Darwinian Dating

Op-Ed: So, What About Online Dating?

2010-12-27T12:05:00.000-08:00

I've decided to address several questions about online dating together as a single Op-Ed piece rather than as a legitimate answer to a specific letter. The reason is that, as I pondered how to answer some of these questions, I realized I couldn't find really good scientific support for my conclusions; and coming to conclusions prior to testing your questions is anything but scientific. In short, I have a lot of suspicions that border on hypotheses, but these are untested. Call it proto-science; in any event, I will share my suspicions with you and perhaps some of you will be able to enlighten me on the answers...

Question 1: Should I Use Online Dating?

My response to this is, "why shouldn't you use it?" Why, if you are single and interested in a relationship, shouldn't you use every means at your disposal to find a person with a similar personality and desires? I think that online dating gives single people more control over the dating experience than they have ever had before. Sure, you get some really odd people, but it is easy enough to filter them out and cut-off communication if they get too annoying. It is a far cry better than the well meaning friends and co-workers who keep throwing eligible men or women your way. I say, go for it.

That said, Online Dating is a misnomer; nobody actually goes for a date online, it is simply a means of filtering out undesirable partners. The real date takes place when you meet the person, irregardless of how many photos, emails, or telephone conversations you might have shared. For that, Darwinian Dating takes over; your initial impression of a prospective partner will either be supported by or refuted by this contact. Online "dating" is a rational, mentally driven process; real dating is anything but and relies upon genetic sensibilities honed by the success and failures of our ancestors. The beauty of online dating is that if Mr. or Ms. Right turn out to be instead Mr. or Ms. Wrong, you can just go back online and try again, all in just a couple of keystrokes.

Question 2: Will Personality Profiles Really Help Me Find a Compatible Mate?

A better question might be, "how important is compatibility to a relationship in the first place?" Don't get me wrong, it's important, but probably not in the way that most people think. The premise of Darwinian Dating is that genes which are beneficial to successful reproduction mediate the process of finding a mate. Behavior is part of this, but I'm not sure that the various "dimensions of compatibility" are the answer. I think it can be boiled down to just one measure -- how willing the other person is to invest in a relationship, given their biological attraction to you and you to them.

A relationship is a compromise between two partners reproductive strategies, unless it is an open relationship, and in that case I wouldn't characterize it as much of a relationship in the first place. When two people regard the other partner with such high regard that they will do anything to be with them everything else goes out the window, including politics, race, religion, philosophy and all the other bits and pieces of human cultural invention that we think are important. Ultimately your genes are in the drivers seat, and they will compromise on just about any issue if the prospect of sexual congress is desirable enough.

Take personality profiles with a grain of salt. If there is a spark between you and a prospective partner, see where it goes.

Question 3: Will Online Dating Eventually Lower The Divorce Rate?

Great Question (and many thanks to Enoch Curran of Columbus, OH for suggesting it). The two major reasons for divorce are infidelity and money problems, and as far as my limited research has shown, these are the same two reasons that have plagued couples for centuries. When people divorce they usually create a cover story that they tell friends, family and co-workers; it is a story which absolves the teller from feelings of guilt by offloading the blame for the dissolution on the other partner. The fact is, relationships of all kinds fail for only one reason: one or both of the partners no longer invest in the relationship because they have lost confidence in the other partner as a reproductive partner. In the case of infidelity, one or both of the partners is investing in other people (which is contrary to the reproduction of the other partner). Money may be as important within our own culture to reproductive success; when it is not there or stretched thin, it may encourage one or both of the partners to seek out other mating oppurtunities...

So, can Online Dating get around these problems? Online dating only really began to take-off around 2007, but since then it has been remarkably successful, at least in generating a profit. Many sites claim hundreds if not thousands of marriages per day, which I do not doubt; by the same token, the Little White Chapel on the Las Vegas strip has done hundreds of marriages in a single day, too. The real question is whether a larger percentage of couples who found a partner online will continue to be married after 5, 10, or 20 years. Matchmakers have been around for thousands of years and despite their best efforts have done little to stem the tide of divorces in the US and abroad. Time will tell...

My suspicion is that it will not, for the simple reason that divorce is seldom a matter of incompatibility; it is a change in the status of one or both of the partners that makes the union less desirable over time. Unless online dating services have some means of seeing into the couples future, which I am reasonably certain that they do not, the best they can do is provide a way for people to meet one another. The rest of it is up to the couples themselves...

Go ahead, look at their hands...

2010-11-12T12:07:00.000-08:00

Any truth to the ring to index finger ratio pertaining to promiscuity?

EC in Columbus

What you are referring to is something Human Biologists and Anthropologists refer to as 2nd digit to 4th digit ratio (2D:4D for short). Measure your index finger and then divide it by a measure of your ring finger. Males tend to have a lower ratio (ie. smaller number) than women (ie. high number). Rather than a direct measure of behavior, this ratio is indicative of levels of Fetal Testosterone (FT) that your brain was subjected to during development in utero. This ratio has been shown to correlate to, among other things, gender, sexual orientation, and number of sexual partners, something that would be expected to be higher among individuals with an unrestricted sociosexual identity. According to some Evolutionary Psychologists, levels of FT program the brain early on for behaviors that are typically male or female, including the ability to navigate / remember three dimensional space and for behaviors associated with sex.

That doesn't mean, however, that just because you have a particularly long ring finger that you will be a philanderer. While a potential for typically male behaviors may be initiated in early development it requires additional testosterone during adolescence and adulthood to be expressed as a behavior. Lots of things elevate testosterone, such as competition, while other things suppress its production, such as being around children or co-habitation with a long-term sexual partner. The loss of spark that many couples experience has been linked to declining testosterone and may actually be beneficial -- it may make us less likely to search out other partners.

If anything, this gives us all a reason to hold hands with a potential or current sexual partner; it is also something that can be examined in a total stranger without having them be any the wiser. Oddly enough, we place our wedding bands on the one finger that correlates strongly to sexual behavior...coincidence?

So go ahead, look at their hands. While you're at it, go ahead and look at your own ring finger, too!

Friends with Benefits? The Convenient Store of Relationships...

2010-10-24T14:24:00.000-07:00

My friend and I are perfectly happy without commitments. When we're together we have a great time and when we go our separate ways there is no drama. It's the perfect situation, so I wonder why more people don't do it?

JMS in Suffolk VA

The real question you should be asking yourself is why you are not something more than just friends or, to put it in Darwinian Dating terms, why neither of you are willing to invest more into the relationship. The answer is that neither of you see the other as having a high enough mate value to warrant an additional investment. And of course there is no drama! Drama, by it's very definition, is about a serious matter, and for you the relationship is anything but serious.

There is nothing wrong with being, "friends with benefits" as long as both partners continue to feel the same way. The problem is that when a better mate comes along one of you is going to jump ship, and because of the arrangement, will probably do it in the most expedient (ie. insensitive) way possible. If at this point one of you has thoughts, however slight, about the relationship becoming serious you are going to be crushed. I've seen it happen a dozen times and when it does, the two parties never talk again. So much for the friendship .

"Friends with benefits" most benefits males, because they are able to have their biological cake and eat it, too. They have you for sex and they are unencumbered with commitments that take time, money and energy away from pursuing a more worthwhile mate. It's the 7-11 of adult relationships; there when you need it, conveniently distant when you don't. You've turned yourself into a convenient store by going along with it -- and chances are very good that when he's not perusing your aisles for Twinkies and Ho-Hos he's on the other side of town looking for a better stocked Supermarket. I don't call that perfect by any stretch of the imagination. In the long run you would be better served investing your time into higher quality mates that are more likely to want a long-term relationship.

Is there a seven-year itch?

2010-10-04T06:10:00.000-07:00

Let me come right out with it -- I can't stay faithful! I've been in relationships with both men and women and after a year or two I always end up cheating. I feel terrible when it happens and I tell myself that it won't happen again but it always does. What can I do?

Curious in Queens, NY

People cheat for a reason. In strictly evolutionary terms it benefits your genes to spread them as far and wide as possible, which a monogamous relationship seriously impairs. Men tend to cheat when the cost of an opportunity to engage in sex outside the relationship is low, or when the physical qualities of a prospective mate outweigh those of the mate they already have. Women tend to look for what they don't have in their current relationship; better physical, social or behavioral qualities.

Among human beings there seems to be what amounts to a "four year itch"; if you look at divorce and dissolution of long-term relationships they seem to peak between 3 and 5 years, with four years being about average. Our ancestors, like many people living in Foraging societies, spaced their births according to when a child is weaned (ie. stops breast feeding). Sure enough -- the average age at weaning is also around 4 years. While caring for a young child both parents are inhibited from investing in extra-pair copulations by the necessity to care for a child or support a spouse. After weaning the child is better able fend for themselves and these resources can be shifted to other reproductive opportunities. In some couples, however, the perception of future reproductive returns is high enough that they stick around, often for decades, and even in the absence of children.

That is really the key -- if you perceive a mate to be biologically valuable you are less likely to invest in another mate. Likewise, a valuable mate will insist that you demonstrate continual investment in the relationship, which will limit the resources available for other mates. The opposite is also true -- if you perceive your current mate to be of low mate value it is likely that you will seek out a better mate eventually.

What can you do about any of this? The problem is that you are dating people who you perceive to be of lower mate value than yourself. People of lower physical, social or behavioral value are easy to date because they require little or no investment on your part (think, "friends with benefits..") but they also provide you with no motivation to stay faithful. For the long-term, both mates need to have an equal mate value to one another. As long as these values remain equal, both partners have a reason to continue investing.

The next time you meet someone who you are attracted to, ask yourself this question -- "Is ______ as attractive, successful, and charming as I am?" If the answer is anything other than a resounding YES, keep looking. To do otherwise is to set yourself up for the desire to scratch that particular itch later in the relationship.

Darwin and Love At First Sight

2010-09-23T14:24:00.000-07:00

Is there such a thing as "love at first sight"? What could possibly be the evolutionary benefit of falling in love with someone on the spur of the moment?

Mindy in Chicago, IL

Before getting into the "...at first sight" part of the question, we need to define love. In sociocultural terms it's defined any number of ways; the tragic love that Americans and Western Europeans promote (think Romeo and Juliet), the love that comes from longtime companionship found in societies that promote arranged marriage, and the very abstract "love" of things that aren't even people; love of freedom, peace, etc.. So many definitions, in fact, that depending on which one you choose to follow you may be in love right now and not even know it! Those definitions have more to do with social custom than with biology. So what is love in purely biological terms?

The simple answer -- a complex series of chemical changes in the body that promote attachment to another person.

The symptoms of "being in love" are remarkably consistent worldwide, which suggests that this sort of biochemical love is a universal within our species. These include restlessness, reduced appetite, the inability to focus on anything but the object of your affections, and a general willingness to disregard their shortcomings. The neurotransmitters responsible for these symptoms are dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. Like a well-mixed cocktail, each element adds its own signature flavor; rising dopamine produces singular mental focus, norepinephrine (a derivative of dopamine) the sleeplessness and anxiety. As levels of dopamine and norepinephrine rise, serotonin plummets and the obsessive feelings toward a romantic partner are produced. Later oxytocin and vasopressin produce feelings of satisfaction that bond the couple together.

What is the benefit, reproductively, for falling in love? Unlike most mammals, humans give birth to dangerously immature offspring; the point in development that a human child reaches at 9 months is comparable to the state of development in a chimpanzee at birth. Our children require much more support, so much so that investment from both parents (or an extended social network) is required to raise a healthy kid. The cascade of chemical changes that we recognize as "being in love" was favored by natural selection because it bonds partners together for an extended period after copulation. This is especially important for males. Most male mammals invest their time and energy into competing for mates but do not invest in their own offspring. I suspect that those ancestors who experienced any kind of emotional attachment were more likely to invest in their children, improving their offspring's chances at survival. Over time, these "emotional bonds" increased in both strength and frequency because they provided a tangible reproductive benefit. As a species we are truly, "suckers for love".

The "...at first sight" part.

Can these chemical changes happen so quickly that they are, for lack of a better word, "instantaneous"? They can and do, provided that you have the right brain chemistry. In an evolutionary sense it is advantageous to be able to identify a high-quality mate quickly, rather than expend time and resources on evaluating their qualities or juggling other mates. According to a survey conducted in the 1960's around 30% of respondents reported haven fallen in love, "...at first sight". This only happens, it would seem, for mates of exceptionally high value; those with the most desirable physical qualities conducive to reproductive success. We don't suddenly fall in love with unattractive, belligerent, and slovenly dressed partners. It is only those persons who manage to push our genetic buttons that can initiate the kind of chemical changes associated with romantic love.

What is the lesson to be taken away from all of this? Perhaps the most dangerous side effect of "being in love" is the loss of reason. In some ways it is as if your genes are in the driver's seat and you have become a helpless passenger. It's a great ride for your genes, but can be a rough one for you. Like many things in a relationship, time is your ally. Enjoy the other person, spend time with them and really get to know them, but don't make permanent and life-changing plans quite yet. "Love at first sight" is a real thing, but so is falling out of love just as quickly. When it comes to love at first sight remember: feelings are fallible -- give your rational brain a chance to catch up.

What's A Single Mom Supopsed To Do?

2010-09-13T15:07:00.000-07:00

I'm a single mom and there isn't anything harder than trying to date when you have a kid. Every guy says that he likes kids, so why don't any of them stick around past the second date? If relationships are really about reproduction, why don't men want women who have proven that they can reproduce?

MS in Illinois

Women have something that men, until recently, could never have -- absolute certainty that their child is really their child. Despite their best efforts, men (until the invention of the paternity test) could never be sure if they or another male had fathered a child. In strictly evolutionary terms investing time and energy into raising a child that is not yours does nothing to promote your own genetic posterity; at the same time it also promotes the reproductive success of a male competitor. Biologists call this cuckolding, after the cuckoo bird, which places its eggs in another species nest to be raised. Great for the cuckoo, not so great for the other nestlings who receive less parental care as a result of the intruder, or the parents who raise it. Natural selection favors behaviors which reduce or eliminate cuckolding in males, since males are at the greatest risk of being exploited. Evidence suggests that human males may also be sensitive to cuckolding; child abuse by step fathers to their step children is many times higher than by males to their own biological children -- 43% of children murdered as a result of child abuse lived in a home with a step parent, which is far higher than would be expected by chance (Homicide, pp. 88 Wilson and Daly, 1988).

Men do want women that are fertile; the classic foundations of beauty such as facial symmetry, complexion and figure are all directly related to fertility. The trouble with having a kid and dating is that you are asking any man who is in a long-term relationship with you to invest in a child which is not his, and this goes directly against his genetic grain. This is not exclusive to men, either -- browse through websites like OKCupid.com and you'll find just as many single women who have no interest in dating men with kids.

So what can you do? Three things. The first is that the relationship needs to be about you and him, not about you, him, and your kid. Yes, your child is the priority of your life -- your date knows it too, but that doesn't mean it needs to be the topic of every conversation. Dating is about testing the qualities of a prospective mate and, early on, this needs to be just about you and him. Unless he asks, don't show pictures, recount stories, or drag your son or daughter out to meet him. That can happen later. For now it's a date, not a meet and great. The second thing that you can do is to keep the domestic sphere out of the picture. Meet at a neutral location; don't have him pick you up at the house. Be honest with him about your situation but until it becomes an issue, keep it separated. I recommend a minimum of three dates before suggesting that he meet your children. Finally, keep calls home during the date to an absolute minimum. If you're serious about going on a date it needs to be about him; every time you call home it reminds him that you already have an emotional investment and forces him to reconsider his investment in you.

Men are turned off by bad parenting, even though most don't know why -- having a child provides the opportunity to show him how great a parent you can be, but only after he has decided that you are valuable enough to make the investment. Don't sell him on your child until he is sold on you.

Is Being Gay at Odds With Natural Selection?

2010-09-10T07:13:00.000-07:00

I am a 38 year old gay man from LA, who has been in a loving, monogamous and heavenly relationship with the same man for the past 18 years. If people are predisposed to function in a way that brings about successful reproduction, how do you explain homosexuality? Science has made great strides in proving a biological disposition to homosexuality. What would Mr. Darwin say about finding your ideal mate and NOT reproducing?

By the way...LOVE the blog, love the concept. It's about time someone made a fresh approach to subject that's been bled dry with the same moronic "advice" for years. Keep it up.

T.L. , Los Angeles, CA

The assumption about homosexuality is that because it precludes reproduction with a partner it does not have any reproductive benefit, but that might not be entirely true. How could a group of genes (probably dozens if not hundreds) that might predispose someone to being gay spread by natural selection? By improving the odds of successful reproduction in other members of your family. If those genetic qualities that make a man gay cause his brothers and sisters to be more fertile, thus leaving more children, then it is a benefit to the brothers and sisters, but also to the brother who is gay. In evolutionary terms this is called inclusive fitness: even if you don't reproduce yourself some of your genes will find their way into the next generation via your siblings. Since each sibling has 1/4 of genes in common with your genes, those genes are still being passed on -- enough nieces and nephews and you can be assured that all of your genetic qualities find their way into the next generation. You have, essentially, reproduced by proxy.

One piece of evidence which seems to support this is that homosexuality among men seems to be somewhat dependent upon birth order. Statistically, it is more likely for a man to identify as gay if they are the 2nd brother, and even more so if they are the 3rd; and this in families who have had a lot of reproductive success already! More surprisingly, this does not hold true for gay women. What this suggests is that the reproductive benefits of homosexuality may directly enhance the fertility of the women in your family line. In the past, when family sizes needed to be large because of the high death rates of infants and young children, this might have made the difference between having enough labor on the farm or enough children to care for you in your old age.

Of course, gay or not, we all have the same predisposition to finding a mate who embodies genetic, social, and behavioral qualities associated with reproductive fitness, even if we can't or don't want to have kids. What makes a long term relationship work is that you've found those set of qualities in a single person, enough that you will forsake other mates for them. I'm willing to bet that you find your partner good looking, talented, and kind -- the same qualities that women and men, gay, straight, or bisexual, report as desirable in long-term mates worldwide. Regardless of a persons sexual orientation, our genes know exactly what they want -- once found, our biology provides a strong motivation to stay faithful and invest heavily in the relationship, irregardless of reproductive outcome.

The Sexual Upper Hand

2010-09-07T08:54:00.000-07:00

If people are predisposed to function in a way that brings about successful reproduction, why do men in general have a higher libido than women? Also, why would the average age of peak libido for men and women be different? In many cases people find partners who are somewhat near to their own age so why don't men and women peak in their sex drive around the same age?

Michelle in Manchester, UK

Physically, libido is all about testosterone, the "male" sex hormone. Treatments for low-libido in both men and women involve testosterone patches or injections. Since men have 10-100 times as much testosterone as women do (women derive their testosterone from the adrenal gland rather than the gonads), males tend to have a greater sex drive in all age groups then do females.

But testosterone is not just about libido -- it's really about competition. Both males and females experience a rise in testosterone when they compete in a contest and win, even in something as sedate as a game of chess. Rising testosterone encourages even more competition and taking greater risks. For a species like Homo sapiens sapiens that lives in complex, competitive social groups, testosterone motivates our upward social mobility.

You might hypothesize that testosterone would, therefore, peak when competition is most critical, and you would be right. Male testosterone peaks in the early 20's; which happens to be when the majority of women are most fertile (ie. likely to both conceive and have enough resources to care for a child). This is also when females display outward signs of fertility, such as an optimal waist-to-hip ratio (approximately 0.7) which has been shown to be a reliable outward indicator of fecundity (the ability to become pregnant). In other words, Testosterone peaks when males are competing for the most desirable females.

So why doesn't a female's sex drive peak at the same time? Simply put, it is not in a females reproductive interests to have a raging libido when she is most fertile. The male sexual strategy among mammals is to maximize copulation, since males make little investment in offspring (even in our own species!). Elevated testosterone motivates males to seek out partners in high number, not necessarily high quality. Since females invest more in reproduction at every stage of an offspring's development, they must be focused on quality, not quantity. Being motivated toward just sex would significantly undermine this need and open females up to exploitation by males unwilling to invest anything past copulation. With their libido's restrained women can insist that males show proof of their intentions and provide resources toward the relationship. Many women do experience greater sex drive in their mid to late 30's, when estrogen is beginning to decline, which causes the testosterone present to exert a greater influence on behavior. This is also when the pool of available males is in sharp decline, meaning that women are competing with each other for a dwindling supply of reproductive partners. In some inner cities, the ratio of single males to females is 1 to 5.

If relationships were strictly about sex and companionship it would make perfect sense for a male in their early 20's to look for a partner in their mid to late 30's. Most women in their 30's are more experienced and financially better off than women in their early 20's. But it's also about reproduction, and this is where the two sexual strategies really shine. In a way, differential timing in the sexual peak of males and females is a hedge against either sex gaining the reproductive upper hand on the other.

To Call or Not To Call...

2010-09-04T12:30:00.000-07:00

Its been a couple of days since our first date and he hasn't called yet. I just can't stand the wait any longer! All this stuff about waiting for the guy to call, isn't it just about what we're expected to do? Why shouldn't I just get on the phone and call him right now?

Impatient in Iowa

Why shouldn't you? In a nutshell, because whether he is really interested or not, he probably will agree to a second date.

You might say, "well, that's a good thing, right?" As long as his heart is really into it, yes -- but what if I told you that he is just as likely to say yes even if he didn't have the slightest interest in seeing you again? It sounds irrational, but it is not about what makes sense logically -- it is about his perception of your mate value.

In terms of reproduction, men are hagglers -- they will try to get the cost of pursuing a prospective mate down whenever they can, offloading the cost of the relationship on to the other partner, or by discounting the cost of a mate to the point that the relationship is practically free. While not a conscious set of actions, men are trying to expend as few resources as possible on any given mate so that these resources can be applied to searching for other mating opportunities.

Calling him back means he doesn't have to make as much of an effort. In effect, you are marking yourself down by 50% and throwing yourself into the closeout bin. Once your cheap enough, regardless of his perception of your value to him as a reproductive partner, it becomes worth his while to take a shot. His expectation, of course, will be that you continue to be the same bargain as advertised -- if you turn out not to be (ie. you suddenly have expectations of him, like remaining faithful) he'll be gone like the wind.

What should you do in the meantime while you wait for his call? People of high mate value don't wait around for Mr. or Mrs. Right; they go out and find them. Go out with friends, hang out at the local coffee shop and have a conversation with a total stranger, buy a new pair of jeans that makes you look great. Whatever you do, get out of the house and do something! His call shouldn't be the end all, be all of your day; it should be a pleasant surprise. To make it anything else is to give him far more credit than he has earned.

What Don't You Understand About The Opposite Sex?

2010-09-03T06:52:00.000-07:00

Men and women are not the same, no matter how often we try to ignore these differences. In evolutionary terms we follow reproductive strategies most beneficial to our sexual advantages and limitations and yet we are often painfully unaware of what the opposite sex is doing or why they are doing it.

So what don't you understand about the opposite sex? Send your questions to darwiniandating@ckevinbarrett.com

The Romans Might Have Had It Right

2010-06-29T11:32:00.000-07:00

I need to know why I am so stupid to love a man who doesn't love me, but I will take any opportunity - even though I pay for it, be it with food, drink, etc.., to spend time with him. Can you please help me get a clue?

Dumbfounded in Ohio

The Romans didn't idolize being in love -- in fact, they considered it a sickness, something to be passed through as quickly as possible. They recognized that there is nothing rational about love, just as there is often nothing rational about hatred, jealousy, or fear. Stupidity implies mental ineptitude, and what you are talking about doesn't have a mental edge. You are not being stupid, you are simply following your emotions.

Biologically, men are reproductive opportunists. If the price is right they will consort with almost any female. Often the price is too high -- expectations of marriage, investment, or exclusivity. The mistake that women often make is discounting their cost to a male in the hope that he will respond favourably. In other words, they make it easy for the male to be around them. The most common examples of this "discounting" is overlooking male behaviours that are damaging to the relationship, or becoming "friends with benefits"; allowing the male sexual access but without any expectations of commitment or investment. Subsidizing his companionship, through gifts, food, etc. is, in my mind, just another form of discounting.

Love is an indicator; it shows that you perceive this man's mate value to be very high, enough that you are willing to discount yourself to almost zero in the hopes that something will finally change. It won't. In fact, the more that you invest in him, the lower his perception of your mate value will go, while the perception of his own reproductive value (thanks to your one-sided investment) will grow, encouraging him to look for still other mating opportunities.

What can you do? First, sit down and actually LOOK at the money you are spending on this particular man (really try to add it ALL up, from bank statements, receipts, etc.). Let it sink in for a few minutes. Now write down the specific things that you have received in return for this investment. In fact, why not take the amount and divide it by the number of items on your list to find out how much of your time, energy, and resources went into each item. Now ask yourself, was it really worth it?

Make a commitment, right here, right now -- not to spend another penny on this man until you have spent the exact same amount of money on yourself and your family. Go new places, eat new things, invest in things that make you feel good about yourself, and do it without him. Don't even invite him along. In fact, don't even tell him. When you have gone through the entire amount stop again and ask yourself whether it felt better to throw money away on a man who doesn't appreciate you, or spending money on yourself. If after that point you want to start buying him dinner and drinks again, go right ahead! -- I'm betting that you won't.

Three Questions and Only One Answer...

2010-06-06T08:11:00.000-07:00

I was asked recently how you know when a relationship is over. My response (see previous posts) is that one or both of the participants stops investing in the relationship. In a purely biological sense we are constantly measuring the reproductive value of a mate, and when this drops below a certain threshold we turn our attention to others.

Simple, right? It would be, except that we over complicate matters by making it about everything but biology and reproduction. It is a blow to our egos and to our cultural notions of love and happily ever after when a relationship ends. Maybe it's easier to talk about hurt feelings, miscommunication, and stressful lifestyles than it is to just say, "Look -- for a while we thought highly enough about each other to invest, but now we don't, so lets call it quits."

Below is a test. It is a simple one, just three questions. The rules for taking the test are simple, too. First, you must answer the questions truthfully. Second, you may only take the test once for a given relationship. Third, you must answer either "yes" or "no" to each question -- use the first response that comes to mind, do not dwell upon the question.

Ready? Here we go...

Question 1: Hypothetically, my partner and I would have some really great children together.

Question 2: I am impressed by my partners accomplishments and talk about what my partner does for a living to others.

Question 3: In general, I would rather spend money on something that would make my partner happy than on something just for myself.

Results:

Answered "Yes" to all three questions: You really like your partner in every way possible and are willing to continue investing time, energy and money in the relationship. Assuming they are not taking advantage of your kindness, this is a high quality mate.

Answered "Yes" to two questions: You like your partner well enough, but there is just one or two things missing that would make them perfect. It may be possible to find someone better, but it's not worth the effort. This is a medium to high quality mate.

Answered "Yes" to only one question: You are in the relationship either because it is convenient, or because you are afraid of being alone. You and your partner are likely to find someone else, given the opportunity. You are with a low to medium quality mate.

Answered "No" to all three questions: Maybe the relationship is just about sex, or merely convenient, but there is no chance it is going beyond what it already is. Neither of you are investing much in the relationship and, if called upon to do so, would probably end it. You are with a low quality mate and it's time to move on.

I am interested in your results! Please comment on this post or email me at darwiniandating@ckevinbarrett.com with your thoughts. You can also play "Monday Morning Quarterback" by guessing how a current or previous partner might respond to these questions.

When is it really over?

2010-05-27T10:01:00.000-07:00

How do you know when your marriage is "over"? Are there specific signs that signal the end of the relationship? I have a feeling that my husband no longer loves nor respects me. Despite some rare intermittent positive feelings, most of the time he exhibits what would be considered textbook mental/emotional abuse towards me. I do not want to stretch out my 23 year marriage past its death-knell, but unfortunately due to financial reasons, I find myself sticking it out and enduring the mental & emotional abuse since I am physically & mentally disabled due to a back injury. What are the specific signs signaling the end of a marriage?

Tracy from Boca Raton

There are a lot of reasons people stay together, but in a purely Darwinian sense (and this is Darwinian Dating after all!) we stick around for just one reason – we value the other person as a reproductive partner. It doesn't matter whether you have kids, plan on having kids, or hate kids; your genes are fine tuned to value those characteristics which will contribute to your reproductive success. In a sense each of us has a mate value, a combination of our genetic, social, and behavioral value to another person as a reproductive partner. This doesn't mean you are hard-wired to want just one type of person (society and your culture fine-tune these preferences) but the big picture is clear – we want people with a good mate value.

When partners appreciate each others mate value they invest in the relationship. In purely biological terms, this means foregoing other mating opportunities and investing your time, energy, and resources into a particular mate. But mate values change as we get older. If the value of both mates changes in step with one another, there isn't a problem. When they do not, there is trouble. It is not so much that the values have changed in some objective way, it is that one of the people in the relationship feels like their value is now higher than the other. Our instincts (and I use that term very loosely here) encourage us to seek out other partners when this happens. How do you know when this is happening? One or both of the partners investment in the relationship declines or stops altogether. They suddenly spend more time apart, they begin to sever emotional ties, and often they begin testing the waters for other mates.

It sounds like your sticking it out not because of an appreciation for your husband's genetic or behavioral qualities, but simply because of his social value (ie. his resources, insurance, etc..). It also sounds like your husband is taking steps to sever his ties with you, which are being expressed as abuse. The Darwinian question you must ask yourself is this – is this mate valuable enough to endure his abuse? I hope your answer is no. Do not dwell on the fact that you've been together for 23 years, since I'm willing to bet your relationship today is nothing like the one you had two decades ago. Ask yourself this: if money and insurance were not an issue, would I still be with this man? You are holding on to just one aspect of your husband's mate value (his social value) when in fact, his overall value may not be all that great.

By all means, do not throw good investment after bad. Call upon your social network and local health services to find the support that is making you dependent on the relationship. It is time for you to begin investing your time and energy elsewhere.

On Promiscuous Fish...

2010-05-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

It seems like it is less appealing in terms of dating to "play the field" if you're a woman. Is there a biological advantage to monogamy?

Enoch in Columbus

Evolution is all about getting as many copies of your genes into the next generation as possible through reproduction. Physical and behavioral qualities of individuals who successfully reproduce accumulate over time -- that's natural selection.

But just running around mating with as many partners as you can is not always the best way to accomplish this. Female mammals invest much more than a male does in reproduction. It is to their advantage not just to get pregnant, but also to find a male who will take on part of this burden. What does a male get from the partnership? The more he invests, the more likely he is to have access to that female exclusively. In very broad biological terms, monogamy insures additional resources for the female and sexual access for the male.

This is reflected in attitudes toward sexual promiscuity in our own species. While an unrestricted sexual identity is reported by males as a desirable quality in short term mates worldwide (see David Buss' "Evolution of Desire") it is an undesirable quality in a long-term mate. It turns out that men who are willing to invest heavily in a particular female want some assurance that she will stay faithful, and that they won't end up raising a child conceived from their mate's sexual liaison with another male. After all, if you want to "win" at evolution you should be investing in your own reproductive success and not that of your rivals. Choosing a female who demonstrates a restricted sexual identity is one means of doing this.

Ultimately, we have attached a great deal of moral and ethical baggage to the concept of monogamy, so much so that the biological advantages have become clouded. In Darwinian terms there is an advantage to monogamy when high parental investment is necessary. There is no advantage to monogamy when it is low, as with most fish. For fish, both sexes are better off playing the field.

Supermarket Dominance Hierarchies

2010-05-23T07:26:00.000-07:00

There is something that I've observed women do over the years, and I have never been able to decide if it is random and unintentional, or deliberate and calculated: unnecessarily large hand and head movements when they walk, and positioning themselves (for example, in a grocery store aisle) to take up as much space as feasible, seemingly unaware that there are other people around who they might be blocking, then being surprised and chatty with people who eventually want to get around them. Am I being a misogynist and looking for behavior I can complain about? Is the world women live in filled with petty plumage showing and infighting with random strangers? And if so, to what end?

Curtis in Columbus

As a social animal, most primates establish and maintain a social hierarchy, which is ultimately beneficial to the most dominant males and females because they get preferential access to food and mates (everyone else gets the leftovers). One way of demonstrating your position is with a display. Besides waving your arms and jumping around, many primates also get a piloerection -- their hair stands on end making them look bigger and more menacing. If you can make the display without anyone clobbering you, then you are at the top of the social order. Otherwise, somebody knocks you around and you are unlikely to try it again. Watch the Gorillas at a Zoo sometime and this becomes painfully clear.

Humans don't get piloerections, but we do use stances and postures to communicate emotional states and intent. Males put their shoulders back and extend their arms away from their body, making themselves appear bigger. Watch a man trying to pick up a woman in a bar sometime. He'll be standing as upright, chest out, and taking up as much space as possible. This not only communicates to the woman that he holds a dominant position within the social hierarchy, it also lets other males know that he (and the female he is with) are not to be messed with. Females do not compete for mates in this way, but I imagine that getting in the way of someone and taking up as much space as possible serves much of the same purpose; "Look at me! I'm better than you because I can get in your way and you can do nothing about it!" The fact that we interact with strangers so often is an aspect of our larger populations, but the urge to establish yourself within a social hierarchy is almost certainly genetic. We hardly ever see these strangers again, meaning that our attempts at dominance are viewed as nothing more than impolite behavior...

Of course, the response to this kind of behavior can range from a dirty look, to a shove, to getting blind sided in the head with an ashtray (something I observed first hand at a bar in Chicago). Our species may build Space Shuttles, but I suspect our obsession with social position remains the same as our primate cousins.

Go ahead, ask Demi Moore...

2010-05-18T15:09:00.000-07:00

So, I heard on the BBC the other day that men that marry younger women live longer, but women that marry younger men do not. What's up with that?

Brady in Columbus

Many of the differences in life expectancy between men and women reside in the function of hormones. The male sex hormone, testosterone, provides the anabolic effects that help males to increase body size and muscle mass so that they can compete effectively with other males and is strongly correlated with competitive behavior in humans. This works great when you're a young male, but later in life high levels of testosterone are associated with other less desirable effects like male pattern baldness, reduced immunocompetency, and cancer. Males experience a decline in testosterone production when they enter a long-term relationship and when co-habitating with children. So men who "hook up", regardless of their mates age, tend to live longer because of reduced testosterone. The same effect can be artificially induced in male mammals by castration. In evolutionary terms this is called antagonistic pleiotropy -- basically, things like high testosterone which benefit competition for mates and reproduction have damaging effects later in life.

While the exact reasons for why women who marry younger men tend not to live as long as women with partners of a similar age is not known, several explanations have been offered. One is that having a younger spouse imposes more psychological and physical stress which leads to increased mortality, while in men a younger partner reduces these stresses. Another is that while a younger spouse for a man provides beneficial support, women rely on other social connections for this type of assistance and receive no added benefit from a younger husband.

I would be interested to know if the women who are dating / marrying younger men have substantially elevated levels of certain sex hormones. Men tend to choose women with features that are correlated to fertility, and in some cases that means elevated levels of hormones like oestrogen. Elevated levels of oestrogens are correlated to, among other things, breast cancer. If the cause of death for many these women is cancer, and if the frequency of these cancers is significantly higher than the population as a whole, it is possible that what we are witnessing is sexual selection. As with most sexual selection, the quality that makes the individual attractive to a prospective partner does not necessarily benefit his or her longevity.

You can find an abstract of the original article at
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/demography/v047/47.2.drefahl.html

Male Sexual Liberation?

2010-05-16T08:29:00.000-07:00

How come no one ever confronted feminists/women and said "you women control which men will have sex or not, you women determine what men do/say/think, in life, because it's all in the service of impressing women and securing sex? it's men who need sexual liberation. it's men who are oppressed, sexually disadvantaged/underprivileged/deprived. Women control sex and they control men. How come men are afraid to speak out? They're already slaves to women, it can't get any worse.

Joe From Brooklyn

In a biological sense neither sex has a greater advantage than the other, since both are dependent on the other for reproduction. When the sex ratios are unequal a particular sex may be more in demand than the other and enjoys greater control over their reproductive choices. This has happened following major wars where the pool of available men has been significantly reduced. In these cases even men of poor physical quality and few resources are expected to be reproductively successful. Likewise in impoverished urban areas where the number of available men is low due to high mortality rates, incarceration, and migration, the few men who remain enjoy greater sexual freedom. This also occurs as your cohort (ie. people who are roughly your own age) reaches their late 30's and 40's and the pool of available men shrinks. Even women who once could pick and choose their mates often find themselves competing for a dwindling number of bachelors when they enter their 40's.

If you want to free yourself from the feeling of being enslaved to women the answer is simple: either transform yourself into an object of such high mate value that women will compete for you, or go somewhere that has a high ratio of females to males. For instance, Kiev in Ukraine is reported to have a population which is 54% female. If you want to stay in the US, Gary Indiana (as of the 2000 Census) has a ratio of just 84.6 males to every 100 females, and Philadelphia, PA is not far behind at 85.7 males for every 100 females. In a purely biological sense your prospects should be much better in one of these areas than in or around NYC, where the ratio is almost even.

Welcome to Darwinian Dating!

2010-05-11T09:20:00.000-07:00

The purpose of this blog is to apply the principles of Evolutionary Biology to relationship problems. The majority of relationship problems reside in biology, and so to do the solutions to these problems. Our ancestors did not have the luxury of self-help books and advice columns to help them find a suitable mate and keep them -- they had to get it right the first time! The advice that I offer is not based on pop psychology, anecdotal evidence or Dr. Phil. It is based on Darwin.

Whether or not you plan to reproduce, your genes predispose you to finding mates most beneficial to your reproductive success as attractive. We are attracted not just to physical qualities associated with fertility, but to social and behavioural traits most likely to ensure our genetic posterity.

It sounds simple, but we often ignore these signals. Have you ever had the feeling deep in the pit of your stomach that something was just not right about a boyfriend or girlfriend, later to realize when the relationship disintegrated that you might have been spared a great deal of emotional distress had you just followed your gut? Evolutionary Biology can not only help us to find the right mate, it can also help us to keep them. It can also help us to avoid many of the painful consequences that come from modern dating.

Send your relationship questions to darwiniandating@ckevinbarrett.com