"Falling in Love" according to an evolutionary psychologist:

[jennylove]

Thanks!! Looking forward to listening to his PC tomorrow.

[SherrySher]

But even if a man who is an 8 and goes with a 6 happens to be lazy and that's why he went for a 6, how can he actually be satisfied or happy? Seems to me that not only for a man but a woman too in this position that if they 'downgrade' for whatever reason, they will never truly be happy and satisfied. I also imagine in that situation that should an 8 come along and come onto this person that whether they were with the 6 for years, they would be out the door in two seconds, no? Or perhaps they might still feel threatened by the other 8's so they would only have a short term mating thing?

Hate to say it, but they would stay with the 6 because it's safe and they'd know that there aren't going anywhere seeing as they feel 'above' them, I should imagine.

[SherrySher]

In another scenario too, what happens in the case that a person might be a 5 due to say being not very healthy, weight issues or so on. (not meaning to offend anyone just talking evolutionary here) or they weren't doing anything with their life and brought nothing to the table. They had a partner but the partner felt they didn't have much value any longer so they break up.

Down the line, this dumpee decides to lose all the excess weight and also learns skills, get s a good career and is much more successful. Would they have a better chance now at getting their mate to return to them? Or would it still be a tough go seeing as the mate would remember how difficult it was with them the first time and feel it was too risky?

Just curious.

[Krankor]

But even if a man who is an 8 and goes with a 6 happens to be lazy and that's why he went for a 6, how can he actually be satisfied or happy? .

 

Well, I would imagine that our 8 male with the 6 female would probably prefer at least another 8. He'd also probably prefer a more prominent career and a less messy house. However, his laziness is so strong that it prevents any of that from happening. But he accepts an average-looking partner, a mediocre job (if he even has one) and a messy house because his laziness won't allow anything higher.

 

If another 8 came on to him it would probably be because she sees him as a 9. In that case, he may wander, or he may not. Despite his laziness, he may be kind enough in his nature that he doesn't want to hurt his partner. But if he does wander his partner will likely forgive him since she's getting since a screaming good deal appearance wise. And it likely won't last with the other 8 once she realizes how little he has to offer. Besides that he's likely to spend his free time at home with his feet kicked up watching the game, and not even putting himself in a situations in which he'd meet other women.

[SherrySher]

This really is so sincerely interesting to me and makes a lot of sense in so many scenarios.

[Krankor]

In another scenario too, what happens in the case that a person might be a 5 due to say being not very healthy, weight issues or so on. (not meaning to offend anyone just talking evolutionary here) or they weren't doing anything with their life and brought nothing to the table. They had a partner but the partner felt they didn't have much value any longer so they break up.

Down the line, this dumpee decides to lose all the excess weight and also learns skills, get s a good career and is much more successful. Would they have a better chance now at getting their mate to return to them? Or would it still be a tough go seeing as the mate would remember how difficult it was with them the first time and feel it was too risky?

Just curious.

Well Dr. Lisle does talk about how in our modern world with an abundance of artificially rich food so many people are overweight that a woman who's maybe a 5 can become functionally a 6 or even a 7 by simply getting into really good shape.

 

As for the rest; that's a really interesting question that I don't know the answer to; you should email the show with it because I'd love to hear Dr. Lisle's answer.

[jennylove]

Thank you for posting about this!! I love Psychology and I find this fascinating, and it's definitely making sense when I look at my past relationships. I guess the trick will be figuring out how what number my next SO views me as and what number he views himself as. Hmmmm.

[jennylove]

If anyone is interested, I found Dr. Lisle's website: esteemdynamics.org

[thealchemist]

As a guy in a loving long lasting relationship I can't imagine a guy in one ever cheating. I know of lots of guys that have cheated and none were truly happy. They just put on a show.

 

Saying that guys who are in a relationship on par with mine but might still stray is ludicrous. I think that whatever study the findings are based on is skewed by simply males being dishonest. I hear a lot of excuses like " I really love you I just messed up". I think that is just the person trying to convince themselves.

 

I would not forgive any affair whether physical or emotional and neither would me wife. I've been extremely inebriated and had some very forward woman approach me and in no uncertain(or polite) words did I tell her where she could go.

 

I think that it is very hard to analyze this information because so many people lie even to themselves about it.

 

If you are seeking something from another it is because of a deficit in your relationship. Or you are just not capable of a real relationship.

[jennylove]

As a guy in a loving long lasting relationship I can't imagine a guy in one ever cheating. I know of lots of guys that have cheated and none were truly happy. They just put on a show.

 

Saying that guys who are in a relationship on par with mine but might still stray is ludicrous. I think that whatever study the findings are based on is skewed by simply males being dishonest. I hear a lot of excuses like " I really love you I just messed up". I think that is just the person trying to convince themselves.

 

I would not forgive any affair whether physical or emotional and neither would me wife. I've been extremely inebriated and had some very forward woman approach me and in no uncertain(or polite) words did I tell her where she could go.

 

I think that it is very hard to analyze this information because so many people lie even to themselves about it.

 

If you are seeking something from another it is because of a deficit in your relationship. Or you are just not capable of a real relationship.

 

Yeah, the part about, for example, a 7 guy who is with a 7 or 8 woman may stray with a 5 or 6 woman doesn't seem right to me. But then again, look at some high profile celebreties who cheat on their high profile spouse with someone at the bottom of the numerical line in careeer and looks.

[Krankor]

As a guy in a loving long lasting relationship I can't imagine a guy in one ever cheating. I know of lots of guys that have cheated and none were truly happy. They just put on a show.

 

Saying that guys who are in a relationship on par with mine but might still stray is ludicrous. I think that whatever study the findings are based on is skewed by simply males being dishonest. I hear a lot of excuses like " I really love you I just messed up". I think that is just the person trying to convince themselves.

 

I would not forgive any affair whether physical or emotional and neither would me wife. I've been extremely inebriated and had some very forward woman approach me and in no uncertain(or polite) words did I tell her where she could go.

 

I think that it is very hard to analyze this information because so many people lie even to themselves about it.

 

If you are seeking something from another it is because of a deficit in your relationship. Or you are just not capable of a real relationship.

Well, marriage is a social construct that really wasn't a thing in the stone age. You were born with a mating chip in your brain but you weren't born with a marriage chip. In the stone age, people would pair-bond for a time, those relationships would run their course, and then they'd move on.

 

Then, about 10,000 years ago people discovered agriculture and suddenly it was a whole new ballgame. Now, people were beginning to accumulate wealth. People started building permanent settlements. Societies became far larger and more complex. Suddenly, to stabilize society and to protect wealth and ensure that it got handed down properly it became a good idea to make pair-bonds permanent amd enforced by law and religion.

 

So, this isn't quite natural for people. It's SORT OF natural because we do pair bond but it's not completely natural. 20,000 years ago when Grok's pair-bond was no longer working for him he'd just say "See ya. It was good times but I gotta go." Today, for his great × 30 grandchildren it's not always that easy. They are tied in financially, tied in by children, tied in by their church and friends and families telling them to stick it out, work on their communication, etc. But they aren't happy because they are running a cost/benefit analysis and the benefits are coming up short relative to the costs, and this causes all kinds of strife.

 

But that's not to say that marriages can't be happy and last. It also doesn't mean that men are either destined to cheat or are chomping at the bit to but are just managing to white knuckle it. If you're someone who feels as if you got a good deal with your partner, is naturally pretty conscientious, and isn't naturally very novelty seeking then it's easy to see how you'd stay happy and wouldn't stray. I don't think it's necessarily because you have greater knowledge of how to do relationships--although that may be true--I just think it's a naturally good fit for you.

 

However, happy men do sometimes stray a bit. You were born with your personality. You were born with a certain amount of conscientiousness and a certain amount of novelty-seeking. You may be able to move the needle a tiny bit with work but not much. So you take a guy with a little less conscientiousness and a bit more of a novelty-seeking drive and he may well end up wandering and then begging for his wife's forgiveness because he does still love her. This isn't at all uncommon.

[thealchemist]

I love history and anthropology books. I have admittedly never read a relationship based one though. But a lot of anthropologists disagree about pair bonding being as temporary as that.

 

Most of the human population was still thought to be in small tribal bands in pre horticultural society. So if you were in a band of 15 to 80 people you didn't just up and leave very often. If you did you got killed. In a band like that certain pairing structures arose to help keep the peace.

 

Obviously marriage is a social construct. In those bands typically a head male would get first pick of a mate, but there was a structure there. Look at every other higher primate and they do similar things.

 

But as far as males in today's society, it is just about controlling yourself. If you can't then you can't. That doesn't excuse it though. Ill try to look it up to site it for you, but chemically the most promiscuous state for cheating is a female in a extremely reliable relationship. Did a paper on it for anthropology. They did a meta study and females with a reliable mate are chemically induced to promiscuity. They hypothesis that it is just a evoluationary adaption to introduce fresh genes in their line.

[Krankor]

I love history and anthropology books. I have admittedly never read a relationship based one though. But a lot of anthropologists disagree about pair bonding being as temporary as that.

 

Most of the human population was still thought to be in small tribal bands in pre horticultural society. So if you were in a band of 15 to 80 people you didn't just up and leave very often. If you did you got killed. In a band like that certain pairing structures arose to help keep the peace.

 

Obviously marriage is a social construct. In those bands typically a head male would get first pick of a mate, but there was a structure there. Look at every other higher primate and they do similar things.

 

But as far as males in today's society, it is just about controlling yourself. If you can't then you can't. That doesn't excuse it though. Ill try to look it up to site it for you, but chemically the most promiscuous state for cheating is a female in a extremely reliable relationship. Did a paper on it for anthropology. They did a meta study and females with a reliable mate are chemically induced to promiscuity. They hypothesis that it is just a evoluationary adaption to introduce fresh genes in their line.

Well, it's possible that I've oversimplified things a bit, and I'm definitely speaking in generalities.

 

So you are saying that females with a reliable male are more likely to cheat, or did I misunderstand? That's very interesting.

[thealchemist]

I was just saying that they did a study looking at a lot of studies and females in those relationships have the chemicals in they brain that make them more likely too. They also have the brain activities that go along with it.

 

It is still a choice. They just have mother nature pushing them towards it more than any other group of people.

[Queenmarie24]

I was just saying that they did a study looking at a lot of studies and females in those relationships have the chemicals in they brain that make them more likely too. They also have the brain activities that go along with it.

 

It is still a choice. They just have mother nature pushing them towards it more than any other group of people.

So your saying females will cheat in reliable relationships or males would?

[thealchemist]

So your saying females will cheat in reliable relationships or males would?

Anyone can cheat for any reason in a relationship. I'm saying that a women with a very committed man has a higher biological urge that any other test group for this experiment. They just look at brain activity and chemicals in your blood.

 

The choice always comes down to the individual. I'm not saying anyone will or will not at a higher rate. I'm saying the way scientists look at arousal and biological signals implies that woman in a committed relationship have more of those than any other subset of people.

 

That doesn't imply anything about what actually will happen. Just biological signals and urges point to them as the most biologically potentially promiscuous set of people.

 

It does have a good evolutionary reason though. If a women can get new genes mixed with theirs and have a responsible male take care of them then that is a darwinist "win-win" situation for the woman.

[Seraphim]

The whole issue with purely evolutionary theories is they leave out one's ability as a moral agent.

[thealchemist]

The whole issue with purely evolutionary theories is they leave out one's ability as a moral agent.

Exactly. I'm not trying to say ANYTHING about a group of people in reference to their choice. I'm just talking about a slight "push" towards something, biologically only. The choice always remains with the individual.

 

I stated this in opposition of the OPs line that men can truly love a woman and still cheat on them. I'm saying woman have the superior "push" towards cheating under those circumstances. Yet woman with a very stable husband are not the ones that do the act the most. Implying that reason and logic can overrule biology.

 

This is a very scholarly topic. Not a ton of real world relevance to apply to an individual's daily life. But I really like these kinds of discussions.

[Sportster2005]

Brilliant, mutual attraction is the key. Who would of thunk it.

[thealchemist]

Brilliant, mutual attraction is the key. Who would of thunk it.

If that is all you took from the OPs words I doubt you "thunk" much about it.

[Krankor]

Brilliant, mutual attraction is the key. Who would of thunk it.

 

Yes, that's the absolute only takeaway.

[Krankor]

The whole issue with purely evolutionary theories is they leave out one's ability as a moral agent.

Well, I would disagree, but I understand what you are saying. It does sort of seem to say that humans are just animals driven by instinct who are going to do what they are going to do. But I see it more as trying to understand why people do what they do and what forces are tugging at our sleeves.

 

Example: let's say you have a 35-year-old woman who is 100 pounds overweight. Despite knowing that she needs to stop chronically overeating she just can't seem to get a handle on it. She goes and talks to a psychotherapist and it comes out that she had emotionally distant, cold parents. So the psychotherapist concludes that she is eating to "fill that hole." Not only that, but it turns out she was sexually abused by a neighbor when she was 6. Well OK, she is eating to mask the bad feelings from that trauma. So she does therapy, works through those issues (which I'm not saying there is no value in) but she really hasn't lost her cravings for chocolate cake and Taco Bell.

 

In the next town over is another 35-year-old woman who is 100 pounds overweight. But she had an absolutely stellar childhood with wonderful parents and she was popular all through school and was actually the prom queen. And yet she still has the same weight and resultant self-esteem issues. But how can this be?

 

Because both women live in the same environment, and they both have the same genes screaming at them to eat the richest food in the environment. Rats will literally eat themselves to death when offered an unlimited supply of overly rich food, and humans are no different.

 

So both women talk to Doug Lisle, and he advises them about the difference in calorie density between whole, natural foods and overly rich processed foods, what they are up against vis a vis their genes and the modern environment, how to get their own environments right, etc. Now, they are both able to get a handle on the situation.

 

To me, this is just one example of the value of evo-psych.

[figureitout23]

 

It would weirdly almost make it worse to know that it was nothing more than physical attraction. Frankly, she'd be damaged goods to me after that point. To me, it happened, and it can't be undone.

 

 

First off all. I've been following this thread and it's being very interesting to me.

 

Second Krankor, may I ask about this 'damaged goods' concept. Are you saying the amount of men a women has sex with men or the kind of sex, lessens her value? I'm not asking in an accusatory manner. Just curious what your honest answer is. I think as far advanced as we as a society want to claim we are when it comes to sex,we simply aren't. The amount of times I still hear, 'She's a hoe' or ' you can't make a hoe into a housewife' or ' I can't take her seriously she slept with me too soon' all these ideas that mean women must... be more chaste, less the man thinks less of her. What's your thoughts on that?

[Seraphim]

Well, I would disagree, but I understand what you are saying. It does sort of seem to say that humans are just animals driven by instinct who are going to do what they are going to do. But I see it more as trying to understand why people do what they do and what forces are tugging at our sleeves.

 

Example: let's say you have a 35-year-old woman who is 100 pounds overweight. Despite knowing that she needs to stop chronically overeating she just can't seem to get a handle on it. She goes and talks to a psychotherapist and it comes out that she had emotionally distant, cold parents. So the psychotherapist concludes that she is eating to "fill that hole." Not only that, but it turns out she was sexually abused by a neighbor when she was 6. Well OK, she is eating to mask the bad feelings from that trauma. So she does therapy, works through those issues (which I'm not saying there is no value in) but she really hasn't lost her cravings for chocolate cake and Taco Bell.

 

In the next town over is another 35-year-old woman who is 100 pounds overweight. But she had an absolutely stellar childhood with wonderful parents and she was popular all through school and was actually the prom queen. And yet she still has the same weight and resultant self-esteem issues. But how can this be?

 

Because both women live in the same environment, and they both have the same genes screaming at them to eat the richest food in the environment. Rats will literally eat themselves to death when offered an unlimited supply of overly rich food, and humans are no different.

 

So both women talk to Doug Lisle, and he advises them about the difference in calorie density between whole, natural foods and overly rich processed foods, what they are up against vis a vis their genes and the modern environment, how to get their own environments right, etc. Now, they are both able to get a handle on the situation.

 

To me, this is just one example of the value of evo-psych.

 

Uh,no. Just because you know the nutritional contents of food and what is good food to eat and what is not doesn't mean that you're going to do that .

[thealchemist]

First off all. I've been following this thread and it's being very interesting to me.

 

Second Krankor, may I ask about this 'damaged goods' concept. Are you saying the amount of men a women has sex with men or the kind of sex, lessens her value? I'm not asking in an accusatory manner. Just curious what your honest answer is. I think as far advanced as we as a society want to claim we are when it comes to sex,we simply aren't. The amount of times I still hear, 'She's a hoe' or ' you can't make a hoe into a housewife' or ' I can't take her seriously she slept with me too soon' all these ideas that mean women must... be more chaste, less the man thinks less of her. What's your thoughts on that?

I'm not krankor but I do think numbers that an individual sleeps with matters. Not on any personal level of their quality but as far as a potential mate.

 

Just to be honest. I really wouldn't consider a relationship with a person who has had a large amount of sex outside a serious relationship. I'm a serial monogonist and someone outside of that kind of type I would find off putting.

 

I have great friends that have very different views and habits on this subject. They are my friends but I wouldn't ever consider them as a prospective mate. I don't think less of them as friends but I would never engage in any romantic activities with someone like that.

 

Also, it is my firm believe if you have sex with someone you set them as your equal. So any negative associations of that person are now applicable to you.

 

I would only associate a negative to a person engaging in sexual activity if it is willfully and knowingly destructive. Like someone cheating or such. Then I wouldn't verbalize my opinion. Most likely just not associate with that individual anymore.

 

Just to clarify I am a male.