Why Algorithms Can’t Predict Your Love Life with Dr. Paul Eastwick

Overview

Dr. Paul Eastwick, a social psychologist, challenges the "EvoScript" myths of mate value and gender differences in attraction. He argues that romantic compatibility is a "creative chaos" built over time through interaction, not predetermined traits, encouraging a broader, more patient approach to dating.

At a Glance
15 Insights
41m 11s Duration
16 Topics
6 Concepts

Deep Dive Analysis

Introduction to the 'EvoScript' and its negative impact

Deconstructing the 'mate value' concept

How online dating apps reinforce 'mate value' ideas

Introducing the three components of attraction

Challenging the consensus on attractiveness over time

Re-evaluating gender differences in mate preferences

Critique of short-term vs. long-term mate desirability

Evolutionary purpose of human pair bonds and compatibility

Psychological biases that foster relationship compatibility

Why similarity and 'deal breakers' poorly predict compatibility

Limitations of dating app algorithms for predicting compatibility

Compatibility as 'creative chaos': built through interactions

Advice for navigating modern dating apps and fostering connections

The importance of expanding social networks and patience

Reconsidering the 'friend zone' and cross-gender friendships

Summary of the new, hopeful science of love

EvoScript

The 'EvoScript' is a set of ideas suggesting human attraction is governed by harsh evolutionary rules, where finding a partner is about good genes and a fixed 'mate value.' This perspective categorizes individuals by attributes that determine their desirability in a dating market, often leading to demoralizing rejections.

Mate Value

An infamous 'EvoScript' notion, mate value is understood as a collection of attributes like attractiveness, intelligence, earning potential, or youth that make someone desirable. This value supposedly sets an individual's dating standards, implying people will likely pair with others of similar 'value' in a hierarchical market.

Three Components of Attraction

Attraction is not a single thing but comprises three parts: popularity (general desirability agreed upon by many), selectivity (an individual's general openness to forming new relationships), and compatibility (the unique connection between two specific people, independent of general desirability or selectivity).

Revealed Preferences

This concept refers to a research method that assesses what people truly desire in a partner by observing their actual reactions to specific individuals in real-life scenarios, such as speed dating. It contrasts with abstract self-reported preferences from surveys, which may not reflect actual behavior.

Pair Bonds

Pair bonds refer to the evolutionary capacity of humans to form deep, lasting connections with another individual, primarily for the purpose of cooperatively raising very helpless offspring. Human offspring require a long period of care, necessitating partners who can work well together and are coordinated.

Creative Chaos (of Compatibility)

This model suggests that compatibility is not a fixed attribute but is actively built and constructed through sequences of interactions that unfold over time. It involves a mix of intentional engagement and serendipitous moments where people discover things to bond over, making it difficult to predict in advance.

?
What is the 'EvoScript' and why is it problematic for dating?

The 'EvoScript' is the idea that human attraction is solely governed by harsh evolutionary rules, like natural selection and a fixed 'mate value.' It's problematic because it suggests rejections are due to inherent personal flaws and promotes a demoralizing, uninspiring view of love as a market hierarchy.

?
How do dating apps reinforce the idea of 'mate value'?

Dating apps, by primarily presenting photos and brief descriptions, create an unequal market where attractive people receive many likes, while others may have few options. This quick swiping reinforces the notion that certain attributes determine one's desirability or 'mate value.'

?
Is there strong agreement on who is attractive?

No, studies show there is surprisingly little agreement on attractiveness. For only 4% of faces evaluated, did everyone agree they were in the top or bottom half, meaning most people are considered 'not half bad' by someone.

?
Do men and women really want fundamentally different things in a partner?

While surveys often show men prioritize attractiveness and women prioritize earning potential, research using 'revealed preferences' (observing actual choices in scenarios like speed dating) shows that both genders have similar preferences for traits like ambition and attractiveness in real-life interactions.

?
Does being a 'sexy' or 'short-term' partner prevent someone from being a good 'long-term' partner?

No, a person's desirability as a short-term partner has no bearing on their long-term desirability. While attributes like sexiness are linked to having more sexual partners, past sexual history or short-term appeal does not predict success in a long-term relationship.

?
What is the evolutionary reason for humans to form long-term bonds?

Humans evolved the capacity to form 'pair bonds' to cooperatively raise very helpless offspring, who require a long period (the better part of two decades) to become self-sufficient. This long-term care necessitates partners who work well together and are coordinated.

?
Does similarity predict romantic compatibility?

Surprisingly, similarity fares poorly at predicting compatibility. While people often end up with similar partners due to their social environments, within those environments, more or less similarity doesn't explain why certain pairs click while others don't.

?
Can dating app algorithms accurately predict romantic compatibility?

No, studies attempting to use algorithms with vast amounts of self-reported data to predict which pairs will click have found they can predict virtually nothing about unique compatibility between two people. They can predict individual selectivity or popularity, but not specific matches.

?
How can people improve their chances of finding meaningful connections on dating apps?

To improve chances, people should try dating from a larger pool of individuals, open up their aperture for who they consider, and be willing to give people a second or third chance beyond a quick 'resume exchange' first date.

?
Is it beneficial to be 'friends' with people of the opposite gender, or should one avoid the 'friend zone'?

It is highly beneficial to have friends of the opposite gender. The idea that the 'friend zone' is a trap is a disastrous approach, as people with diverse friend networks are more likely to find romantic partners, often through introductions from those friends.

1. Embrace Compatibility’s Creative Chaos

Understand that compatibility is built and constructed through sequences of interactions unfolding over time, rather than being a fixed, pre-existing match. Engage with others repeatedly to discover what you can bond over, recognizing that initial connections can stem from serendipitous moments you then build upon.

2. Give Potential Partners Multiple Chances

Be willing to give people a second or third chance, especially when dating online, as compatibility and connection might not develop during a brief first interaction. Resist the urge to bail quickly due to the perception of endless options, which can hinder meaningful connection.

3. Prioritize Socializing and Meeting People

Actively prioritize spending time with friends and meeting new people in general social settings, rather than solely focusing on specific ‘dating venues.’ This expands your social network and naturally creates new possibilities for romantic connections.

4. Cultivate Positive Partner Perception

In ongoing relationships, actively focus on seeing your partner in the best possible light and compartmentalize their shortcomings. This motivated way of thinking helps maintain the relationship’s value and encourages continued effort.

5. Downplay Alternative Romantic Partners

When in a relationship, mentally diminish the attractiveness of potential alternative partners. This psychological defense mechanism helps preserve your current bond by preventing wandering eyes.

6. Broaden Your Compatibility Horizon

Challenge the assumption that you can only be compatible with a narrow type of person. Be open to the idea that you can build meaningful connections with a wider range of individuals than you initially expect.

7. Expand Dating App Criteria

When using dating apps, broaden your criteria for who you’re willing to consider and give people a chance beyond a quick first impression or a perfect resume match. If something about a person sparks intrigue, explore it even if they don’t align in other ways.

8. Reject “Friend Zone” Misogyny

Disregard online advice that demonizes friendships with the opposite gender as a ’trap.’ Men and women can be friends, and cultivating diverse friend networks (including both genders) actually increases your likelihood of finding romantic partners.

9. Re-develop Socializing with Acquaintances

Actively practice socializing with people you only ‘kind of know,’ such as friends of friends or community members. This lost art is a historically effective way to form relationships and doesn’t require stunning confidence from the outset.

10. Supplement Apps with Community Activities

Complement online dating by engaging in community activities like intramural sports leagues or cooking classes. These provide natural, low-pressure environments to meet new people and foster connections.

11. Be Patient in Relationship Building

Practice patience in your search for a partner, understanding that meaningful connections and compatibility take time to develop. Re-establish the art of ‘hanging out’ and seeing where social interactions lead.

12. Enjoy Socializing for Its Own Sake

Engage in socializing because it is inherently enjoyable and happiness-inducing, not just as a means to find a romantic partner. This shift in focus can lead to an expanding social network and new possibilities.

13. Re-evaluate Deal Breakers

Don’t rely too heavily on a rigid list of ‘deal breakers’ or specific matching criteria, as research shows these are poor predictors of actual compatibility. People’s stated preferences often reflect their social environment rather than what truly fosters a bond.

14. Skepticism Towards Matching Algorithms

Be skeptical of online dating algorithms and matching services that claim to predict deep compatibility. Research indicates these algorithms are largely ineffective at predicting which specific pairs will ‘click.’

15. Reflect on Rejection Causes

When facing rejection, take time to understand the underlying reasons rather than internalizing it as a personal failing. This reflection can provide valuable insights for personal growth and future interactions.

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?

Paul Eastwick

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 faces did everybody agree that you're on the top half or the bottom half.

Paul Eastwick

Your desirability 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.

Paul Eastwick

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?

Paul Eastwick

It was surprising how poorly similarity fared at predicting compatibility.

Paul Eastwick

I can't figure out who are the pairs that are going to work very well together.

Paul Eastwick

We underestimate the extent to which we can be compatible with a lot of different people.

Paul Eastwick

Socializing with people you only kind of know, boy, has that become a lost art.

Paul Eastwick

This is a disastrous approach and it's not going to lead to success for most people.

Paul Eastwick
4%
Faces for which there was universal agreement on attractiveness (either top or bottom half) Based on a study where participants evaluated faces for attractiveness.
better part of two decades
Time required to raise human offspring to reproductive age in hunter-gatherer contexts This long duration is cited as the reason humans evolved the capacity to form pair bonds.