Ask the Expert

Online Dating Seem Awful? The Reason May Lie in Evolution

Stories You May Like

Prolific Campus Architect Couldn’t Wait for a Department—Or a Degree

After 50+ Years, Computer Graphics Pioneer Remains a Powerhouse Prof

Alum Helps Kenyan Villagers Earn a Living from their Handicrafts

In a new book—released in time for Valentine's Day—a psychologist alum offers hopeful insights for those looking for love

By Beth Saulnier

“I spent a long time imagining that I’m talking to somebody who is single and struggling, because they’re not meeting people or not clicking with anybody,” Arts & Sciences alum Paul Eastwick ’01 says of writing his new book, Bonded by Evolution.

“There’s this frustration that everybody out there on the apps is terrible, and people don’t want to settle. And I get it: online dating reinforces a hierarchy that suits some people well—and others not at all.”

The book, subtitled The New Science of Love and Connection, parses psychology research for a general audience, with some self-help lessons woven in. Part of Eastwick’s mission is to challenge decades-old findings in the field of evolutionary psych that cast heterosexual dating and mating in a rather—well—Darwinian light: that men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and romance is a zero-sum game.

Such notions aren’t just unproductive, Eastwick argues—they have been hijacked by an incel culture and a “manosphere” that promotes misogyny and even violence.

“It’s tempting to think that dating and relationships are about competition and where you fit within a pecking order—that you’d better hope you’re a nine, and God help you if you’re a six, but at least you’re not a two,” says Eastwick, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis.

“By taking people through the science, I hope I can get them to think about dating in a way that’s a little less mercenary, and a little less personal: if you’ve been rejected, don’t take it as a sign of how good you are.”

Let’s talk about some of the misconceptions you challenge. For example, is “mate value”—which person ranks higher on metrics like attractiveness or wealth—really not that important?

The idea is very constraining, because it focuses on: “Are you better than this person? Can you trade up?” And it misses all the glorious parts of attraction that come from compatibility.

Now, compatibility is very strange, but it doesn’t rely on hierarchy. You might click especially well with somebody even though they’re actually not that desirable to most people. In initial attraction, compatibility is only a little more important than mate value—but it’s far more important once people get to know each other.

It’s tempting to think that dating and relationships are about competition and where you fit within a pecking order—that you’d better hope you’re a nine, and God help you if you’re a six, but at least you’re not a two.

What about the age-old notion that men and women are inherently very different creatures?

Different creatures isn’t necessarily so bad; where it gets worse is the idea that they’re competing, and their interests are at odds. That leads to some really grim perspectives on mixed-gender relationships—that you might fall for somebody, but let’s be real: within a year or two, you’ll be trying to trade up on each other.

Over 20 years of research, we’ve found that many of these gender differences are, to put it simply, in our heads.

How so?

Take, for example, the belief that women care about earning potential much more than men. We draw this to ridiculous conclusions, like the suggestion that more people are single now due to a drop in men’s earning potential.

There’s no evidence for that. In fact, all the evidence I’ve seen is to the contrary; educated women commonly pair up with less educated men.

But we run around with these ideas because we think that there are huge gender differences. It’s not to say that there are none. There are some, but they’re mostly on the casual sex side of things: men are more into it than women are.

Could you define your term “EvoScript”?

I use this to refer to the popular conceptualization in evolutionary psychology that developed out of the ’90s.

It contains three key components: the importance of mate value; the sheer magnitude of gender differences; and the short-term versus long-term distinction—that some people are good at flings and some are better at relationships.

Your book is called Bonded by Evolution. What does evolution teach us about relationships?

Going back to species that predate Homo sapiens, you see fascinating things in the fossil record. Like, males were getting smaller and we lost our sharp canines as women were selecting less aggressive, less dominant men.

If you look at our closest ape relatives, you don’t want to mess with them—and you certainly don’t want the males around a baby. But males in our lineage were contributing to offspring, parenting, and investing in partners and in their kids; we evolved to be fathers.

Part of that evolutionary process was the development of attachment bonds between partners. This is why people feel their romantic partner is irreplaceable; it’s the person you’re most likely to go to for support and to celebrate your successes, somebody who has your back.

You talk about how in early civilization, humans traveled in small-ish groups; what does that tell us about modern-day dating?

If you look at how hunter-gatherers live today—and this is the best facsimile we have for what it was like tens of thousands of years ago—it’s in a group of maybe 50 people. There may be 150 you know in the world. Not only do romantic options come from a relatively small pool—unbelievably small compared to today’s standards—but you’re going to get to know these people over a period of time, whether you want to or not.

Stories You May Like

Contrast that with the modern environment, where you can meet somebody for a 20-minute coffee date and cut them off forever if it doesn’t go well. It’s so different from the environment in which we evolved.

You can meet somebody for a 20-minute coffee date and cut them off forever if it doesn’t go well. It’s so different from the environment in which we evolved.

So, evolutionarily, dating apps are basically the worst-case scenario?

Many of the trappings of the Internet and online dating are designed to capture and keep our attention. “Look at all these people out here! Look how much fun you could be having!” It’s a distraction from the more humanlike experience of spending time with people, often in groups, getting to know them over extended periods of time, and having those relationships flow and change.

I’m trying not to be an old man about this, but it’s no accident that I end up telling a lot of stories in the book about my years at Cornell, because college is one of those environments that push people together over time. I think that’s a real window into what dating used to be like, before it became a marketplace where you could walk away at any moment.

From what you describe, much of what fosters romantic success is time: giving people a fair shot. Is that accurate?

If you’re dating today, which is mostly through the apps, I highly advise giving people multiple shots, but in different environments.

Remember arriving freshman year and there were all these things you could do and join? That isn’t just for 18-year-olds. A lot of this exists when you get older, it’s just harder to find. But if you live in a modern city, there are intramural sports teams and salsa classes—things that encourage repeated interaction in groups and are chances to get to know other people.

Imagine that you’re just going to meet new friends. Assume you’re not going to date one of them; you’re going to date a friend of a friend of theirs. And it’s not going to happen overnight. It’s going to take a while—but you’ve got to be out there spending time with people.

It’s no accident that I end up telling a lot of stories in the book about my years at Cornell, because college is one of those environments that push people together over time.

Another notion you challenge is that some people are “players” and others are the marrying kind. Is that really not a thing?

That binary isn’t a useful way of thinking about it. We have these archetypes: the "nice guy" and the attractive "player" whom you can’t trust. But when you look at the science, it completely falls apart.

Yes, attractive, confident people are more likely to have short-term sex partners, but those traits are irrelevant to their long-term prospects. Similarly, being friendly, warm, and nice is totally unrelated to the number of short-term partners a person has.

It’s more useful to think about how all relationships exist as arcs. They start from a period of ambiguity; there’s some sexual attraction, and the real question is, how far is a relationship going to go? A lot of times they don’t go anywhere, or people break it off and move on.

There will be some people who have a lot of short-term partners—but many of those “players” will eventually hit it off with one of them, and find themselves in a long-term relationship through trial and error.

One striking thing you note is that outside of models and movie stars, we generally can’t agree on who’s attractive. How is that possible?

It surprises people how much subjectivity there is. Just poll your friends; even a hot celebrity will cluster at the top of the scale, but you’re not going to perfectly agree. What ends up being important is, how do you feel about the people around you?

There will be some people who have a lot of short-term partners—but many of those 'players' will eventually hit it off with one of them, and find themselves in a long-term relationship through trial and error.

All that variability opens up opportunities for “mismatched” pairings—cases where, for example, people on average may think of a woman as an eight, but she’s dating a guy who’s a five.

Why is that? Because each of them thinks the other is a nine.

That variability allows many people to happily date—because if we lived in a world where attractiveness was perfectly consensual, almost all of us would go around miserable, since there’s always somebody better to trade up to.

Since we’re in the Valentine season, any final words for hopeful daters?

If you meet more people in person, I guarantee you’d like some of them. We forget how people can surprise us—and you’re never going to be surprised by scrolling on Tinder.

But if you find avenues to meet people in real life—maybe even the ones you’re swiping left on—you might end up liking some of them.

I’m not saying lower your standards. I’m saying the opposite: your standards can be whatever they are, but as you get to know people, I guarantee that your feelings about them will change.

(Top: Illustration by Ashley Osburn / Cornell University. All other images provided.)

Published February 9, 2026