Secret #91: Bonded by Evolution with Paul Eastwick
Recommended Episodes
We've been told that attraction follows predictable rules: some people are more desirable than others, men and women want fundamentally different things, and finding love means discovering someone who's already compatible with us. But what does the research actually say? Professor Paul Eastwick joins Emma and Chris to unpack the outdated evolutionary psychology ideas that continue to shape modern dating culture.
Drawing from his book Bonded by Evolution, Paul challenges the concept of mate value, explores why what people say they want in a partner often differs from whom they're actually attracted to, and explains how compatibility develops through repeated interactions. They also discuss dating apps, the importance of shared social spaces, and the potential consequences of replacing human connection with AI companions.
Highlights:
Our first impressions of attractiveness are far less universal than we tend to believe.
A person's perceived mate value doesn't determine their long-term romantic possibilities.
Compatibility often develops through familiarity and shared experiences rather than instant chemistry.
What men and women say they want in partners doesn't necessarily predict whom they find attractive.
Dating apps can exaggerate the importance of superficial characteristics that matter less in person.
Social groups and repeated face-to-face interactions create opportunities for meaningful relationships.
AI companionship raises questions about what happens when we replace the challenges of human relationships with frictionless interactions.
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 The story we've been sold about love
01:36 Meet Paul Eastwick and the outdated science of attraction
03:40 The EvoScript: Three myths about romantic relationships
05:40 The playing-card experiment and mate value
09:00 How much do we actually agree about attractiveness?
11:00 Why attraction changes as we get to know someone
12:40 Compatibility is formed, not found
15:45 Do men really prioritize looks and women prioritize money?
18:50 Women's education, earnings, and relationship myths
21:00 How dating apps have changed our expectations
23:30 The surprising truth about height preferences
25:00 Why real-world socializing matters for finding love
28:00 How romantic relationships develop organically
29:00 Debunking alpha, beta, and short-term mating myths
31:30 Similarity, proximity, and relationship formation
34:00 AI companions and the future of human connection
MORE ABOUT PAUL EASTWICK:
Order Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection
Listen to the Love Factually Podcast
Follow @pauleastwick on Instagram
Paul Eastwick, PhD, is a Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis, where he heads the Social-Personality Psychology program and directs the Attraction and Relationships Research Laboratory. He has published more than 100 scientific articles exploring attraction and close relationships, and thousands of students have taken his course on these subjects. He is the author of Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection and co-hosts the podcast Love Factually with longtime colleague Eli Finkel, examining romantic comedies and dramas through the lens of relationship science.
Follow us on Facebook @lifesdirtylittlesecretspodcast and on Instagram @lifesdirtylittlesecrets
Reach out and let us know you are listening and what you would like to hear on the show - email:lifesdirtylittlesecretspodcast@gmail.com
-
Secret #91: Bonded by Evolution with Paul Eastwick
[00:00:00]
Welcome and Setup
Chris McCurry: Hello, and welcome to Life's Dirty Little Secrets. I'm Chris McCurry.
Emma Waddington: And I'm Emma Waddington. Today's dirty little secret, we've been sold a story about love, that each of us has a mate value, a kind of ranking of how desirable we are, that men and women are wired to want [00:01:00] completely different things, and that this is just biology, so we better just accept it.
And yet the science says otherwise, and believing it has actually caused us a lot of damage.
Meet Paul Eastwick
Emma Waddington: Our guest today is Paul Eastwick, Professor of Psychology at UC Davis, where he runs the Attraction and Relationships Research Laboratory. He has spent nearly 20 years studying how people actually pair up. In his new book, Bonded By Evolution, which is wonderful, takes on the version of that science the internet has been selling us.
He also co-hosts a
fantastic podcast called Lovefactually, it is brilliant, with Eli Finkel. Paul, welcome to Life's Dirty Little Secrets.
Paul Eastwick: Thank you so much for having me and for that lovely introduction.
Emma Waddington: Oh, it is so brilliant. I can't wait for this conversation. So let's start with the story. Tell us a bit about how we've been sold this story about how attraction works.
What is it telling us?
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. I think there are a lot of ideas out there that [00:02:00] were originally drawn from a real scientific place. These were some classic evolutionary psychological ideas that came out of the '90s, that first wave of research, and it was really focused, for example, on the differences between men and women and the kinds of things they were looking for in a partner.
A lot of it, too, was based on this idea that, hey, some people are catches and some people are not, and that really shapes your romantic destiny. It's just a reality that, hey, you're either, gonna be appealing to other people or, maybe you're a five or, God forbid, you're a one or a two.
And as the research has evolved over the last several decades we've learned a lot more about how attraction actually works, and a lot of these early messages were, like overblown, if not completely wrong. And one of the reasons I wanted to write this book is because it became clear to me that the internet is awash [00:03:00] with
these old '90s
ideas.
And people weren't aware of the new science that had happened in the meantime. So that- that's what I really was excited to, to talk about.
Emma Waddington: Awesome. I actually remember, 'cause I was doing my undergraduate in the '90s, and
the,
the sort of books like The Red Queen-
Chris McCurry: Yeah,
Emma Waddington: and The Selfish Gene- Yeah
they were all coming out and I was like, "Damn it, I'm not sure I agree with this," but I felt so young- That I couldn't necessarily argue it. I was just an undergraduate at the time. But I remember thinking, Are you sure I like this. This-" Yeah ... this, look really
bad.
Yeah. And-
Paul Eastwick: So It's
not, a good look for humanity, is-
Emma Waddington: No.
No, Yeah.
The EvoScript Explained
Emma Waddington: I compare it- Yeah ... as to and, and you call it the EvoScript, Yeah which I- really like. I like that word. I think it's- really on point. Can
you tell us a bit about, why, why it's called the
EvoScript?
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. I call it the EvoScript because what I'm trying to do is is situate how these ideas live in our popular culture, and [00:04:00] that it, it's a warped version of what's- actually in the scientific literature. Mm. Because usually, you won't get scientists to say in print "Oh, men and women are fundamentally different. They're like, they might as well be different species." Uh, but people-
Mm ...sure
say that online. But then they draw from the science to make these points, and I think that was- the thing that was really starting to frustrate me, was that- ... it, it's the way that the science gets, gets magnified and exaggerated when you get into online spaces. But when I talk about the EvoScript, I talk, I talk about these three components. One is that mate value is central, that there's
a,
a quality-
that is
inherent to who you are as a person. It determines your romantic prospects. It determines whether you're ultimately successful in love. It's
like
any other-
kind of
ability. That's misleading in a variety of ways. The second is that men and women are fundamentally different. There are real gender differences, but they're much more circumscribed than you might think.
And then the third is that [00:05:00] there's this fundamental distinction between short-term and long-term mating.
You
might peruse different portions of the menu depending on what exactly that you're looking for. And the reality is when you look at how relationships actually form, the distinction is not that clean.
And and so part of what I wanted to do was, like tell people about what we'd learned about these topics in more- Mm ... recent years.
Emma Waddington: I think we should bust some of
those myths
Chris McCurry: together Yeah, I mean- Yeah, I'd love it. it's really important. Yeah,
Emma Waddington: let's go for it.
Mate Value Card Game
Emma Waddington: So th- there's an experiment that you do in, with your students which I thought is super smart and it really highlights the impact of having this sort of mate value. Do you wanna tell us a bit about that?
Paul Eastwick: Yeah, so, so these... The stu- They, they don't like this one. No, I'm not surprised.
it's
not fun.
It's not, it's not fun. It's funny if you're not- participating. But the idea is I usually do this with playing cards and you, you ask the students... [00:06:00] You give them a playing card. They can't see it, okay? And they hold it up on their foreheads. All of our viewers can see what I'm doing right now.
But
Yeah
I'm holding the card up on my forehead so that other people can see the value, but I don't know what it is. Everybody's doing this, and you tell folks, "Okay, go around and try to get the highest value card you can get." You're trying to make a match, and you can make an offer- ... and your offers might get rejected or accepted.
And what happens is that the people with the high cards, the royalty, the, the fa- face cards, they get a lot of attention, and they're able to select, other kings, queens, and jacks. The folks who have received a two or a three, who are down near the bottom of the scale, well, they have a lot of trouble forming a relationship under these circumstances- and they get pretty dejected. And I think what this experiment captures well is the idea
that when we're initially meeting other people, we do, we do have a human architecture that inspires [00:07:00] us to evaluate other folks on first impressions, whether we think that's a good idea or not. We do size people up, and if someone's qualities are not immediately obviously attractive they will feel it, that you get a sense of it.
Mm. And so that sense that you fit somewhere in this mating hierarchy is a real thing, and and it's well illustrated by this game. Now, the students curse me for forcing them to relive junior high
but,
the- That's
okay ...reality- ... is, j- junior high is not necessarily real life, and and the- there are- there are many caveats here.
Emma Waddington: It's a great illustration. And also it's this idea that when you are so attached to that role, what it can do to you, then. Right.
Paul Eastwick: Right.
Chris McCurry: It can
make life
Emma Waddington: really awful.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. So I think that sense of our own appeal, it shapes the risks we take. It shapes
w- what you're gonna put, put yourself in for.
And, and I think it matters a great deal in that sense. [00:08:00] It's not so different from our sense of self-esteem. It's like a mating specific self-esteem. That's how I'd put it. And so this gets reified in the concept of mate value, that there's something real and, in your essence that reflects how desirable you are.
And now the assumptions here are that this idea continues forward in time beyond first impressions, and that's where the, that, that's where the research kind of takes a turn.
Emma Waddington: So maybe we can talk some- about some of those myths. So I've actually made a list, 'cause there was quite- a few Excellent
I felt really important.
Yeah.
Do We Agree on Attraction
Emma Waddington: So the first one is this idea that everyone has a mate value, and that you need to know what yours is. And I know you've done a few studies
that sort of have challenged some of these myths. So what did you find with that one? 'Cause I think that's a really strong one, isn't it?
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Yeah.
It really
Chris McCurry: No, it, affects you.
Paul Eastwick: It really is. So I think there, there are a couple [00:09:00] ways that this idea is misleading. I think as a characterization of first impressions, it's okay.
Mm.
It's... O- one of the reasons it's not great, it's just okay, is because when we're meeting other people face-to-face, even for the first time, I think we already
overrate
the extent to which we agree on the extent to which other people are attractive.
So in that study that I just described- Mm ...the agreement is perfect. For, for anybody who c- who can read the numbers, right? Mm. It's all very clear. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Yeah, yeah,
You can
write down.
right There's no different... Yeah a nine is a nine is a nine.
Chris McCurry: Yeah.
Paul Eastwick: But we can do these studies in real life when you meet people and you evaluate them and how desirable they are, how much you'd wanna date them, how attractive they are.
Do we all perfectly agree?
No.
It's not, it's not close to perfect. A, a, a handy heuristic for this number is something like 65% of
the time you would agree with another person if you just were making hot or [00:10:00] not judgments, binary judgments. Is this person ...attractive or, or not? Eh, you'd agree about 65% of the time.
So it's more than 50/50, but, but it's not like reading a card on somebody's forehead.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Emma Waddington: That's quite... I found that quite incredible. I didn't-
Yeah ...
I didn't realize that it was- it's not that high, 65. So that means that if somebody, if you see somebody and you give them a 10, somebody else might give them a four?
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. Think, think about it this way. It's, it's spread around an average, right? So, so
e- and 10's tough, 'cause you can't go higher. But let's think about somebody who's- Yeah, sure ... on average a seven, right? Yeah, yeah. They really are on average a seven. But what you're gonna see underlying that is a good number of sevens, a good number of sixes, a good number of eights, and some fives.
handful of nines in there. Right?
Maybe even a couple of fours, right?
Emma Waddington: Right,
Paul Eastwick: yeah. That's what the spread- The spread ... tends to look like,
right? Yeah.
right? Yeah.
Now,
that is a first impression. The really important part kicks in when we [00:11:00] look at what happens to these judgments over time, because you
know, I've
just sort
of drawn
a picture for you of this curve peaking at seven for this person.
But as people get to know each other over time, what happens is that curve gets flattened. So in other words, there's more spread, more variability- And in other words, we agree less about who is appealing, who is not. It is not the case that as we get to know people more, I discover your true desirable nature, that you're actually a seven.
I mistakenly thought you were a nine at first, but then I got to know you and I- ... realized your true reality. No, no, no. It, it's the opposite. So taste-
idiosyncrasy,
this is what comes to the fore as people get to know each other. That is a really good thing for most of us, because most of us are not tens.
Luckily, the goal, maybe sometimes the forgotten goal, of relationship formation is not to be the most desirable [00:12:00] person in the room. That was, that was not the point. The point-
...was
to find somebody who thought you were especially appealing and who you thought w- was especially appealing. Mm. And so time does that.
Adding time means you've, you, again, you, you squish that distribution, you elongate it, more variability, more chances for two people who think that each other is a 10 to find each other
Compatibility Forms Over Time
Chris McCurry: So I, I, I know, Paul, you've said that compatibility isn't found, it's formed
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Emma Waddington: I love that,
yeah ...
Chris McCurry: which
which
I really like.
Emma Waddington: Me too. '
Chris McCurry: Cause I, I, I... My wife will tell you that her first impressions of me were not favorable.
Paul Eastwick: I
Emma Waddington: I
don't believe it. It's,
Paul Eastwick: it
don't believe it.
Chris McCurry: It's, it's true.
Paul Eastwick: It's more common than you might think. So if you look at the, the typical romantic couple, okay? So this is now we're, we're selecting on a group of people who have already [00:13:00] formed relationships, okay?
These people are in relationships, but you rewind time to the first moment, and the typical impression was like,
Chris McCurry: Eh.
Paul Eastwick: "Eh.
It's middling." And, and now, again, lots of variability. So love at first sight is a thing. It's, it's a rare phenomenon, but it's a thing. Even more common than love at first sight is is, ugh at first sight.
I don't know what to call it. It's like, "Ugh, no, no, no." people are not into each other when they first meet, but they grow on each other-
over
time. And that over time component I can't stress how important this is.
Chris McCurry: Well, that, that Christopher Marlowe quote is, "Whoever loved that loved not at first sight?"
Paul Eastwick: Huh.
Chris McCurry: But it's true.
Paul Eastwick: Huh,
yeah ...
Chris McCurry: and, and you talk about relationships being formed or compatibility being formed in small groups.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Chris McCurry: And and, for my wife and myself it was graduate school. We met the
first day Mm ...of our doctoral [00:14:00] program, and we were- thrown together.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Chris McCurry: And it was a small class, and things evolved.
And she got over her initial distaste for me. And it's been 40 years.
So
Yeah ...I think it, it turned out okay.
Paul Eastwick: Thrown together is, it is underrated. It is-
Yeah ...
absolutely underrated.
Beyond the Dating Market
Paul Eastwick: It's, it's more underrated today than ever. Look- Yeah ...
I, I've
talked to a lot of people people who are real steeped in the internet, and I think to some of them, these ideas sound kinda wild, that what do you mean?
We... No, we live in this hierarchy. There are at- appealing people and unappealing people, and you kinda just have to deal with it or break your face to try to ascend-
Emma Waddington: Oh,
yeah ...
Paul Eastwick: the hierarchy.
Emma Waddington: Gosh.
Paul Eastwick: Right?
Emma Waddington: that cold-
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. That
Emma Waddington: maxing.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah, right. All the, all the maxing. So, so many, so, so many- things- So
Emma Waddington: many maxing, yeah
Paul Eastwick: that you can do. That's
Emma Waddington: so
Paul Eastwick: true. But but, but again, I think, I think this is a, like a broken [00:15:00] metaphor.
The,
the market, okay? It's a broken idea, or at least it's based on the wrong goal
It's
based on the goal to be initially appealing, to reel everybody in instantly. I agree, that sounds fun.
God bless if you have those abilities and those skills. But if the goal is to-
find
a relationship, thrown together, being in situations where you're interacting repeatedly, getting to know people over time this this is Cupid. This- Mm ... is the thing that has historically brought people together.
It's become a little bit of an a- lost art, and it's kind of a bummer.
Emma Waddington: Mm.
Chris McCurry: It's so true.
Gender Myths in Dating
Emma Waddington: A couple of the other myths that I think,
you
know, can be so damaging is this idea that men, look for attractiveness first- and women look for money first.
Like,
And I remember that sort of being very much the evo script, as you say, when, in the '90s, and that used to [00:16:00] really, really upset me. So it was very validating to hear that you debunking those two. Yeah. 'Cause I think it's very disempowering for many people. Right?
Paul Eastwick: Yeah, this, this one's fascinating because, w- whereas with things like mate value, I'm like, "Well, look, it has a place.
First impressions." Mm. We overrate it, but it exists. These gender differences,
th- these have not held up well.
Great ...
so, so- I'm so pleased ... they were- I'm so
Emma Waddington: pleased. Yeah.
Paul Eastwick: They were, they were based on what happens when you ask people what kinds of qualities do you want in a romantic partner? And as a psychologist, that's fine.
We can ask people
what
I would call it what people say they want in a partner or their theories about what it is they want in a partner when you ask them questions like that. You see those gender differences. Those gender differences may be meaningful- But as an attraction researcher, I also say, yeah, but that doesn't mean
that that's
what people actually go for.
That doesn't mean- [00:17:00] that attractiveness Mm ...in a partner has a bigger draw if you're a woman than if you're a man. It doesn't mean that earning potential is a bigger draw if you're a man than if you're a woman. And this was one of the first things we looked at with speed dating. We looked to see, all right, you say you care about earning potential in a partner.
This is what women say. They, they say it even in our- Yeah ...
Our- I find that
Emma Waddington: incredible, right?
Paul Eastwick: Yeah, right.
Emma Waddington: saying and then actually doing.
Paul Eastwick: Right. So when they go speed dating, what you'd find is that, people who were higher in ambition or earning potential, yeah, they're desired a little more.
Didn't matter if they were a man or a woman. The- These are all mixed gender speed dating events- heterosexual speed dating events. But
y-
you didn't see a difference in the appeal of these qualities. So, you
know, th-
that really pointed to this key distinction. There is what people say they want, and that is one thing, and that can be important, but it is not the same thing as what people [00:18:00] actually want in a partner.
And in terms of gender differences, boy, do you not see much when it comes to the what do people actually want question.
Emma Waddington: That is
so important. I found that so important because in this day and age, where women are more likely to graduate-
Paul Eastwick: Yeah ...
Emma Waddington: are more likely to get a PhD- Yeah ... This can, and, care about their progression, in terms of work.
If that were true, then we're gonna get into an even more difficult situation, and I think that feeds this whole manosphere that you- Yeah ... talk about as well, this idea that, women can't be successful because
that sort of impedes what the man needs in order to feel attracted, but also to-
to,
for the relationship to work.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. Yeah.
Education and Pairing Fears
Paul Eastwick: This is, this is the way that that particular gender difference has gotten spun out. With, people doing a lot of hand-wringing about, well, if the women, if they're gonna get more advanced degrees and they have higher salaries, it's gonna be a [00:19:00] pairing-up problem. Mm ... the, the, the sociologists are with me on this.
The
sociologists- Right ... are clear. Actually, it, it was once true. Sociologists were looking at things like, oh, were marriages more at risk when the woman earned more than the man-
Mm in
the couple?
This used to be true. This went away in the '90s.
So
so it is not true anymore. And, and today women, again, surpassing men in terms of education, th- that is not presenting a risk factor for relationships that, that, that we can detect. So it, it is not the problem. It is okay. If there, if there are-- if we're seeing fewer pairs these days we should be looking in other places.
Perhaps men aren't out there to the extent- that they used to be out there socializing-
meeting women
who have more education than they do. That's a problem. If these men aren't meeting the women in the first [00:20:00] place, that's bad. We should- find ways of helping that. What I'm not buying is that oh, like these men are like meeting these educated women and then being turned off.
I'm just-- Th-
Tradwife Backlash
Paul Eastwick: this is, this is not plausible to me.
Chris McCurry: Do you feel like there's a, a, a, a push in the culture, some segments of the culture that wanna take us back? Yeah ...where there's, s- there's a threat h-here that, these women who are highly educated and earning well, and people just wanna go back to-
Paul Eastwick: Yeah
Chris McCurry: Don't go to college have babies- you know- Yeah ...
churn butter.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Yeah. You-
do.
the churning butter is, is, is, not a metaphor. They're really doing that. I d- I agree with you. I think there is a longing for o-oftentimes an imagined past where all of this is easier. And sometimes I have to check myself too, if I'm being totally honest because, because I long for a past that is not this gender [00:21:00] differentiated past.
No, thank you. But, but a past where it was easier for people to socialize in person.
Emma Waddington: Yeah.
Dating Apps Marketplace
Paul Eastwick: I, mean, I do think the, the, the apps have
kinda
trained us to think about dating in this more marketplace mercenary way, and I, I think it's not great for- Well- ... a lot of people.
Chris McCurry: Yeah, it's the swiping left and right- Yeah
which goes back to that immediate impression about- Right ... mate value.
Paul Eastwick: Right.
Ex-exactly.
And I th- and so, so there's a, th- there are certain lessons of the past that I do think are worth learning from. The, idea that you would actually get to know your neighbors and join like
an a, an intramural sports league or, you join clubs and you'd get to know people over time whether you wanted to or not.
That's key. Imagine if your wife had had the ability to bail after meeting you one time- then all of those other opportunities would never have happened for you. If that's what people are [00:22:00] experiencing today I, I, I get why they might long for something else, but the answer is not a gendered
r-
r- regressive past.
That, that's not gonna do it.
Emma Waddington: Part of me, I, I, I, I am quite sub- struck about how we've ended up in this place where- it has become so binary, and it does feel like some of these old myths have really reared their head, even,
you
know, if
we think about the use of some of these apps for dating, so those narratives around men looking for promiscuity versus women, versus,
Women are looking to settle down. And, and it just really plays on people's minds. And, a lo- I know a lot of people who are really struggling with the apps because it does reinforce this very narrow narrative of, what we're supposed to do in order to find a mate, look better, make sure- Yeah
you have your best picture because that's- Yeah ... Gonna be so important. Lie about who you are.
Yeah. The number of people I know who've turned up to the date and gone, [00:23:00] "This is not who's on the app." "I don't know who you are, but this is not who I was expecting-
Paul Eastwick: Yeah ...
Emma Waddington: to see." I
mean, it's
tragic.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Filters And Height Myth
Paul Eastwick: And I, and I think th- there are all these market-based things that are, that are built into the apps that are huge. So for example, the like- Mm ...uh,
wh-
wh- where'd all the 5'11" guys go," right? 'Cause, because- you don't say you're 5'11" if you're a man on the app. You say you're six feet. because-
hey, close enough. And y- you can see that in the data, and that's because there will be a lot of people who will set a threshold for- six feet. I, I got news.
W-
We, have the data on this about how appealing height is in a partner when you meet the, when you meet somebody,
you actually meet
somebody face-to-face. It,
Barely
matters.
Barely matters. It is not a major thing that people clue into, men or women. It's just, it's just not a big deal. Yet it, on Because there's a number, it's got a number attached to it, then when [00:24:00] people are filtering and playing around on the- app-
Emma Waddington: Yeah.
They have to, right?
Right. Yeah,
they have to choose something.
Yeah.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. So it's like, it's like we, when we put a number to a thing, we don't realize how we're reifying the thing, how we're making the thing more important than it actually is. When we're face-to-face with somebody, height, I can't... It's, it, it
probably ranks somewhere in the top 50 things that'll make somebody-
appealing,
but it, it's not high.
Emma Waddington: Yeah. So how do we get people out of this space, right- ... where they, they
believe
that they're so attached to these ideas, but when it comes to the actual, like you were saying, you
know, Chris,
Being thrown together, spending time together, that seems to really build that compatibility versus these sort of- Yeah
tight narratives that we've created, and we've been told- or feel- Yeah
That actually moves us away from perhaps getting these relationships that are really meaningful.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Meetups Over Swiping
Paul Eastwick: I have ideas.
I mean,
Well, you have
Chris McCurry: the- book. you have a You have
a book.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah, right. You [00:25:00] have a fabulous book. I have
Chris McCurry: a book.
Yeah. Yeah.
Emma Waddington: Yeah,
Chris McCurry: Yeah, read, read, read Paul's book.
Yeah. It
was some, That'll,
that'll solve everything ...
Paul Eastwick: some ideas. But people are cl- coming up with clever stuff, and that has actually been a really rewarding thing about talking to people about this book because I've, I've had a lot of conversations with people who are attacking the dating industry in a different way.
Mm. And so, so they read the book and they're like, "Oh, good. Okay, I'm, I'm onto something here." So for example, people who just you, you bring a bunch of single people together, like in a dark room, and just have them hang out for a while. Maybe, maybe- like stare into each oth- other's eyes a little bit.
It sounds weird. It's gonna be way more effective than- Yeah ... than, than swiping. Yeah ... but if that's not for you, that's cool. My hope is that the meetup groups and- Yeah ...the intramural sports leagues, like these things are making a comeback. In the aughts, I was part of a intramural kickball team. I
mean, I
love talking about my old kickball days.
It was, it's a silly game. It's a [00:26:00] silly game. It's for fourth graders. But-
here's
a bunch of, bunch of 20-somethings from such different walks of life. You have people who only had a high school degree playing alongside people who were training to get their PhD. And, yeah, you play
the
game for an hour, and then you go drink for three hours.
And the, the, the relationships, the mixtures that would happen between these people it, all sorts of pairings would happen- Mm ... under these circumstances. It was, it was a wonderful thing to see. We, we can still do these things.
Yeah.
Yeah.
These, the, these possibilities still exist. I, I think that there, there is something about the phone that has this illusion of,
Feeling like
sufficient social connection- Yeah
when it's really not.
Emma Waddington: Yeah. Yeah, and efficiency, right? This idea that-
you're just
more efficient- Yeah ... if you use these dating apps
versus
going to a bar, and maybe or maybe not you meet somebody. But the
truth is at the bone is they're delusional-
Paul Eastwick: That's right ...
Chris McCurry: [00:27:00] Source of
Emma Waddington: efficiency. Yeah. It doesn't actually, know,
Chris McCurry: efficiency- Yeah ... that don't actually really, really work.
Emma Waddington: Yeah, you like,
Paul Eastwick: you see,
Yeah. you you see,
Organic Attraction
Paul Eastwick: you see things too, like people lamenting, I, I don't even think this is based on real data, but lamenting like, "Oh," "men these days have never approached a woman and asked her out."
Emma Waddington: Mm.
Paul Eastwick: Let me just grant that that stat is true, although it's not totally clear that it is true, that it
is true.
It's d- or that this is a change in any meaningful way. Why is that our model for how these things happen? Yeah,
Emma Waddington: true.
Paul Eastwick: Going up to people and asking them out.
I mean,
I,
Emma Waddington: That's also
fourth grade-
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
well, it was ...
Emma Waddington: sort of material, Right. That's what happened
in fourth grade.
Paul Eastwick: This isn't, and I don't know how to explain this to people, but,
like,
when, when we study organic relationship initiation, it's like we talked for a little while after class, and then the next time we talked for a little longer. And then I saw her in this group, and we talked a little more. And then all of a sudden we were, like, in a corner at the party and something, things were happening.
I didn't th- there's not like [00:28:00] a, the, it's not like a re- like a request. You can do that. People wanna do that, that's awesome. But it, it is the organic talking to people, getting to know people over time. That, that is the thing I care about more- rather than the have a line and going up to and ask people.
I think the pickup artist broke our brains too with this stuff. Because,
'cause the, the implication was you are good at this because you are elevating your mate value because you are making yourself initially more appealing, and you land people with a line. And that's a- also again, it's one route, but I don't think that's the route for most people
Emma Waddington: Hmm.
Debunking Alpha Beta
Emma Waddington: That was the other myth, right, that you had in the book around promiscuity, that if you, if, if a man... And, and it, and you talked about men. I don't know if the same applies to women. But, if a man is promiscuous, they, they can never change.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. Yeah, this, this idea is a weird one.
It's like this, might've been called the Madonna-whore dichotomy, or euphemistically,
like, dads
and [00:29:00] cads, right? I
mean, it's
Y- you're like a, a hot, sexy guy, or you're like the, the doughy, long-term guy. In the, in the nefarious corners of the internet, they talk about alphas and betas and- Yeah
Stacys and Becky. Right, they've got all these dichotomies.
Like,
this stuff is all th- none of this holds up in any meaningful way when you look at differences between people. So it is not the case that the people who are sexually desirable, the people who can, who, who are successful at reeling in partners at a first glance, it is not the case that these people are, like, dad long-term partners.
It's actually just totally irrelevant to their long-term prospects.
Emma Waddington: That's so good.
So good.
Chris McCurry: So
do, do these findings hold up in other cultures?
Paul Eastwick: To the extent that they have been measured, yes. So let me note that things like, oh, like, gender differences, like in what [00:30:00] people actually want, we have really good cross-cultural data on that.
And, and that finding, that di- distinction between what do people say they want and what do they actually want, we see that everywhere, that there's a major difference there, and the gender differences don't hold up on the actual side. When it comes to oh,
like,
people on average, if they're initially sexually desirable, they bad long-term partners?
Yeah, we don't see that anywhere. Things in the realm of
like
how relationship initiation happens, like what's the process, that's where culture's gonna matter more. But it, it, it matters in the sense of look, like social networks, those classically have been important everywhere with how relationships come together.
But the definition of what a social network is is gonna be really different depending on where you are in time and space, right? In some places-
the social
network is your family. And-
families are gonna be heavily involved in- trying to set people up. In [00:31:00] other place, it's your, it's your found family.
It's, your roommates in college
who are
gonna be the ones helping set you up. So the network matters in both cases, but what a network is becomes very different.
Similarity Versus Proximity
Emma Waddington: And I, I like this part in the book where you talk about, what, how you build this compatibility, and it's, you
know, down through
spending time together, that you ultimately tend to move towards those you spend more time with, which is those within your community.
Yeah. And it just so happens we tend to spend time with people who are quite similar to us because we live in communities where people are really similar, as opposed to we look for people who are really similar.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Emma Waddington: I think it's- I think that's a really important distinction.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. It's, it's another place where o- online dating and the internet have kind of like twisted our logic about how this is.
If you look around at couples, yeah, they're similar on a million things. They're similar in their- political orientation and their religiosity, and they're similar in their socioeconomic background and a zillion other things. But that [00:32:00] is primarily because that is who people meet in the first place.
I think we- incorrectly sometimes assume that, oh, the similarities are what brought them together. They selected- each other because of those similarities. The, the evidence for that idea is, is not very good. Yeah. Similarity it's just not all that powerfully related to initial attraction. So in other words, within the milieu of the people you're meeting, you're not more drawn to the similar ones than the dissimilar ones.
I think part of the reason for this is that, look, similarities are nice because they give people a sense of connection. They help them build this shared of,
a
sense of shared reality, gives you something- to talk about. That's great. But also, especially when you're initiating a relationship, dissimilarities can be exciting.
Like-
Emma Waddington: Really
Paul Eastwick: somebody who's comes from a different walk... I'm thinking about the kickball league [00:33:00] again, but, like- ... you know what I mean? Meeting somebody who's,
Quite different than you, has quite a different background than you, and yet-
Emma Waddington: Yeah ...
Paul Eastwick: they seem to be into you. Well, this is, this is intriguing. So, so what that, again, so it's all about within the pool of the people you're meeting, like, having some similarities with a given person, enough to have a conversation, enough to, to, to want to know more about this person, that's key.
But oh no, it's really about more rather than fewer similarities, it, it just doesn't work that way.
Chris McCurry: So In the interest of time,
Emma Waddington: Oh, goodness me ...
Really?
Final
Chris McCurry: tho- final thoughts?
Emma Waddington: Yeah. Can I just... Oh, my goodness. I'll just squeeze one in- because it feels so important.
Chris McCurry: Yeah. Sure. Sure.
Emma Waddington: Yeah.
AI Chatbots Warning
Emma Waddington: I would want... I desperately wanted to talk about sort of AI, right? Oh, sure. Here we are talking about- compatibility Yeah and building relationship. Like- Yeah ... yeah, we've got,
A
minute to answer- this question. Yeah. But I was, you
know,
Chris McCurry: wondering- Are we talking about r- robot sex or even-
Emma Waddington: Yeah.
Chris McCurry: Yeah.
Emma Waddington: Oh, [00:34:00] hopefully not. My goodness. But yeah, possibly. The, this idea that, you
know, compatibility
is built, that we wanna be- spending Yeah more time, you
know, with
people, that you need to keep an open mind because you don't know. Stop... Hopefully we can stop having some of these assumptions and these myths, and instead be open to the possibility, right?
Chris McCurry: Yeah.
Emma Waddington: And that this idea around how we build good relationships through conversation. You
know, there's
this little bit of a friction, right, that happens Yeah ...in- conversations and in relationships that helps to build trust, and yet so many people are turning to these
chatbots,
right?
And I think the stats staggering.
There's I think it was, like, 70% of teenagers in the US see it okay to be having some- Yeah ...
kind of a relationship
with a chatbot. Where are we going with this? This makes me very nervous.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. This, this makes me very nervous, too. A- actually, we, we had a, a special episode on our podcast, Love Actually, where we actually brought in some people who are really steeped in the
AI
research- Oh,
lovely
to talk
to us about what's happening and [00:35:00] what are we going to do? Yeah. There is evidence that the use of these chatbots is associated with social skills, deteriorating. So this is not what you wanna see. Could these AI
chatbots
chatbots
be useful in ameliorating short-term loneliness, a sense of rejection?
M- maybe. It, it's, it's-
possible,
And one of the, our colleagues on that podcast, Ben Carney, likened it to fentanyl, and I think that's a useful analogy, right? It's a real painkiller, and- Mm-hmm ...you know, can have its uses, but it can also be abused, and the long-term use of the thing is
really
not what you want.
And I, I think th- this is at least the, my current metaphor for how I'm thinking about these things. It's,
like,
maybe useful for some people under some acute circumstances, but in the long run I'd be very, very nervous about people [00:36:00] getting hooked on these things and then losing the ability to connect socially with humans.
Emma Waddington: Yeah, 'cause it is a bit of a muscle, isn't it?
And
I just think it's so frictionless-
Paul Eastwick: Yeah ...
Emma Waddington: These AI- bots. You
know, they
agree with you. They, they, they validate you, but they- also don't...
That built, that, that compatibility-
Paul Eastwick: Yeah ...
Emma Waddington: is, is built- through getting to see someone-
Through, see
yourself through their eyes-
Paul Eastwick: Yes
as
Emma Waddington: well, right?
Paul Eastwick: Just- Exactly.
Exactly. And, And
Emma Waddington: that's not happening.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah, all the obsequiousness, it, the, it, that is indeed part of the problem.
Emma Waddington: Great. I'm glad I got that in there-
Yeah ...
quickly at the end.
Closing Thanks
Emma Waddington: I- Well, this has been fantastic. Yes. Honestly, I loved your book. I think it's Oh, good ... great. and your podcast.
Honestly, it was so good to read, so validating, and we haven't unfortunately touched much on the manosphere 'cause I just think it's ferocious damage- Yeah ... that does to, to both genders to sort
of buy
into these narratives.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. Yeah.
Emma Waddington: We're much more sophisticated. [00:37:00]
Paul Eastwick: Yeah. Well, thank you so much for having me on.
This was
Chris McCurry: a blast. Oh, thank you. And we'll have those links to your podcast and your book and your website on, in the show notes. And thank you so much
for the,
for, joining us. This has been
great.
Emma Waddington: Yeah.
Paul Eastwick: Yeah.
Emma Waddington: Thank you. Yeah,
great work. Thank you so much, Paul.
Paul.
Chris McCurry: Okay. All right
Emma Waddington: It's b- it says it's still being-
