Challenging Evolutionary Psychology: The Fading Consensus of Attractiveness and the Power of Idiosyncratic Relationships with Dr. Paul Eastwick

This podcast episode features Dr. Paul Eastwick, a scholar of close relationships, who presents a nuanced critique of traditional evolutionary psychology (EP) perspectives on human mating. Eastwick argues that EP often overestimates the importance of concepts like mate value, gender differences in mating, and the distinction between short-term and long-term mating. Instead, he advocates for a 'relationship science' view that emphasizes attachment, compatibility, and the formation of relationships through sustained social networks rather than competitive 'mating markets'. He posits that the idea of a universal consensus on attractiveness, while present in initial encounters among strangers (e.g., online dating or bars), significantly diminishes over time as individuals get to know each other.

Dr. Eastwick elaborates on how initial agreement on who is 'hot or not' fades from around 70-75% among strangers to as low as 53% among long-term friends and acquaintances. This divergence occurs because, with repeated interaction, some individuals become more appealing to a specific person due to factors like humor or shared experiences, while others become less so. This idiosyncratic attraction allows for stable, committed relationships to form between individuals who might not be considered 'matched' in terms of initial mate value by external observers. He highlights the 'office plus two' phenomenon as an example where repeated exposure can elevate perceived attractiveness.

From a practical standpoint, Eastwick suggests that the modern dating environment, particularly online dating, exacerbates romantic inequality by prioritizing immediate, consensus-driven attractiveness. He advises against solely focusing on self-improvement to increase 'mate value' and instead encourages people to engage in activities that foster repeated, organic interactions, such as joining sports leagues, taking classes, or participating in community groups. These environments provide opportunities for idiosyncratic attraction to develop, giving more people a chance to form meaningful connections beyond superficial initial judgments.

The broader implications of Eastwick's perspective challenge the notion that mating success is about securing the 'most desirable' partner. He argues that mismatched couples (e.g., an 'eight' and a 'five' in terms of initial attractiveness) are just as likely to be stable and satisfied as 'matched' couples (e.g., two 'sevens'). This stability is maintained by 'motivated biases' that come online once a relationship forms, where partners genuinely believe their significant other is more wonderful than others, regardless of external opinions. Ultimately, mating success, from this relationship science view, is about forming an interdependent relationship effective at raising offspring, rather than a competitive pursuit of the highest-value mate.

"I think that's fair. I am not using the standard like this is not a standard nature nurture thing. Uh that's not where I'm coming from. I'm coming from a place of actually there's a different way of talking about human nature, a different way of talking about the way that humans evolve to form relationships that I think is kind of missing out there."

"I think it overestimates a few things. It exaggerates some features of human mating. And it's only in a few cases where I'm like, 'Oh, it's totally off the mark.' But I think there's a big emphasis on things like mate value, the idea that some people are more desirable than others. there's an emphasis on gender differences, right? Like men and women are really, really different in the mating realm. I also think there's this emphasis on like the short-term versus long-term mating distinction and like some people are good at one or the other."

"I think the mating market, it's a way of thinking about how humans form relationships like it's a competition, right?"

"But what we find through a lot of our research is that that period of time, that uh segment of what it's like to form a relationship is actually kind of short-lived, especially if people are getting to know other people in groups over time."

"If I do these studies among like friends and acquaintances who've known each other for months or years, they're agreeing like 53% of the time about who's hot and who's not, about who you'd want to date and who you wouldn't want to date. It's sort of shocking, but it makes sense when you realize a couple things. Once we get to know people over time, what happens is that some people seem more appealing to us as we get to know them, right?"

"I think it is really really lucky that people do this because what this means is that okay I'm a six. I'm not going to date a 10. Ah but I might get to date somebody who I think is a 10 and maybe hope you know she might be a six too but she thinks I'm a 10. And that's where the magic is. That's how people form stable committed relationships because they're able to get in a relationship where they aren't really thinking that much about trading up cuz they think they won the lottery even if other people don't agree."

"I mean I don't know like like join a sports league uh inter mural sports league you know t take a couple of dance classes or a couple of cooking classes things where you would get to meet people over time. These things pull for that idiosyncrasy and gives more people opportunities. And I think that's the thing that we've kind of lost a bit in our like you know online dating deluge."

"There is no indication whatsoever that the eight and the five are going to break up sooner, be more miserable, be more likely to cheat relative to the seven and the seven. It doesn't predict a thing."

"What ends up happening is that in order to sustain any kind of relationship, a whole bunch of motivated biases have to come online. Okay? If they don't come online, the relationship is not going to last."

"It's like we overindexed on like, oh, mating success was getting with the most desirable people. Instead, we could think about mating success was about forming an interdependent relationship that was effective at raising these extremely costly offspring."