, a man named Bobby Poole. Jennifer Thompson's testimony was sincere, but her memory was wrong.

DNA exoneration cases just like this one involving confident misidentifications have happened literally hundreds of times, leading many to seriously question the reliability of eyewitness memory. What did the jury hear? Why did it seem like such an open-and-shot case to convict a man who actually was the wrong guy?

Well, this crime happened in the 1980s and at the criminal trial, Well, Jennifer Thompson was, she was asked in front of a judge and jury, do you see the guy who raped you? And she immediately and confidently identified Ronald Cotton saying, I'll never forget that face. That's the man who raped me. You can just see how a jury would find him guilty. I mean, it's just tragedy after tragedy with this example, isn't it? It really is.

And the thing is, we look into it further at the beginning of the police investigation. The police tested her memory using a photo lineup. and Ronald Cotton was in that photo lineup. And it turns out what she did on that first test was nothing like what she would do later in that criminal trial. It was not an immediate identification with high confidence. It was the opposite end of the spectrum. It was four or five minutes of hesitation and indecision and finally landing on his face and saying, I think this is the manorikmi.

So very low, confident identification. In fact, the detective's response, was something like, you think, you know, police officer wasn't trying to do anything wrong, but that's an implicit demand to change your confidence level, which Jennifer Thompson did. Wait, so you're saying that the first time that she was asked to identify the perpetrator, she doubted whether it was cotton. That's right. She was appropriately uncertain. And another part of this story that's rarely told is that same rapist raped another woman,

that same exact night in that. same neighborhood. And that witness, three years later, also identified Ronald Cotton at his criminal trial. But what did that second rape victim do on that very first test a couple of days after the crime? She looked at that photo lineup containing Ronald Cotton and actually rejected all those faces. So it seems reasonable to suppose no jury would have convicted him had they kept their eyes on that first test, one low confidence, one rejection. Again, this case is often used to demonstrate how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be. But John says it also shows something else.

An eyewitness account can be reliable at first. It's just that as time goes on, memories change and morph. John calls this memory contamination. Memories are not like video recordings. They're more like evidence from a crime scene. Collected by people with a memory. gloves distorting and contaminating it with every touch. Think about forensic evidence like DNA or fingerprints.

Everybody knows that forensic evidence can be contaminated and end up implicating an innocent person, much like contaminated memory can. But we don't just dismiss forensic evidence for that reason. Instead, we collect it as early as possible in the police investigation before it's contaminated, Because reliable information comes from analyzing uncontaminated evidence, not contaminated evidence, and the exact same principle applies to memory evidence, collected early, before it's contaminated.

So why is that not happening? Why aren't law enforcement and police officers attaching much more weight to that first eyewitness test? Why aren't they treating it like forensic evidence? Because they just don't understand how memory works. They just don't understand how episodic memories, how easily they're contaminated and how readily they change. Can we zoom out and talk a little bit how memory works? You know, like memory 101. What happens in the brain?

Well, you have certain brain structures that are forming episodic memories on the fly and in real time. You're forming a memory of what we're talking about. Memories of what we're talking about. right now. If we back up it to the... John says when the brain transfers episodic memories to long-term storage, it loses some of the more specific details. Context change.

And so those details of what happened two years ago don't really matter. What your brain needs are the lessons learned from blending across episodic memories. And that's what happens as your memories consolidate in your brain. And he says every time we reopen a memory, it gets contaminated as well. the brain may alter or lose more details or even add details that were never there in the first place. If you remember them and start talking about them and thinking about them and other people provide input, your brain processes that input because most of the time it's probably reasonable to do that. You're absorbing information that seems relevant and putting it together with the information that you already have.

Memories are changing. And that's all a good thing except in a court of law, That's a bad thing. And it's not just the police, but it starts with the police. You know, the witness doesn't identify him or does so with low confidence. Hmm, that's not the best outcome. Let's do the memory test again. Let's use a live lineup this time.

They want to solve the case, right? Exactly. They're trying to find the guy. They don't realize they just put the suspect's face in the witness's memory while the witness is thinking about the crime. And they repeatedly test memory. hoping to get the bad guy. That's what they're trying to do, not realizing that each time you test memory, it's further contaminating it. And often witnesses will start to say, you know, I think it might be that guy. He's looking pretty familiar to me. So that's one reason the police don't know. But neither does a judge and jury,

and neither does the legal system as a whole, you know, if a witness is having a real-time recollection of that guy committing the crime, that's a prized sort of event at a criminal trial. And these witnesses are not lying. They are telling the truth from their perspective. And they come across as being extremely credible. Is it possible to do a follow-up interview or identification of a criminal? Or is it just then the only thing that's reliable is that very first test? Because after that, you've got to introduce.

doubt. That very first test, the way I put it, maximizes reliability. Remember, there's two threats to the accuracy of memory. One is forgetting. And everybody knows about that threat because we learn about it from our everyday lives. And the other is what you're asking about, contamination. So forgetting is true memories fading with the passage of time. And contamination is false memories growing in strength with the passage of time. And that first test minimizes both of those threats to the accuracy of memory. You know, you said earlier that we all kind of learned that memory is fallible and unreliable. And my own position is that's the wrong way to think about it.

The better way to think about it is that the modern day legal system is placing a demand on memory that memory was never designed to do. To test memory in a less suggestive way, the police will often show the witness. a whole set of six photos. It's called a six-pack photo lineup. One photo is of the suspect, and the others are of similar-looking individuals who the police know are innocent.

That way they can still show the suspect's photo to the witness, but without revealing who they think committed the crime. It's a much fairer way to test memory, and it becomes fairer still when other recommended practices are followed, such as letting the witness know that the perpetrator who they saw commit the crime, may or may not be among these photos. And the officer who's administering these photos to the witness

should not even know who the suspect is to avoid unintentionally influencing the witness's choice. When it's done this way, it becomes a pure test of the witness's memory. Like, let's say I look at a photo lineup, it's a gang member. I'm scared. And I recognize the guy who did the crime, but I tell the police, no, nobody in this lineup committed the crime. And then a couple days later, I called up the police and say,

you know what, I was scared. I did recognize the guy who committed the crime. Can you keep me safe? And I'll tell you more about that. And the police might say, yes, we can keep you safe. So what the police will naturally think is, let's do the memory test again. Because the witness might very well have been lying out of fear. And my message to the police is, no, don't do the test again.

Get the true results of the first test. You know, have the witness tell you, on that first test, which guy did she recognize? And if they miss that opportunity, like, two people, bad, kind of. You know, and that's what's almost inconceivable to the legal system. That's why even to this day, they're not doing it. But most of what I do now is working with Innocence Project attorneys revisiting old cases where people were put in prison based on confident eyewitness identifications at trial, and they've looked at, they've found a whole bunch of cases just like Jennifer Thompson, where the witnesses didn't do that on the first test. John believes there are many people in prison

today who were convicted, at least in part, with contaminated eyewitness testimony. To date, John's research has contributed to five exonerations in cases like this, and he's hoping to do more, like in the case of a Texas man named Charles Don Flores, who's been on death row since 1999. John believes Flores deserves another day in court. He says the eyewitness testimony has all the hallmarks of being contaminated. On the first test, the witness, the witness described white male with shoulder-length hair. She makes a composite sketch, white man with shoulder-length hair. And, you know, one of the recommendations from science dating all the way back to 1998

is that the photos in the lineup should match the witness's description of the perpetrator. So the photo lineup should have had one. The police suspected Charles Don Flores, a Hispanic man with short hair. So they put together a lineup of all Hispanic men with short hair too. And she rejected this lineup. But that's how she first saw Charles Don Flores. He's now in her brain, and you can't get it out of her brain. She was thinking about the crime when that face got in her brain that planted the seed of contamination.

And then at trial a year later, she confidently identified him as the man she saw go into the house, and then shortly thereafter her neighbor was murdered, and he was convicted and sentenced to death. He's been on death row for 26 years now. He's out of appeals, and they're getting ready to say. at an execution date for him. This very credible eyewitness on the first test rejected Charles Domflaw's

and described a completely different person. No judge has considered that. No jury ever heard it. And so this is a case. It came too late, this new science, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is just like, we're done considering this case. You've already had your appeals.

And so they didn't consider the new science, and that's why, you know, elastest effort to try to get the U.S. Supreme Court. It's going to the Supreme Court? It just got docketed. Yeah, the appeal has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. They usually don't weigh in at this late stage, but maybe they will this time because, see, Texas has a law basically saying if there's new science, that's sort of a pathway to an appeal. But, you know, a year ago, the appeal was filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Here's the new science. It really applies in this case. This is a death penalty case. We really should pay attention to it. And they denied it without comment. You know, we're not even going to be. consider the merits of your new science argument. So I still don't know. I mean, this could open up a whole can of worms, right? I mean, I can only imagine that there are prosecutors thinking so many cases might have to be revisited, right? And what you just said is a well-known headwind. When that's true, courts are really reluctant to go there, you know, because things could get a little bit out of hand. But if people's lives are, you know, this is what justice looks like, right? Science changes what we think.

and then we have to apply what we now know. Yeah, and even if the implications are large, you have to find a way to take it under consideration, because you're right, that is what justice looks like. We just made the understandable mistake everyone did of listening to witnesses' confident testimony at trial. Understandable mistake, but there's a lot of innocent people who are in prison

because we don't understand how memory works. We have a better understanding now. That was John Wixdid. professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego. You can see his full talk at ted.com. And by the way, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide later this year whether to hear Charles Don Flores' final appeal. Today on the show, Altered Perceptions. I'm Manus Shumeroody, and you're listening to The TED Radio Hour from NPR. We'll be right back. It's the TED Radio Hour from NPR. I'm Manushe Zamorodi. On the show today, altered perceptions. We have talked about the brain,

memories, and how we all experience the world very differently. Now we want to turn to something lighter and a bit different. Flirting. How do you think about being a flirt? Maybe you think you can't or don't know how, that it's distasteful, or that it's only for when you want someone to know you're interested in them. The way that a lot of people think about flirting is it's strictly about conveying romantic interest and seeking a romantic outcome. This is Francesca Ho-Yi. That is absolutely one purpose of flirting, but flirting is really customizable, and there's

lots of different levels of it, and it actually can start at a place that's much more basic and that is not about having a particular outcome other than I want to create a moment of connection. Francesca is a professional relationship and dating coach. And she says, sure, flirting can definitely help people find a partner or a fling. It can help keep relationships feeling fresh. But she also firmly believes anyone and everyone should incorporate flirting more into their everyday lives as a way to get off your phone and get connected with the people you run into every day. When I go to a coffee shop, which is something that I do pretty much every day,

I look at the person who's taking my order in the eye, and I just have, I'm like, hi, how are you? Like, how's your day going? You'd be like, oh, wow, it's really busy in here today. It's not even, like, any big calculated thing. I'm just acknowledging, like, you're a human being who's standing here, serving all of these people. There's this long line of people. People are stressed out. And I'm just going to take a moment and just acknowledge you. Like, hi. And I want to be clear. I'm fully prepared

to pay for my coffee, right? Okay. Good to know. So this is not like a manipulation strategy. I just find it more pleasant to go through the world where you are just looking at people, acknowledging that they're human, having a moment of connection. Francesca didn't always move through the world with ease, even when she did small things like order coffee. She had to learn. And ironically, it all started with her desire for romance. Here she is on the TED stage.

Okay, allow me to explain how and why I've come to be a flirting enthusiast. Since I was a little girl, I've been obsessed with romance. So logically, I grew up to be a corporate lawyer. I know, very romantic. As a young lawyer, eager to live out my romantic dreams, I ran into a problem I hadn't anticipated. I had no idea what I was doing when it came to romance. No one had ever taught me how to date,

so I decided to teach myself. I went on Match.com, prayed that no one I knew, saw my profile, and went on as many dates as I could. It went okay at first. I succeeded in getting first dates, but the dates were just okay, and they weren't turning into second dates. I figured that I couldn't be the least datable person in New York City,

but I had to admit that there was some room for improvement. So instead of boring small talk, I started asking my dates questions out of genuine curiosity. No longer looking for the right answers to my question, I decided to find out who they were, what excited them in life, what they cared about. I was more vulnerable, more playful, and I didn't hold back my personality.

And before long, more often than not, my dates began wanting to see me again. I was getting better at dating because I was becoming a flirt. And so I began to channel that energy, and it worked. This epiphany not only led to a better love life, but she decided to leave her job as a lawyer and become a professional matchmaker. And bring this curiosity to every part of her life.

I mean, I know this sounds dramatic, but I totally mean it, that learning how to flirt changed my life. To spread the gospel of flirting and do it responsibly, Francesca decided to hone in on a better, more full definition of flirting, and then break down exactly how to do it well. So I realized that I needed to break flirting down to really what it's foundationally about. So at its core, I define flirting as words and actions

that are intended to make another person feel seen, special, and acknowledged. Seen, special, and acknowledged. That's the core of it. Okay. Confidence with flirting comes from knowing yourself, your intentions, reading the room, discerning other people's reactions, and adapting accordingly. So once your vibe is right, here are three simple flirting styles you can start experimenting with. First is my personal favorite, and that is attentiveness or curiosity.

So this looks like inviting connection by asking questions that inspire interesting conversations like, if money was no object and you could do any job in the world for one year, what would you do? And then looking them in the eye, leaning in and listening to their answer. It looks like paying attention to the stories that they share and noticing that the waiter forgot their lemon wedge. It's perfect for any occasion from a first date to being an enviably thoughtful spouse. Next is compliments.

In movies, the meat cute. is the moment when two love interests meet for the first time. Giving a compliment is one of the best ways to have your own meet-cute moment. So if you dream of meeting your person in person, lean into giving sincere and observant compliments as you move through the world. Now, I want to pause here for a moment to make a distinction between compliments that succeed in making another person feel good and ones that are more, shall we say, ambiguous.

Increase the effectiveness of your compliments by making them specific and sincere. Like, you have a great sense of style. Or, your eyes are so lovely. Maybe it's the start of a longer conversation. Maybe you gave them a boost of confidence. Either way, it's a win. Last but not least is the flirting style of playfulness. Playfulness can look like anything from sending over

a drink with a wink, or making a corny but respectful joke like, I'm sorry, I was listening, but I'm just mesmerized by your radiance. Or, if all else fails, eyebrows. How do you make sure that you don't cross that very fine line into being creepy or in a appropriate or just kind of weird. I mean, I guess I'm thinking particularly for men that, you know, I think a lot of men right now feel very nervous about being too solicitous of other women. So how do they do that? So, okay, so yes. And I, and I feel for the men who are, you know, their intentions are very good, right? Like they aren't. creeps and they don't want to make anyone uncomfortable. And this is why also going back to that definition, rather than seeing flirting as, oh, this is a come on. And I want to flirt with her

because I want to get something out of this interaction, right? Like, I'm flirting with her because I want her to go out with me. I'm flirting with her because I want her to know that I'm attracted to her. And it's like, okay, just maybe dial that back and just think of it, right? Because that's, Or even just saying, you know, men say to me all the time, they're like, well, I don't, you know, I just feel like if I hit on a woman, she's going to, you know, feel uncomfortable. I'm like, well, yeah, if you're calling it hitting on her. All right. So, probably. Give me an example. Give me an example would be because a lot of men think it, they approach flirting in a very transactional way. So they wait until they see a woman who they're like, I'm actively attracted to this woman and I want to have an outcome with her, right? And so if you, if you, go with that energy up to someone and now you're like, oh, wow, you look really good in that dress, then that does feel objectifying. Ew.

Yes. Right? And it does feel like you're saying this because you're trying to elicit a very particular response from me. And that's not always going to land. As a man, if you're going to give a woman a compliment, don't give her a compliment about her body. Don't give her a compliment about, you know, someone said recently, I was like, oh, this is, this is

advice, like, don't give a compliment about something that is out of her control. Right? So if you say something like, wow, you've got a great sense of style, that's a much better compliment than like, wow, you look great in that dress. Right? Totally. If you try and you shoot your shot and you say something to someone and they're kind of just like, oh, you know, all right, thanks.

And they keep it moving. Then just respect. That was their reaction and that was their decision. And there is a level of resilience. And actually, this is another reason why I think flirting is such a great skill and something that I encourage people to just lean into and practice more. Don't wait until, first of all, it's the one person you've seen in six months that you're like, oh, my God, this person is so hot and so beautiful.

Now I'm going to flirt with them because now the stakes are so high in your mind, right? Whereas if you're just more open to like, okay, how can I move through the world in a way where I'm, you know, I'm opening myself up to connection. You know, I have an intention of making someone feel seen and special and acknowledged, right? So I want to just make someone's day. I want to have a nice moment of connection. And it doesn't always work, but when it does work, it feels so good. Well, it's funny. When you say that, I'm thinking not just of when, you know, people want to meet someone to date them or whatever, but generally, you know, there are certain people who, just have a magnetic, that are magnetic, they sort of have charisma or Riz the people, you know,

that they just exude something. And when you put it the way you've put it, maybe they're kind of flirting with the world a little bit. You know what I mean? They are. Yes. Yes, they are. And I'm telling you, I mean, and it's, and it's honestly, it just, I mean, I am somebody who flirts with the world now. Actually, one of my favorite examples of this is I was in a sandwich shop in New York and I was trying to decide between these two different sandwiches and there was a guy in line behind me and I turned to him and I said, oh, you know, you can go ahead of me because I can't, you know, I can't decide. And he said, oh, neither can I. And I said, oh, well, what are you trying to decide between? And he was trying to decide between the same two sandwiches that I was

trying to decide between. And I was like, oh, those are the ones I'm trying to decide between two. And he said, well, how about we just get them and split them? I'm like, great idea. Oh, my God. You're like in a commercial. We split. Please tell me you married him. I did.

No, but this is a beautiful thing, Manus. I never saw this man again, but we just had this nice moment where we split our sandwiches and we were both happy. And it was just a pleasant human interaction. And that was the end of it. And I think that's what I want people to just be okay with. the fact that sometimes those interactions are going to turn into more, and sometimes they're just going to be a beautiful moment in time. And either way, like, that's valuable. I want to ask you,

there was a producer on our show who said, you know, I tried this technique, but I think it backfired. So she had a dinner party, and a friend had brought this guy who she wanted to set her up with. And our producer was very friendly and talked to him. She wasn't really interested in him, but, you know, she was the host and, you know, he was a nice guy, whatever. But afterwards, her friends were like, oh, my God, he definitely thinks you're into him. You were flirting with him all night, and she was completely taken aback. She was just trying to be friendly and kind. So where is the line, she wonders, between flirting and just being friendly?

Yeah, so it is a blurry line. When I, you know, I'm always telling people, it's like there's no way to completely avoid having a miscommunication and, oh well, like, that's just, you know, too bad for him. Now, if you are, say, in a bar and you find yourself spending like an hour talking to a guy, it should occur to you. Like, maybe if I know that I'm not interested in this going any further, then maybe I shouldn't spend an hour talking to him because that could be confusing, right? So, you know, part of the art of flirting is, and just human connection in general, is starting to pay attention to how other people might, how other people are receiving you.

We're a couple years past the pandemic, but still life for a lot of people happens on Zoom. Do you feel like people need to be taught these skills more than maybe in the past because they just don't have the chance out in the wild to develop them? Yeah, I think, you know, we're all, we're much more isolated now than we used to be. If you take the subway in New York, like, you know, I often do, you'll see like most people are looking down on their phones. And that is, that is, you know, an understandable thing that's happened, but it's also a way in which we're just siloing ourselves more and more. So, but, but one of the reasons that I'd love talking about flirting and, you know, talking about moving through the world in this way is that then, you know, people say, oh, okay, I'm going to do that, right? I'm going to, I'm going to actually put my phone down. I actually am going to look up. I actually am going to pay attention to my surroundings. And, you know, my clients have great success with starting to meet people organically

when they bring that level of intention to it. So, yeah, we do need to be taught this, honestly, or reminded of it because it is a lost art and a lost skill. But we're suffering as a result. You know, I do think that the loneliness, you know, epidemic that we are experiencing, and the isolation that so many people feel and the screen addiction that we're all battling to some degree or another. You know, the only anecdote to that is to actually start connecting with other humans in person. That was beautiful. I love that so much. I do have to ask. Have you found love?

I have. Oh, yay. Okay. Thank goodness. I really wanted you to marry the sandwich guy. I know. Well, you know what? I didn't marry the sandwich guy, but it's okay. I found another great guy, and I met him organically as I was living my life because I was open. Did you flirt with him? I did flirt with him, actually.

I did flirt with him, yes. That was Francesca Hogi. She is a professional dating coach and matchmaker. Her book is called How to Find True Love, Unlock Your Romantic Flow, and Create Lasting Relationships. You can watch her full talk at ted.com. Oh, and also, did you know that we do a little bit of extra conversation with some of our guests on video? You can find it at npr.org or on the NPR Instagram at NPR or on my Instagram at Manushe Z. There's lots of fun stuff over there.

Come say hi. This episode was produced by Katie Montalione, Matthew Cloutier, and James Delahousie. It was edited by Sanaz-Meshkampore and me. Our production staff at NPR also includes Fiona Gehrin, Phoebe Lett, Rachel Faulkner-White, and Harsha Noghata. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Our audio engineers were Damian Herring and Zoe Vangenhoven. Our partners at TED are Chris Anderson, Helen Lauren Walters, Roxanne Highlash, and Danielle Bella Rezo.

I'm Manusse Zamoroti, and you've been listening to the TED Radio Hour from NPR.