Modern Wisdom #1056: Dr Paul Eastwick – Did Evolutionary Psychology Get Dating All Wrong?

Release Date: February 7, 2026
Host: Chris Williamson
Guest: Dr Paul Eastwick, Professor and Relationship Scientist
Topic: Challenging Evolutionary Psychology's Take on Dating and Relationships

Episode Overview

In this thought-provoking episode, Chris Williamson sits down with Dr Paul Eastwick to question and reconsider the dominance of evolutionary psychology (EP) in understanding human mating and relationships. Dr Eastwick argues for an alternative approach rooted in “relationship science,” emphasizing compatibility, attachment, and the nuanced, dynamic ways people form connections—often at odds with the ‘marketplace’ and ‘mate value’ frameworks championed by EP. Their discussion traverses topics such as attractiveness, mate selection, gender differences, short vs. long-term mating, the impact of modern dating environments, and the psychological processes underlying partnership and breakups.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Background: Relationship Science vs. Evolutionary Psychology

• (00:55 – 02:12)
  • Dr Eastwick positions himself as a scholar from the “relationship science” tradition:

    “We're largely in the social and personality psychological tradition...we talk about attachment perspectives a lot and attachment has very deep evolutionary roots…but it's just a little different from the standard evolutionary psychological perspective.” (01:33)

  • He sees the evolutionary psychology script as overemphasizing mate value, gender differences, and the sharp divide between short- and long-term mating.

2. Critique of the “Mating Market” Model

• (03:58 – 05:49)
  • The “mating market” concept, popular in EP, is described as overly focused on competition and hierarchy.
  • Dr Eastwick explains that while people may initially agree on who’s "hot" or "not" (e.g., via online dating or first impressions), consensus about attractiveness significantly weakens as people get to know each other in real-world, long-term scenarios:

    “That tendency to agree actually fades over time...Once we get to know people...some people seem more appealing...others less...different perceivers sort of go along those tracks differently for the same target.” (05:51)

  • This dynamic enables stable, unique pair bonds and dismantles the persistent sense of a rigid competitive market.

3. The Impact of Modern Dating Contexts

• (10:02 – 15:28)
  • Modern dating (especially online) amplifies the “front door” of attraction—physical attributes as primary selection criteria.
  • Historically, many relationships began in contexts (work, classes, social circles) allowing iterative exposure and the gradual emergence of idiosyncratic attraction, thus giving more people a chance.
  • Chris coins the term “office plus two”—where ongoing proximity leads to a perceived upgrade in attractiveness.
  • Dr Eastwick underscores the missed opportunities for pairings that modern swipe-based dating brings.

4. Challenging the Hierarchy & “Mate Value Matching”

• (15:39 – 19:56)
  • EP suggests stable relationships are formed by matched “mate values” (i.e., two 7s pair best), whereas mismatches (a 5 with an 8) should be less happy or stable.
  • Dr Eastwick refutes this:

    “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…It doesn't predict a thing.” (19:36)

  • When couples have spent more time knowing each other prior to dating, mismatches in “objective” rankings are more common and relationships still thrive.

5. Revisiting Self-Improvement and Attractiveness

• (25:29 – 29:32)
  • Chris summarizes the typical EP advice as “nerd, improve thyself”—raise your mate value through self-development.
  • Dr Eastwick advocates for balance:

    “I just want to turn down the emphasis on the self improvement stuff because…when those solutions stop changing people's fortunes, they get frustrated...there's another avenue out here.” (26:32)

  • Real-life contexts that allow people to be known (sports, classes, friend circles) can be more impactful than superficial improvements.

6. Sexual Differences, Gender, and Revealed Preferences

• (39:04 – 42:23)
  • EP predicts strong men/women splits in mate preferences (looks vs. resources/ambition).
  • Eastwick’s work with speed dating and real-life scenarios reveals far smaller differences, and sometimes none, in revealed behavior:

    “Ambition is a mild aphrodisiac. They like the ambitious guys more than the non ambitious guys, but the men like the ambitious women a little bit more than the unambitious women. And there was no gender difference.” (39:53)

  • Economic mismatches (women earning more/being more educated) show no added risk for relationship problems in contemporary data.

7. What Actually Predicts Long-Term Relationship Success?

• (47:47 – 51:56)
  • Both men and women seek intelligence, humor, loyalty, etc., but self-reports underplay the importance of sexual attraction and affectionate “dyadic” connection.

    “It's especially important to think your partner's a good lover...that was number one in terms of what actually mattered…” (47:47)

  • Vulnerability and emotional openness are underappreciated:

    “A lot of times coming across…as a little bit vulnerable…that really is research on this…that kind of an aphrodisiac in and of itself.” (51:16)

8. Compatibility, Taste, and Timing

• (59:00 – 60:32)
  • Long-term attraction is shaped by unpredictable compatibility moments and timing—little serendipities in interaction.
  • Compatibility becomes a bigger predictor than consensus ‘mate value’ over time.

9. The Short-Term vs. Long-Term Mating Fallacy

• (60:42 – 64:51)
  • EP often divides people into “short-term” vs. “long-term” types (e.g., “alpha chads” vs. “beta dads”).
  • Eastwick challenges the predictive power of early sexual behavior and past experiences, arguing they don’t reliably predict future relationship success.

10. The Nature and Function of Attachment

• (78:36 – 79:41)
  • Adult attachment is fundamentally about support:

    “Having somebody who's going to be there for me when things go badly and having somebody that's going to be there for me when things go right.” (78:46)

11. Breakups, Biases, and Microcultures

• (79:46 – 87:52)
  • Breakups are “double whammies” due to loss of a key attachment and support structure.
  • Creating a coherent narrative helps recovery.
  • Relationships are “microcultures”—the unique rituals, jokes, routines couples build over time. Their loss is particularly painful.

12. Pro-Relationship Biases and Relationship Longevity

• (87:57 – 90:08)
  • Critical “pro-relationship biases” like derogating alternatives and the idealization of one’s partner help forge and sustain monogamous bonds.

    “The attractive alternative partners are already operating at a disadvantage because...she sees them as sixes. It's like an automatic bias that's built in right off the top...” (87:57)

13. Are Humans “Set Point” Monogamous?

• (90:16 – 92:09)
  • Dr Eastwick:

    “We are creatures who attach...when it comes to sex specifically, I describe us as serial monogamous…I really think attachment is the key thing.” (90:31)

  • While polyamorous bonds exist, most people attach serially and prefer unique bonds.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Initial Attraction Consensus Fading:

  “Once we get to know people...different perceivers sort of go along those tracks differently for the same target...That’s where the magic is. That’s how people form stable, committed relationships, because they think they won the lottery even if other people don’t agree.” — Eastwick (05:51, 07:55)

• On the Mating Market Flaw:

  “Online dating makes it all worse. Not only are the tens gonna do way better than the sevens who are gonna do way better than the fours, but I don’t even need to bother interacting with you in the first place if you don’t check all the boxes.” — Eastwick (46:37)

• On Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction:

  “Hot people can be great partners. Hot people can be terrible partners...it just doesn’t do much of anything.” — Eastwick (22:49)

• On Vulnerability and Dating:

  “Coming across as a little bit vulnerable, a little bit like you’re kinda…needy is too strong, but just a touch of openness…that’s maybe a good way of thinking about it.” — Eastwick (51:56)

• Chris Summing It Up:

  “The way that we experience relationships is through our nervous system, one on one with another person…what it doesn’t do is actually explain what the experience of being in a relationship is like.” — Williamson (76:48)

• On Attachment:

  “The essence of attachment is essentially this sense, like, I am here for you. I trust that you’re here for me and, like, I’m kind of willing to do everything in my power within reason to support you.” — Eastwick (78:46)

• On Relationship Biases:

  “These pro-relationship biases…are really important for sustaining our relationships, but sometimes they make relationships last longer than they should.” — Eastwick (90:08)

Essential Timestamps for Major Segments

• Relationship Science vs. EvoPsych: 00:55–02:12
• Problems with “Mating Market”: 03:58–08:16
• Modern Dating’s Impact: 10:02–15:28
• Mate Value, Matching, & Mismatches: 15:39–19:56
• Debunking Gender Gaps & Preference Reveals: 39:04–42:23
• Self-Improvement vs. Context Change: 25:29–29:32
• Attachment Theory in Modern Context: 78:36–79:41
• Breakups & Emotional Recovery: 79:46–88:00
• Pro-Relationship Biases: 87:57–90:08
• Serial Monogamy & Human Set Point: 90:16–92:09

Takeaways

• The “mating market” and hierarchical competition models are oversimplified and often mismodel human bonding.
• Consensus on attractiveness is only sharply relevant early; compatibility and unique “taste” are decisive over time.
• Vulnerability, support, and relationship-specific microcultures are at the heart of long-term satisfaction.
• Many well-cited gender differences in mate preference don’t hold up when actual behavior is measured.
• Online dating narrows the scope for unique connection; building social networks and repeated exposure remain vital.
• Humans are fundamentally driven to attach and form bond-based, not market-based, relationships.

For further resources:

• Dr Paul Eastwick’s book “Bonded by Evolution” (release: February, around Valentine’s Day)
• “Love Factually” podcast with Eli Finkel for a research-driven discussion on romance and relationships