“Everything you’ve been told about dating is wrong” | Dr Paul Eastwick

In this podcast episode, Dr. Paul Eastwick, a relationship scientist grounded in social and personality psychology, offers a compelling alternative perspective to mainstream evolutionary psychology in understanding human mating and relationships. Challenging popular notions surrounding mating markets, mate value hierarchies, gender differences, and short-term versus long-term mating strategies, Eastwick discusses the nuances of attraction, compatibility, attachment, and the lived experience of relationships. The conversation spans topics from online dating dynamics and the importance of vulnerability to the psychology of breakup recovery and myths about mating success, blending research insights with real-world applicability.

Relationship Science versus Evolutionary Psychology

Dr. Eastwick positions relationship science as distinct yet informed by evolutionary perspectives. Unlike the traditional evolutionary psychology (EP) view emphasizing competition, mate value, and clear-cut sex differences, relationship science focuses more on attachment, compatibility, and the dynamics of relationships evolving over time. While attachment theory has evolutionary roots, Eastwick critiques that classic EP tends to overestimate rigid hierarchies in mating markets, exaggerate gender differences, and rely heavily on distinctions between short-term and long-term mating strategies without fully accounting for interpersonal nuances.

Problems with the Mating Market Concept

The prevalent idea of a "mating market" as a competitive arena dominated by "10s" and "2s" is, according to Eastwick, an oversimplification that accurately reflects mainly initial attraction among strangers—like at bars or online dating profiles—but loses validity as relationships develop. Research shows consensus around desirability fades rapidly once people interact repeatedly in group settings or social networks, resulting in diverging perceptions of attractiveness based on individual preferences and compatibility. This divergence explains how people with differing "mate values" form stable, committed relationships by perceiving one another uniquely and valuing specific interpersonal traits that others might overlook.

The Role of Consensus and Compatibility in Attraction

Using studies where participants rate attractiveness, Eastwick illustrates how agreement among strangers about who is attractive starts relatively high but declines with familiarity. A person who might be initially rated moderately attractive can become more appealing over time due to qualities like humor or kindness, while others may lose appeal for different observers. This individual variation allows relationships to form beyond objective attractiveness rankings, emphasizing the importance of personalized, evolving bonds over raw consensus-based desirability.

Front-End Attraction and Online Dating Challenges

Despite the emphasis on evolving compatibility, initial attraction remains a gatekeeper in modern dating environments. Physical traits like facial symmetry, body proportions, and grooming still influence who gets a chance for interaction—especially in rapid assessments like online dating swipes. However, Eastwick argues that the heavy reliance on first impressions in digital spaces limits opportunities for deeper connections to develop, disadvantaging many who might otherwise be compatible partners. He advocates for social engagement in various contexts—sports leagues, classes, community activities—where repeated interactions foster compatibility and allow "hidden" qualities to surface.

Gender Differences Reconsidered

Eastwick acknowledges the role that evolutionary psychology has played in explaining some gender differences but stresses that many presumed distinctions in mate preferences are overstated. For example, while men and women might state differing priorities in traits like attractiveness or ambition, speed-dating and observational studies show men and women often reveal surprisingly similar preferences in actual choices. Moreover, contemporary societal changes like women's increased educational attainment do not negatively impact relationship stability in the way popular discourse might suggest.

Mate Value Matching and Relationship Outcomes

The idea that people assortatively mate strictly by objective measures like attractiveness, education, and income holds some truth but is complicated by real-world dynamics. Eastwick points out that assortative matching is often a byproduct of shared social environments and proximity rather than strict preference hierarchies. Importantly, mismatched couples—such as partners differing markedly in attractiveness—do not necessarily experience worse relationship satisfaction or longevity. Relationship success depends far more on motivated reasoning and pro-relationship biases that help partners maintain commitment regardless of external perceptions.

Critique of Self-Improvement as Dating Strategy

While self-improvement efforts—working out, dressing well—can contribute modestly to initial attraction, Eastwick warns against viewing these as the primary or exclusive path to dating success. The social context and opportunities to meet people repeatedly remain crucial. Improving physical or social attributes may have diminished influence once partners get to know each other over time, which is why broader social engagement and building connections remain essential strategies.

Attachment and Human Evolution

Eastwick highlights attachment as central to human mating and evolution, challenging the classic view of mating solely as a competitive market transaction. He emphasizes that men evolved to become less aggressive and more nurturing, with increased parental investment driving selection for compatibility and partnership quality over mere trait maximization. Attachment bonds provide emotional support, trust, and co-parenting cooperation vital for raising human offspring, framing relationship success as a cooperative and interdependent endeavor rather than a contest.

Vulnerability and Emotional Openness in Attraction

One of the less emphasized but powerful factors in relationship formation is vulnerability. Eastwick stresses that willingness to disclose personal fears, secrets, and imperfections fosters closeness and trust, serving as a potent aphrodisiac. This openness contrasts with typical dating self-promotion and can accelerate intimacy. Emotional reciprocal altruism—small acts of trust and reliance—build foundations for compatibility, particularly as people mature and refine their relational preferences over years.

Short-term versus Long-term Mating Revisited

Eastwick challenges the simplistic dichotomy of "alpha Chads" versus "beta dads" and the idea that short-term mating success indicates poor long-term partner quality. The traits that make someone desirable for short-term or casual encounters do not strongly predict long-term relationship satisfaction or stability. He clarifies that sexual behavior timing (e.g., sex on the first date) does indicate personality differences but is not a reliable predictor of eventual relationship success. The meaning of such behaviors depends heavily on partner perceptions and compatibility dynamics.

Relationship Satisfaction and Attractiveness Over Time

Though conventional wisdom suggests maintaining physical attractiveness is key to long-term relationship happiness, Eastwick points to meta-analyses showing that initial attractiveness levels have limited power in predicting long-term satisfaction or outcomes, especially beyond early dating phases. Relationship satisfaction is more influenced by daily support, communication, shared goals, and pro-relationship biases that shape partner perceptions positively despite physical or circumstantial changes.

The Psychological Impact of Breakups

Breakups represent a profound loss not only of the partner but of the secure attachment figure who provides emotional and practical support. This dual loss triggers stress responses including sleep disruption, immune challenges, and emotional instability. Recovery often requires constructing a coherent narrative about the relationship's end, "closing the loop," to regain psychological equilibrium. Forming new relationships can facilitate healing, although spending sufficient time reflecting before entering new partnerships tends to yield better future outcomes.

Unique Microcultures of Relationships

Every couple creates a "microculture" of shared rituals, jokes, pet names, and routines that contributes to relationship satisfaction and identity. The loss of this unique shared world following a breakup compounds the emotional pain. These microcultures build over time and strengthen attachment bonds, underscoring the irreplaceable value of relationship-specific shared experiences.

Pro-Relationship Biases and Their Dual Role

Humans possess psychological biases that enhance commitment by depreciating the appeal of alternative partners and idealizing one's mate. These cognitive mechanisms protect relationships from constant perceived threats but also explain why people can remain in unhealthy or toxic partnerships. Understanding these biases helps explain both the persistence and challenges of long-term mating.

Human Mating Systems: Attachment Over Monogamy

Dr. Eastwick reframes human mating from the narrow lens of monogamy versus polygamy to a broader understanding of humans as serial monogamists who form sequential, attachment-based bonds. He notes that attachment is the key feature, not simply sexual exclusivity, and that complex relationship structures like polyamory can exist without undermining attachment bonds, albeit rarely. The focus remains on interdependence and emotional connection rather than rigid mating classifications.

Compatibility, Taste, and Timing in Attraction

Compatibility is heavily influenced by personal taste and timing, which are often unpredictable and shaped by serendipitous factors during conversations and shared experiences. Attempts to preselect partners based on fixed traits like height or income cannot fully capture this complexity. This unpredictability makes the process of finding a compatible partner dynamic and context-dependent, highlighting the limits of objective mate value paradigms.

Final Thoughts on Research Gaps and Practical Implications

Eastwick emphasizes that much of relationship science focuses on real couples over time, analyzing interpersonal processes dynamically, whereas evolutionary psychology often depends on broad, static traits. Many questions—including how dating preferences evolve over an individual's lifetime—remain under-researched due to methodological challenges. Nevertheless, adopting a relationship science lens encourages attention to individual interactions, vulnerability, mutual support, and evolving compatibility rather than simplistic market metaphors or trait hierarchies.