Dating Apps Can’t Predict Your Love Life | The Happiness Lab podcast

Key Takeaway

Forget the myth of 'mate value' - the idea that you're destined to date only people at your attractiveness level. Research shows romantic compatibility is less about matching on paper and more about 'creative chaos' - building connection through repeated interactions over time. The most actionable insight: Give potential partners 2-3 chances instead of dismissing them after one coffee date. Compatibility often emerges through serendipitous moments that build on each other, not instant chemistry.

Episode Overview

Dr. Paul Eastwick, author of 'Bonded by Evolution,' challenges popular myths about dating and attraction, particularly the concept of 'mate value' that dominates online dating culture. The episode debunks three major misconceptions: (1) the existence of universal mate value rankings, (2) significant gender differences in what men and women want, and (3) the trade-off between short-term and long-term desirability. Instead, research shows that romantic compatibility is primarily built through 'creative chaos' - serendipitous interactions that compound over time. The discussion reveals why similarity and algorithmic matching fail to predict relationship success, and offers evidence-based advice for modern daters navigating apps and online platforms.

Full Transcript

Transcript of Dating Apps Can’t Predict Your Love Life | The Happiness Lab podcast from The Happiness Lab. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

As William Shakespeare once said, "The course of true love never did run smooth." And one of the unsmoothest parts of love is the initial attraction phase. You see somebody across the way who looks kind of cute, but will that person like you back? Will they think you're hot enough, smart enough, successful enough? Sometimes the answer is yes. Cue all the hearts and fireworks. fireworks. fireworks. But at least some of the time the answer is no. The person that you're into isn't that into you. Relationships and attraction especially, there can be a lot of rejection.

It can be pretty demoralizing. And to some extent, you can't skip that part. But I think it really matters. Why was I rejected in this instance? This is Dr. Paul Eastwick, an expert on the psychology of human mating. And there's a whole set of ideas out there that suggest that you got rejected because you're a three out of 10. And you're just going to need to settle for the other threes. Paul is referring to a set of ideas he calls the Evoscript. The notion that human attraction boils down to the harsh laws of natural selection.

Under the Evoscript, finding the right partner is all about finding someone with good genes. genes. genes. Some of us, those so-called nines and tens out there, possess a whole host of traits that signal those good genes. The rest of us, not so much. You have a certain set of attributes. They characterize who you are, and they determine what you're going to get on the market. This is a set of ideas that got very, very popular, but honestly, it's not very inspiring. You do kind of just wonder like, what am I doing wrong?

What is wrong with me? And boy, it makes the rejections hit that much harder. But Paul's joining me on the show today to share some good news. His research has found that when it comes to dating, many of these evoscript ideas simply don't hold up. In fact, he's just published a new book with a much more inspiring view on the evolutionary origins of love. It's called Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection. It's about a lot of the ideas that we kind of get wrong about attraction and relationships and what the science actually says about how relationships work.

relationships work. relationships work. But what does the science say about how relationships actually work? Well, Paul will tell us after these quick messages from our sponsors. Social psychologist Paul Eastwick has long been frustrated by what he's called the Evoscript. The idea that human mating can simply be boiled down to a set of harsh evolutionary rules that govern who and what we find attractive. And perhaps the most infamous Evoscript notion in popular culture today is the concept of mate value. I asked Paul to explain how the idea is usually understood.

You're a collection of attributes, skills, and abilities. And it can be a bunch of things. It can be your attractiveness, of course. It can be your intelligence. Anything that's going to make you desirable to the other gender, if we're assuming heterosexuality here, right? So, for men, it might be things like earning potential and status. For women, it might be things like youth. But all of these things factor into your mate value. And your mate value should set your standards according to this worldview. You should be trying to figure out where you sit in this hierarchy because you're probably going to be able to date somebody else who's roughly at the same place that you are.

I think some of these ideas feel intuitive if you think about like popularity in a high school. There's this very famous game that psychologists often play in their classes where people wear numbers on their foreheads indicating their value, but you don't know what your value is. And you're told to go around and try to pair up with the highest value partner you can get. And what you see is that people who have low numbers, they figure it out pretty quickly because nobody wants to go near them.

them. them. Cuz idea is I'm walking around with a three, but I can't see my three. I'm like, "Ooh, let me go with the nine or the 10." And the nine or 10 is like, "No way." Runs away from me. Right. Absolutely not. And the two that you were avoiding at first, well, eventually you settle for that guy because it's about the best that you can do. do. do. I mean, this is the kind of thing we see on the internet all the time. I know there's like a new meme going around that's like she's a nine but she chews with her mouth open.

Literally giving these things a number. This is so pervasive on the internet. It's a little bit wild. And so why did we think this was true scientifically? I know there's a phenomena that researchers looked at to say oh maybe there is a mate value. Scientifically originally this idea comes from two places. One is that if you show people photographs or they meet strangers, there's pretty good agreement about let's say how attractive somebody is. It's not perfect, but it's certainly there. And the second place we saw it is that if you look at existing couples, if you look at couples who are together, their attractiveness level correlates.

It's far from a perfect correlation, but it's more than a coin flip. So, there's a real association there. And so people assumed, well, what that means is that the market is the thing that's determining largely who we're getting. But I think it also comes from the online dating landscape. So talk about how like these apps really reinforce these ideas. these ideas. these ideas. When you look at online dating, when you look at the apps, they do create a very unequal market when all you've got is a photo and a brief description to go with.

Yeah. People are swiping quickly. And the attractive people, the people with the high value attributes, boy, do they earn a lot of likes. And if you don't have those attributes, nobody is going to be swiping right on you. And the problem there is that it creates this very, very imbalanced market where there's a whole bunch of people who really have no options. And in your book, you talk about this new model that folks have been pushing lately where like this mate values part of it, but not all of it.

So explain this model. this model. this model. Yeah. Oh, this is so key. I've got to shout out Dave Kenny who really came up with this idea originally, but the idea works like this. Attraction is not one thing, it's three. And one of those three parts is what we could call popularity, but it rests on the assumption that we agree how desirable somebody is. There are two other components. One we'd call selectivity. It's the idea that some people are always open to forming a new relationship.

Other people are extremely selective. But I got to talk about the third component. This third component is what we call compatibility. It refers to what's going on above and beyond how selective I generally am and how desirable you actually are and refers to the unique connection between the two of us. Even in initial impressions, compatibility is the biggest share of what's going on. One of the things I was shocked by was that even this idea of the consensus part, like how much we agree on the mate value if there is one, that wasn't actually as high as people thought.

Explain some of the studies that showed that it's not as big as we assume. There was this great study a little while ago that tried to capture how much agreement and disagreement there was when people were evaluating faces, right? How attractive do you think these faces are? And what they found is that yes, there is agreement here, but also look at how much disagreement. And the great stat in that study is that most of the faces that these participants were evaluating, it was like 96% of them, somebody rated you in the top half or in the bottom half.

Okay? So that means that only for 4% of the phases did everybody agree that you're on the top half or the bottom half. But that is mostly disagreement there. I mean, it's just that somebody thinks you're not half bad. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. And if you are consensually popular, not everybody thinks that. thinks that. thinks that. Okay. So, that's one problem with this mate value idea. Another one is something you found when you look particularly at the timing of romantic relationships. How does that challenge this idea of mate value?

Yeah. I mean, it's one thing if you're looking at photographs and meeting strangers, but it's another thing entirely when you're getting to know people over time. And I just got to point out, historically, this is where most relationships came from. When we were evolving on the savannah, we lived in small groups with a lot of people that you were going to know for a long period of time. You weren't going to spend a lot of time meeting strangers. So, what happens when we actually get to know each other?

It turns out that compatibility component I was describing earlier, it gets more and more important. There's more of that unique idiosyncrasy and how people feel about each other. And the consensus component goes down. So we actually agree less and less about how appealing someone is as we get to know them over a period of weeks and months. Now predicts this really interesting thing which is that people who might have been lucking out because they were really high on the mate value the nines and tens over time attractiveness gets less important it seems like.

seems like. seems like. Exactly. I like to think about summer camp I'm like from the east coast of the United States originally. So you know summer camp is in my DNA. And if you imagine a bunch of heterosexual mixed gender kids going to a summer camp. What's going to happen in June is that the popular people, well, everybody will agree that they're popular and they'll have a lot of success. But as all these folks get to know each other and agreement goes down by the end of the summer, anything can happen.

Now it's like, well, the popular people, they're not having the same success with everybody that they once had. and the people who were consensually not so attractive at the beginning, well maybe now there's somebody who has really taken a liking to them that they might not have been able to successfully attract in June. So that's idea number one that's wrong that there's this inherent built-in mate value. value. value. A second one that you've talked about is this idea of gender differences and how we look for mates.

There's things that especially in heterosexual couples that women want and there's things that guys want. want. want. What's the typical idea and what is it getting wrong? I do think it's predicated on the idea that men and women want really different things out of relationships and they're attracted to really different things. The classic studies in this space ask men and women what kinds of attributes they want in a romantic partner. So men are likely to say that they care about attractiveness in a partner more than women.

And women are likely to say that they care about things like earning potential in a partner more than men. And when you give people rating scales and you say rate these traits, how good are they? You will reliably find those gender differences across many many countries throughout the world. This also seems to mirror the kind of thing we see in pop culture. I know you and I are children of the '9s. And I watched, you know, model Anna Nicole Smith marry some very rich billionaire who himself was not that attractive.

It also seems to play out in some icky ways in online spaces in ways that are really problematic. Yeah. So, there's a whole tradife culture online. Part of the tradife idea is that there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a homemaker and a child caretaker. And look, I get that people should get to make their own choices. But that's not the only thing that's in this ideology. What is very much in there is your beauty will translate into his success. So you need to be attractive, be appealing, be feminine in the traditional sense of the word so that you can land the right kind of provider.

I mean some of these ideas about the differences between men and women get supercharged online and infused with a lot of nastiness. So, not only are women out to land the most successful man that she can get, but if you're going to be like a useful stepping stone to her along the way, I mean, it creates a lot of competitive us versus them ideas about what men and women are like and really promotes a lot of misogyny. of misogyny. of misogyny. And so, these original ideas about these gender differences were based on these surveys, but new results have used a technique that's not a survey.

New results have used revealed preferences. So what are revealed preferences and why are they better than these surveys? So the concept of the revealed preference is that look, I'm I'm not going to ask you what you think about these attributes in the abstract disconnected from any particular person. I want to see how you react to an attribute like earning potential as it is instantiated by specific other people. And we would do this using speed dating designs. This is just one way to do it, but I think it's the easiest one for folks to grasp.

So, let's say I send you to a speed dating event and you're going to meet a bunch of other men at this speed dating event, some of whom are ambitious and some of whom are not. So, rather than asking you how much do you want ambition in a partner, I'm going to see how much do you like the ambitious guys more than the unambitious guys. That's your revealed preference for ambition in an initial attraction context. context. context. And so what do we find when we really give people actual humans to choose from?

from? from? If you uh send women speed dating, they do like the ambitious men a little bit more, not a lot more, but a little bit more than the unambitious ones. The fascinating thing is what happens when you do the same thing with men. Again, men say they care about ambition and a partner less than women do, but not when it comes to their revealed preferences. They like the ambitious women a little bit more than the unambitious ones. But the revealed preference for men and women for an attribute like ambition is really exactly the same.

Okay, so that's ambition. What about attractiveness? attractiveness? attractiveness? People's revealed preference for attractiveness at a speed dating event is strong. They like the attractive people more than the unattractive people. That's this consensus component that we talked about. Men like the attractive women more than the unattractive women on average, but women also like the attractive men more than the unattractive men on average. And again, their revealed preference is the same. So this really queued us into the possibility that wo maybe when we look at these differences and what men and women say they want, they're not translating into their experienced preferences when they're out there meeting real life people.

So that was scientific alleged factoid number two that we're getting wrong gender differences. The third one is about different kinds of relationships or the length of different kinds of relationships. Evolutionary science has a lot to say about who's good for a short-term mate versus a long-term mate. What does the science usually say and how is that wrong? This distinction is tricky because there's a tendency to think that if you're like a long-term specialist, people aren't going to be attracted to you in a sexy way. And maybe even more pernitious if you're somebody who's pretty sexy and you've had a few sexual partners in your past that you won't be as good in the long-term realm.

As if people reside on like a slider between short-term desiraability and long-term desiraability. And you kind of got to pick which one fits your skills and abilities. And so the idea is like for a heterosexual woman, there are these guys who are the like super hot guys that you might want to have a one night stand with and then there the very sensitive guy who you might want to have a long-term relationship with. But just like the other ideas of mate value, there's a kind of romantic destiny built in there.

You're either going to be a short-term mate or a long-term one. That's tough on both types of guys. So, first of all, the sexy one, like he's not worth considering for a long-term relationship, but also these supposed long-term guys, they're like not appreciated at all for anything sexual. This sounds terrible on both fronts. It also seems to be another thing that leads to a lot of misogyny online. Explain how this third idea gets picked up in online spaces. So, this got turned into a whole bunch of terms online.

And I mean, people have maybe heard the terms alpha and beta, where alpha refers to the sexually desirable guy who supposedly has all the sexual opportunities and the betas who kind of wait around for, you know, maybe they try some nice guy routines. They might try to gain a little bit of status, a little bit of money, but that's about the best that they can do. And they kind of got to wait for the alpha guy to decide which are the women that he wants and you know they'll pick up the rest.

And so what does this third idea get right and what is it really getting wrong about how real relationships work? It gets one thing right which is that attributes like being sexy and confident are associated with having more sex partners with people being sexually interested in you. And it kind of stops there. there. there. That's about it. Pretty much everything else about this idea is way off base, including and especially the idea that something about a person's short-term desiraability has anything to do at all with their long-term desiraability.

These ideas have been out there for a long time, like, oh, if you have a longer sexual resume when you're younger, you're more likely to get divorced or your marriage is going to be bad. Your desiraability as a short-term partner really has no bearing one way or the other on how you're going to do in the long term. So, it turns out that many many sciency sounding ideas about love and attraction, that stuff that influencers online often use to make sense of relationships, they just don't match what the relationship science really shows.

But humans are the product of natural selection. So, what does evolutionary science really predict about relationships? Paul and I will tackle that question when the happiness lab returns after the break. Dr. Paul Eastwick's new book, Bonded by Evolution, challenges the idea that human attraction is based on the one-dimensional concept of mate Value. Instead, Paul argues that attraction depends a lot more on what he calls romantic compatibility, the factors that allow two people to work together long term. So I think it's very important to realize that we lived in small groups and you had to build what sometimes anthropologists call pair bonds.

You had to build a bond with somebody else for the purpose of raising these very helpless offspring. I mean human offspring take a long time to raise to reproductive age. A very long time. It's the better part of two decades before kids in huntergatherer context are able to bring in as many calories as they consume. So they take a lot of work and this is presumably why humans evolve the capacity to bond with each other in a bond. What matters a lot more than like oh you're desirable, you have all the right abilities and skills and traits and attributes.

What matters a lot more is do we work well together? Are we coordinated? Scientists use terms like interdependence, right? What is it like when we work together? Do things work smoothly or are things pretty difficult and we don't actually get along that well. So, I think these ideas form the core of what we mean by compatibility and capture why it's so important. We also seem to have all these psychological quirks that help us build up compatibility. Sometimes biases that are pretty fun. Give me some examples of these.

these. these. So for example, on average in ongoing close relationships, people feel very positively about their partners. And when somebody might point out to them some of the shortcomings that their partners might have, we're really good at compartmentalizing those shortcomings, right? Like yes, she's a little bit messy, but I don't know, this just kind of makes our home life exciting. exciting. exciting. And these things are really important for maintaining that sense that your relationship is valuable and you want to put in effort to keep it going.

As a relationship builds, people end up doing this more and more. It's kind of a core piece of what it means to form and maintain a relationship is that you see your partner in the best possible light and that you're motivated to keep the relationship moving forward. That's what happens when we think about our partners in these motivated ways. What happens when we think about alternatives? We worry a lot about alternative partners that they could pull us away from the person that we're currently in a relationship with.

And alternatives can certainly do that. People do sometimes have wandering eyes, but we have all of these defense mechanisms built in that prevent us from even noticing that potential romantic partners are right there waiting for us. One of my favorite studies in this space looks at the mental images that people in relationships make about possible alternative partners. There are these neat techniques where you can get a literal picture on the screen of what they were thinking of. Were they thinking about somebody attractive or unattractive? And it turns out if you're in a relationship, when you imagine other potential partners, you literally imagine somebody who is less attractive than what single people imagine in their heads.

So that's just one of an array of different effects that demonstrate that people at a baseline level seem motivated to keep alternative partners at bay as a way of preserving their current relationship. So when it comes to relationships, compatibility matters a lot. We have all these mechanisms once compatibility starts to keep building it up. But that just raises a really important question which is where does compatibility come from? I think one idea that most people have is that compatibility comes from people who are like us.

You like the people who are like you. like you. like you. What does the evidence say? It seems intuitive that we'd be especially attracted to others who are similar to us. And this was one of the big challenges we confronted. We documented that there was all of this compatibility that you could see in attraction context. It's even bigger if you look at ongoing acquaintances, friendships, and close relationships. So, we got to explain it. We got to explain why these two people are compatible and why other pairs are not.

So, we looked to see well maybe it is about similarity. Let's calculate similarity across all of these different dimensions. ask people about their deal breakers and see if we can account for compatibility that way. And it turned out it did pretty badly. It was surprising how poorly similarity fared at predicting compatibility. We tried other forms of matching too, like oh ask people about their deal breakers and those didn't really go anywhere either. I think part of the problem here is that because of where we live, because of how we are sorted into different social situations, we're often surrounded by people who are similar to us.

We're surrounded by people who fit our idea on average of, you know, what we really want somebody else to have. And so we end up thinking we really care about these things, but in large part we're really reflecting the social millu that we're in. we're in. we're in. So it might look like I really want a partner who's smart like me and a professor like me, but in practice at the university, the only people I'm ever going to meet is a professor who's smart like me.

like me. like me. That's right. And then you end up with somebody like that. Oh, look, similarity predicts attraction. Well, the challenge is that within your millu, more versus less similarity isn't mattering, which means it can't explain why there's so much going on with respect to compatibility in your social environment. Why even in your social environment, you're really going to click with a couple people, but not most people. people. people. I want to pick on up on something else you just said, this idea of deal breakers, because I think this is another thing that people think in terms of compatibility.

I think this is something that the internet and online dating is probably made worse. this idea that like, well, my partner has to be tall. tall. tall. Oh gosh. Yeah. He has to really like podcasts, whatever. whatever. whatever. Imagine if he didn't like podcast. Oh, what would you do? I know. It's like a major red flag, right? But when we actually look at whether people's theories work, do they work as well as people assume? No. I mean, we tried other forms of matching, too. Like, are you ultimately more attracted to people who fit your idea of these deal breaker qualities that you just have to have?

Well, that didn't work all that well either. And so, this seems to be really damning for the way that a lot of online tools really help us out. I mean, I don't know what these algorithms are, but apparently a lot of these matching services online have like, you know, some sort of big machine learning that they're using to figure out what my compatibility is. Are these things just more BS than we think? Well, you know, it's funny because my colleague, Dr. or Samantha Joel ran some studies like this not long ago and it was basically a perfect faximile of what these online dating apps and companies could be doing.

I've got a trove of information about you and a trove of information about a bunch of other people, things you report about yourself ahead of time, traits, attributes, preferences, what have you. She used the algorithms to try to match people up, to try to predict who's going to click especially well with whom. And she was able to predict absolutely nothing. That's pretty depressing for big data. And I do want to be clear like you report things about yourself ahead of time. We can predict whether you yourself are selective or you yourself are popular.

But it's the matching, right? I can't figure out who are the pairs that are going to work very well together. Th this was the realization for me that we just have a broken idea about where compatibility comes from and we got to radically reorient how we think about this. And so your book provides that radical reorientation. You talk about compatibility as being a so-called creative chaos. What do you mean there? Well, there's two components there. The creative part is the idea that it's built, that it's constructed, that a lot of what compatibility is and where it comes from takes place in sequences of interactions that unfold over time.

We found that we really hit it off at a party the other day, you know, chatting about romcoms, for example, one of my favorite topics. And so when I see you at the bar next time, I might sit next to you and try to see if I can spark up a similar conversation or take it in a different direction to see if that's enjoyable, too. Now, repeat that process a thousand times. That's what I mean by created. We have to engage other people in series of interactions and kind of see what it is that we can bond over and the number of things that people can bond over in principle is very very large.

I think that's why it's so hard to predict who's going to find compatibility ahead of time. You've talked about this process as being one of growing over time, which I think is a notion that we have that relationships can strengthen over time, but I think we forget that this temporal element is such a huge part of it. It's a huge part of it and it starts early. Now, look, some of this is luck. And that's what I mean by the chaotic component, too. And when we watch the speed dates that we conducted several years ago, boy, it's just people struggling to find things to connect over.

And sometimes they get lucky. They just hit on some weird random thing that they have in common and they kind of spin it off from there. So it's not similarity in the traditional sense like oh my personality needs to match yours or even you need to fit what I'm looking for in a partner. It's much more about like did we just get a little bit lucky, a little moment of serendipity where we hit on something and then we were able to keep building off of it over time.

And the couples that are able to do that are the ones that are most likely to be able to find something together. So scientifically speaking, may value is out and the creative chaos of compatibility is in. But how do you find the right person to build that meaningful connection with? We'll explore that question along with the science of the friend zone and Paul's optimism about Tinder when the happiness lab returns in a moment. Before the break, social psychologist Paul Eastwick explained that romantic compatibility often builds slowly over time.

But Paul's explanation also implies that we may be able to fall in love with far more people than we think. And if that's true, what does that mean for modern dating? I mean if you take some of these ideas to the extreme I find it exciting if not a little outlandish. What I am suggesting to some extent is that boy we underestimate the extent to which we can be compatible with a lot of different people. And I know anybody who is using the apps right now might be tempted to throw this podcast into the ocean thinking what are you talking about?

Can I please tell you about the horrible dates I've been on recently? recently? recently? And my answer to that is that I think I think that the apps are leading us astray in a few ways. First of all, they really encourage the resume date. Okay, the resume date where you sit down and you share a bunch of facts and figures. That is really not what I'm talking about. And another problem is that on the apps we're expecting sparks very very quickly. Keep in mind in the environments that historically people have found partners, you were getting to know these people over time kind of whether you wanted to or not.

You didn't have the option to bail after a bad first impression. Like this person was going to be around for a long time. So you were going to have other opportunities to interact. And maybe the luck doesn't happen on the first interaction. Maybe it happens on the 8th. 8th. 8th. It also seems like there's all kinds of other things about online dating that maybe mess with this process of compatibility. One big one seems to be just how many options we have. Talk about how the choice overload might prevent this compatibility development process from sticking.

Yeah, I think this is part of the issue, too. It's just there's so many options out there and you feel like you could be doing better and I think that makes it very tempting for people to bail quickly or to just go on a lot of first dates. If I were giving advice to people who are going to keep using the apps and I understand why people are reluctant to totally ditch them, but if I were going to give people advice, it would be look, try to date from a larger pool of folks.

Try to open up the aperture a little bit for who you're willing to consider and be willing to give people a second or a third chance rather than bailing after a single 10minute resume exchange over coffee. I think if people do that they might find themselves having a little bit more fun meeting some more interesting outside the box people and might stand a better chance of finding something meaningful. But my advice, generally speaking, is that look, if there's something that grabs you about a particular person from what you can tell online or by texting ahead of time, it's perhaps worth checking out even if the person doesn't line up in a bunch of other ways.

And I think the part that I worry about the most is ruling people out maybe because I don't know, like they don't have exactly the right level of education or what is this job exactly? I'm not clear on what this is. worrying about things like, "Oh, what will it be like when I introduce him or her to my friends?" I would just advise people if there's something interesting about this person, it's worth giving them an extra shot just to know. You've also argued that we need to remember just how much these apps are taking us away from the environment in which we normally make these decisions.

We're looking at text and photos and our ancestors looked at real humans in the real world. Are there any ways to move the apps more in this direction of kind of dating in a community-based way? That's my big hope. And you know, it seems silly, but in retrospect, I mean, that's what we thought Tinder was going to do. We thought that the idea was like, oh, people are going to get together more spontaneously. It's going to encourage more socialization among acquaintances and friends of friends. And how great is this going to be?

And this is not what happened at all. So socializing with people you only kind of know, boy has that become a lost art. And I think for people who are single and looking, it is worth redeveloping that muscle because in many cases this is how relationships have historically formed. This is how our social minds organize other people, right? Oh, you know this person. Let me introduce the two of you. here's something that you could chat about. These things are often very very helpful for people and it means that you don't need to be stunning or super confident or an incredible conversationalist from moment one because you're just kind of hanging out with other people.

I would love to see more apps encouraging interactions like that. I'm not an app developer, so I don't exactly know how that gets done, but boy, you know, the intramural sports leagues for 20somes, the cooking classes, all of these things, I think, can be a really useful way of supplementing the apps for people who are single. are single. are single. I was really struck by that. In your book, you had this notion that if you could give your past self some advice, it would be stop thinking about where you go to meet someone to date and just be around people, period.

Oh my gosh. I was like, "Well, I guess maybe I'll like try to have some sparkling conversation with a stranger." I mean, the movies kind of sell these ideas from time to time. It's not one of my favorite tropes, but I just thought like, well, you know, the right pickup line is going to do it. And what I should have been doing is just hanging out with friends and you see where the night takes you and you meet a few new interesting people. But these things take time and that can be a real bummer to hear if you feel like your networks are kind of stale and you're single and there's really no prospects.

I totally get it. I have absolutely been there. Luckily, Luckily, Luckily, socializing with other people is enjoyable in and of itself, even if it doesn't immediately lead to a romantic connection. You've also talked about how we got to get outside this idea of the romantic connection period that we might need to embrace the friend zone. What do you mean there? Yeah. So, I mean, this one's funny. So, the friend zone comes from friends, right? Originally, it was from the TV show Friends. It was about Ross and Rachel.

So, I'll describe it with respect to Ross and Rachel. At this early point in the show, Ross is trying to avoid being in the friend zone, right? Ross has a thing for Rachel. Rachel doesn't really feel that way about Ross. We all know where this ultimately goes, but at this point in the show, Ross is in the friend zone is, and this is considered dangerous. It's dangerous because he might turn into this sort of sniveling nice guy and she's going to take advantage of him. And boy is there a lot of advice online to men about how you need to avoid this and being friends with women is a trap because they will take advantage of you.

For all the bad ideas online, this one might be close to the there's a lot of bad ideas online, but this is a really bad one. Men and women can be friends just fine. It is very common for men and women to have friendships where they don't experience strong romantic attraction for each other. And in fact, for both heterosexual men and women, they're ultimately more likely to find romantic partners to the extent that their friend networks have both men and women in them. Not necessarily like you're going to date those friends, but those friends are going to introduce you to some other friends who then you're likely to get in a relationship with.

So doing this whole like no, you got to be friends with people of the same gender and people of the other gender are to try your pickup lines on and that's pretty much it. This is a disastrous approach and it is not going to lead to success for most people. It sounds like this new evolutionary science of relationships is is much more hopeful, but it gives us a different kind of work than we normally think of. It's not about the really funny quip online and scrolling through millions of photos.

It's kind of like getting back out there into the communities and evolutionary situations that we are normally in and just being patient, which can be hard, but it sounds like it's effective. it's effective. it's effective. I do think the patience is one of the hardest things. And look, growing up, I was not the most patient person. I'm probably not the most patient person now. It can be really challenging to feel like you're just waiting around for the right person to show up. But socializing is very very important.

Spending time with friends, meeting new people. And these things ultimately can be helpful for most people. We just got to reestablish that lost art of hanging out and kind of seeing where the night takes us. takes us. takes us. And the good news is all that is pretty happinessinducing, even if you don't get a romantic partner out of it. Exactly. I mean, that was one of the key insights that I had was that like, but wait a minute, I'm just enjoying myself hanging out with these people.

I date that person, date that person. I don't know. Like, this is fun. I'm just going to keep doing this. And this was at a point in my life where I was single and I was interested in dating people, but I stopped being so focused on exactly where the prospects were. And things really started to change after that point. And it's not because like, oh, I developed these new special attributes and now I had higher mate value. I just had this expanding social network. And once it really starts expanding in a major way, it's almost like it starts cascading and you're just meeting all of these new people and new possibilities emerge.

And the apps aren't great at fostering that. But we can still do it in the 21st century. I'm pretty sure modern dating can make attraction feel like a marketplace. like we're all walking around with mate value numbers imprinted on our foreheads. But Paul's work shows that compatibility is something we can build over time. If you're interested in learning even more accurate ideas about the evolution of love, check out Paul's book, Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection, which is available now. You can also check out Paul's podcast, Love Fact Julie, where he breaks down the latest relationship science with reviews of some of your favorite romcoms.

If you have thoughts about today's episode and the science of love, we'd love to hear from you. You can email us at happinesslabpushkin.fm or leave us a review to tell us what you liked. You can also sign up to learn more about the science of happiness and join my free newsletter on my website drlissantos.com. That's dr ru i s os.com. And if you've enjoyed these past few episodes on the science of love, then you're in luck because next week we'll be revisiting some of our favorite episodes on the science of love from the Happiness Lab archives, including one of my favorite ever interviews with the OG pioneers of modern relationship science.

You don't want to miss it, so be sure to come back next week for the Happiness Lab with me, Dr. Lauri Santos.