You’ve probably heard the legend. Two strangers walk into a lab, ask each other a specific set of questions, and—boom—they’re headed for a wedding chapel. It sounds like a rom-com plot written by a social scientist, but the New York Times 36 questions became a global obsession for a reason.
Honestly, most of us are just lonely. Or bored. Or maybe just tired of the "So, what do you do for work?" loop that plagues every first date from Brooklyn to Berlin. We want a shortcut to intimacy.
But here’s the thing: those questions weren't actually designed to make people fall in love. Not exactly.
Back in 1997, psychologist Arthur Aron published a study titled "The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness." He wasn't trying to build a Tinder prototype. He was trying to see if he could create "closeness" in a laboratory setting between strangers in just 45 minutes. The 2015 Modern Love essay by Mandy Len Catron is what truly set the internet on fire, turning a clinical experiment into a viral cultural phenomenon. It worked for her—she’s still with the guy from the essay—but the science behind it is a lot crunchier than a Hallmark movie.
The Secret Sauce of Vulnerability
The list is broken into three distinct sets. Each set is intended to be more probing than the last. You start easy. You talk about your "ideal" dinner guest or whether you’d like to be famous. It’s light. It’s safe.
Then, things get weirdly personal.
By the time you reach the third set, you’re discussing your relationship with your mother and the last time you cried in front of another person. This is what psychologists call "sustained, escalating, reciprocal, personal self-disclosure." That’s a mouthful. Basically, it means I show you my scars, then you show me yours, and we keep going until we’re both emotionally naked.
If you just read the questions off a phone screen while looking at your pasta, it won't work. The magic isn't in the words themselves; it's in the mutual risk. You’re handing someone a weapon they could use to hurt you, and they’re handing one back. When neither of you pulls the trigger, trust forms.
It's fast. It's intense. It’s also kinda terrifying if you aren't ready for it.
👉 See also: Images of Thanksgiving Holiday: What Most People Get Wrong
Why the "Staring" Part is Crucial
Most people forget the final step mentioned in Catron's essay: the four minutes of silent eye contact.
Four minutes is an eternity. Try it. Go ahead, set a timer and look at your roommate or your partner without talking. It feels aggressive for the first thirty seconds, then it gets hilarious, then it gets deeply, deeply uncomfortable.
If you survive the discomfort, something shifts. Your nervous systems start to sync up. This isn't some mystical energy field thing; it’s biology. We are hardwired to read faces. When we're forced to truly see another human being without the shield of conversation, the brain’s "social engagement system" kicks into overdrive.
Common Misconceptions About the 36 Questions
People think this is a magic spell. It’s not.
If you do the New York Times 36 questions with someone you fundamentally dislike, you probably won't leave the room in love. You might just leave feeling like you know way too much about someone you still don't want to grab a beer with.
It's not just for dating. Friends have used these to deepen decades-old bonds. Estranged siblings have used them to find a way back to each other. The structure creates a "brave space" where you're allowed to be earnest without it feeling "cringe."
The questions are dated (but that's okay). Some of them feel a bit 1990s. Asking about "the most unhappy memory" can feel heavy-handed. But the specific content matters less than the trajectory. You’re moving from the surface of the ocean down into the trenches.
Reciprocity is the only rule. If one person answers and the other just nods and says "cool," the experiment fails. Both people have to be "all in." It’s a game of emotional chicken.
✨ Don't miss: Why Everyone Is Still Obsessing Over Maybelline SuperStay Skin Tint
The Science of "Self-Expansion"
Arthur Aron’s broader work focuses on the "Self-Expansion Model." This theory suggests that we have a primary motivation to expand our potential efficacy—to become "more." We do this through relationships. When we become close to someone, we begin to include their resources, identities, and perspectives as our own.
The 36 questions jumpstart this process. They force two separate "selves" to overlap quickly. It’s like a psychological Venn diagram.
How to Actually Use This Without Being Weird
Don't just spring this on a first date between the appetizer and the main course. That’s a great way to ensure there isn't a second date.
Instead, frame it as a project.
"Hey, I read this thing about the New York Times 36 questions, want to try a few?"
Maybe don't do all 36 at once. That can take hours. Some people find that doing one "set" per date works better. It gives the information time to breathe. You need to process what you’ve learned about the other person.
If they tell you their greatest regret is something truly dark, you can't just pivot to "So, do you like guac?" You have to sit with it.
Does it work in 2026?
In an era of AI-generated dating profiles and "vibe checks," there is something radically rebellious about sitting across from a human and asking, "If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone?"
🔗 Read more: Coach Bag Animal Print: Why These Wild Patterns Actually Work as Neutrals
It’s an antidote to the "scroll culture." It demands presence.
The 36 questions remain relevant because human biology hasn't changed. Our brains still crave connection. We still want to be known. We’re just out of practice at asking the right things.
Actionable Steps for Deepening Your Connections
If you're ready to move beyond small talk, don't just bookmark the list and forget it. Start small.
- Test the waters first. Don't go straight to Set III. Ask a Set I question like, "Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?" It’s a low-stakes way to see if the other person is willing to be vulnerable.
- The "Vulnerability Hangover" is real. If you do the full 36 questions, you might feel exposed or even embarrassed the next day. This is normal. Acknowledge it. Send a text saying, "That was intense, but I'm glad we did it."
- Don't ignore the eye contact. If you’re doing this with a partner, the four-minute stare is often more powerful than the questions. It resets the intimacy levels in a way words can't.
- Create your own version. Once you understand the "slow ramp-up" structure, you can tailor the questions to your own life. The "New York Times 36 questions" is a template, not a legal document.
- Use it for self-reflection. Even if you don't have a partner, answering these for yourself in a journal can be eye-opening. You might find you don't actually know your own answers to the "big" questions.
The goal isn't to find "The One." The goal is to remember how to be a human with another human. Whether that leads to a wedding or just a really meaningful Tuesday night is up to the universe.
References and Further Reading:
- Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Catron, M. L. (2015). To Fall in Love with Anyone, Do This. The New York Times, Modern Love.
- The Gottman Institute's research on "Love Maps" and "Turning Towards" also complements the logic of the 36 questions.
The reality of the New York Times 36 questions is that they are a tool, not a guarantee. They provide the tracks, but you still have to drive the train. If you’re looking for a way to break through the noise of modern dating, there are few methods more scientifically grounded or culturally proven than this.
Stop asking what people do for a living. Ask them what a "perfect" day looks like instead. It makes a difference.