What did you think of Dr Machin’s research on love? Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com/books/ Here’s the timestamps: 00:00 Why Did Love Evolve? 04:23 Is Love Just a Neurochemical Motivation? 07:23 Stages of Romantic Love 13:19 Why Humans Kiss 15:51 Love’s Role in Long-Term Relationships 21:23 Do Men & Women Feel Love Differently? 24:49 How Genetics & Environment Impact Love 36:26 Why Do Men & Women Cheat? 43:24 Is Our Mating Ideology Working? 54:40 Balancing Rationality With Feeling Love 1:01:26 Love in Abusive Relationships 1:06:29 Romantic Relationships Vs Best Friends 1:13:43 The Pitfalls of Evolutionary Psychology 1:19:29 How Dating Apps Have Impacted Love 1:27:55 Explaining Parasocial Love 1:34:28 Where to Find Anna
@@ChrisWillx I disagree with at least two concepts here. She appears to be treating culture as separate from biology. Culture is downstream of biology. Culture serves the genome. This is called the Omega Principle put forth by evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. Second, no data here, but I can’t agree that love is felt, acted out, and experienced in the same manner between the sexes. The idea of the protector as cultural? I don’t go along with that. I would wager that more husbands would reflexively defend and subsequently die for their wives than the opposite. The hierarchy or the order of death goes (biologically driven): Husband for wife and wife for children.
This actually shows why shit ton of people just quit on the life and stoped. I completly understand them. Unless there is mandatory paternity tests at the time of birth for child and it is given to father then they should not try to provide for the children. I only want manditory paternity tests.
Dr Machin is brilliant, and this was a fascinating and enlightening discussion. However, if you (Chris) don't stop casually using the word "molesting" (when you are not actually referring to molesting), I will have to stop listening to your videos. As someone who was molested (by my father, throughout my entire childhood), I find it upsetting and insulting to hear that word used inaccurately and inappropriately.
Although very interesting I had the sensation, at various points of the conversation, that Dr. Machin has very reductive views on some themes. She understandably bases her takes on her field of expertise, but like she says (even though she then proceeds to try to do the opposite) not everything can be explained just by genes. Specially when it comes to psychological and emotional aspects of behaviour. Again, it's not her field of proficiency so I understand it, and it is very plainly to see so.
@@godislove4540 I work my ass off 72 hours a week sometimes for my kids. I slave over them in my time off. They are my responsibility. We're having more.
I don't believe anything she's saying about polyamory, either. I've known a number of people who are poly, and it's so much drama and jealousy and trainwrecks. I'm convinced that there's more abuse in poly relationships because partners get jealous and angry at their partner dating around or sleeping around. Generally poly women can sleep around 10x as easily as a man in a poly relationship, which causes a power imbalance. I've seen verbal and physical abuse happen multiple times. Most poly people also don't want children and they know it's incompatible with raising kids.
I got 49 min in and stopped listening to her. She started to sound like she was promoting poly relationships and not once brought up STDs. The downplay was real.
Thete iscacdifference between what adherents espouse and report as reality and the actual reality. As an academic woukd hope that she would be aware 9f such biases.
@Zen56103 but she says exactly this about the jealousy. It came across to me as an anthropologist explaining the scientific and cultural differences as as to what our biological drive vs societal drives are. She says it’s not for everyone. I personally would not ever be involved in a polygamist relationship, but I can see from what she’s saying (and the fact all other primates from which we descend are polyamorous) that there is some biological drives that might be against our social expectations.
The way she describes men's desires as being strong and protecting women in such a mocking way is worthy of contempt. It's a noble thing and it's something men deeply aspire to and it's doubtful its origins are cultural, and even if they were, it's something to aspire to. Literally just some moments ago I saw a video that praised a video game character for giving up everything he had for his family and daughter (Ethan Winters), even his own life. The comments were filled with men, and some women, praising his archetype and crying at the character's sacrifice. It's something that resonates with people at a deep level. Don't mock something so beautiful and transcendent of which you enjoy the fruits of today.
Sacrificing yourself for others in general is a noble thing. Doing it just for women and for no other reason that you being a man and them being a woman is basically a form of sexism. Every man should hold himself to the short, fat, bald man standard. If you wouldn't do it for him, don't do it for a woman. Obviously people are going to have a desire and motivation to protect their families though, that's a different story.
@@roberthudson3386I wouldn't dismiss what you have said out of hand, but how you treat those that are weaker than you is very telling about your character. Often as a man, that means rendering aid at the cost of your own personal safety. I'm not saying that you should blindly sacrifice everything for those that are undeserving or unappreciative of such sacrifice, but you are oversimplifying the issue.
@@Decimus-Magnus If you're helping someone weaker than you it has nothing to do with gender. As said, bald, fat, short (crippled) man rule. If you would do it for him, then go ahead and do it for a woman. But don't do it just because she's a woman. She isn't a higher being.
@@roberthudson3386 That's fine if you don't want to. I'm not stopping to help a man change his tire, because he should be physically capable of doing so. I will offer to assist a woman and see if she needs help because they are vulnerable and often are physically not capable of doing so due to how heavy a tire is, how much force is required to break a lug nut loose, etc. That's just one example, but it's a perfect one. I'm sorry, but men and women aren't the same, and while there is a lot of overlap where you would help a man just the same as a woman, there are a lot of areas where most men won't, and it's not because they are dicks. We live in an imperfect world.
47:10 Is that the "natural" state though? As far as I've heard, polyamory mostly existed in a way that women shared a same husband cause he had resources which ensures the children have a higher survival rate and these weren't long-lasting relationships. Comparing that to today where people believe that they can just love multiple people at the same time across their whole lives doesn't seem to be accurate and that's why these relationships mostly fail.
Great content! BUT... I'm afraid some of these ideas could have a negative impact on inexperienced or younger people who might not see the whole picture. Yes, humans can love in countless ways, but the healthiest and most successful form of love will always be a faithful, monogamous relationship where the offspring will be able to grow and mature in a safe and nurturing environment with two loving parents. History has shown this time and time again. Any other alternative might work temporarily, but in one way or another it will always fail in the long run.
Yes, and science seeks the truth. We can teach people the facts Dr. Machin laid out about infidelity as a way to maximize our reproductive success as a monogamous species; for men to increase the genetic diversity of their offspring, and for women to increase their offspring with men of superior genes. In doing so, it's important not to mix ethics and morality with biology. At the same time, we can teach young people about the pros and cons of monogamy and polyamory. It's not helpful to sugarcoat our biological urges and evolutionary desires. We can teach them to hold opposing thoughts and facts at the same time, so they can navigate the vagaries of life with knowledge.
That comment of living half a life if you've never felt love hit me hard. The affection my parents gave me grew smaller and smaller as I grew older in childhood, and I rarely heard them say they even loved me. I'm now in my mid 30s and I don't think I've ever been in love. Not even once. I'm not even sure what it feels like to be quite honest with you.
Love is necessary. "In-love" is not. There's a reason why the Greeks thought Aphrodite and Eros were to be feared. Like for example falling in love for the first time in your thirties when you are already married with kids....
that becomes a question about subjective vs. objective love. "in love" well, words maybe not accurate here. have you loved? have you had pets? or a hobby you loved... in love. sometimes I think that people are too concerned with the eternal aspect... as if we should be capable of always loving constantly. For me that's not true... even unconditional love only exists in the only moment that exists, now. Do you love now, then you're loving... maybe in love... idk. I do think love is a verb too, so that means you can put in effort to love... active love vs. passive love or effortful love vs. receiving love. They are both acceptable. So you can put in effort and it can happen. or you can be open to it...
1:10:45 “they don’t judge me like my family does.” What a beautiful thing. Adults void of accountability through negative behavioral enablement. The truth is, everyone judges everyone. Anyone has opinions of anything. Everyone has their own level of applicable wisdom and discernment. Having a bunch of dogs and cats to give you unconditional “love” may feel good and rewarding, that doesn’t mean you’ve lived a purposeful and fulfilling life. A friend isn’t just someone who celebrates your successes. A friend is someone who will tell you when they think you’ve done wrong. I strongly suggest that what many people have isn’t “tight and enduring same-s3x friendships, but shallow bandaids of enablement that keep them “protected” from addressing our very real weaknesses and negative behaviors. Imagine this “no judgement no discernment no accountability” being all parenting and societal governance. Society would cease to exist because there would be no incentive structure to be consistent, no negative incentive structure to deter violent and malignant behavior.
Fascinating conversation, but she gives way too much emphasis on infidelity as being a commonplace "strategy". She does not take into account the devastation it inflicts on the children involved, which you would think puts them at an evolutionary disadvantage. Even today it's rare, and society and cultures try to prevent it not to control people, but rather to prevent the human misery that inevitably accompanies it.
Trust me, the point you made is already proven. The concept of reversing monogamy to a more primate-like behavior, which involves more casual sexual experiences for both genders, does not work since humans became settlers. If monogamy is not enforced and more animal-like behavior prevails, where the upper echelon has as much sex as they want without pairing or having offspring, that culture or group eventually vanishes. Until it erases itself, it creates a lot of misery. Just compare the ingroups that still enforce monogamy, such as orthodox or extremely religious groups, with the average western ingroup. The latter is already dead in terms of fertility.
@@sad_wrangler8515 Well stated. And let's be honest...I doubt lots of casual sex would have worked even when we were hunter-gatherers. That is a very challenging lifestyle that requires a great deal of group cohesion. The effects of jealousy and not knowing who is related to whom would have be extremely deleterious to that cohesion.
Yes, and this is where she fails to understand that social influence is an additional layer of evolution. Our ability to have empathy for our spouses, our children, and our extended family is in part a "social construct" but why would we throw something away just because it is social in nature? Does it bring good to us and our society? If you conclude otherwise it's because you have a rotten value system. Does this mean we should force our morality on others? No, but we should continue to have that conversation and associate with those who share our moral systems so we can propagate them just like we do with genetic code. I have no qualms with anyone who is openly non-monogamous but I do have a problem with people who lie, cheat, and pretend the impact it has on friends, children, and family is simply a "social construct" that we all have to collectively move on from since it's not "biological."
@@_ima_b "pretend the impact it has on friends, children, and family is simply a "social construct" that we all have to collectively move on from since it's not "biological."" - Brilliantly stated. Thank you!
Once you listen to Jordan Peterson talk about & debunk polyamory, you can’t take any positive discussion of it seriously. Apart from that, I thought it was a good pod
It’s basically always the female side that opens up the relationship to one more potential partner. I have never witnessed, in my entire time, the male side opening up to it. The ones that did it either mentally cheated or eventually favored one person and dropped the other because, even nowadays, the male is typically the party that puts in most resources in a relationship. So, at one point, that part of the relationship will focus on one person and not multiple ones.
I'm convinced that men and women experience romantic love differently. We assume that when we say we LOVE our partner, we mean the same thing, but it's not the same. Essentially, I think men love generously, and women love selfishly. I wish someone would study this!
I think the difference between male romantic love vs female romantic love shapes societal expectations when it comes to behavior within a relationship. Men are expected to always "do the right thing", which often requires a great deal of self sacrifice. Women are told to "do what's right for YOU", which usually means self serving actions.
Women value their man's financial and social status a lot more than men value their woman's financial and social status. Men mainly care about their woman's personality and physical appearance, while women can overlook one or both of those things if a man has enough finances and status. Men love idealistically, women love oportunistically.
@@SnoopyReads Women evolved to be nurturing to their children, but they are not at all nurturing to men in general. They strictly select the best man possible to maximize the wellbeing of their offspring, taking into account genetics, social status, and money and resources.
@@mudblood9699 not all women value their man's financial status I'd understand the social status but still. Not every woman is gunning for those things alone because it's pretty empty how about emotional availability in the relationship yk? I'd say that is just as valuable if not more valuable
Right. Leftists believe evolution is incontrovertible until it contradicts their ideology. I realize I’m making assumptions about her politics but I wager I’m correct.
@basiicbid8032 Because they draw pictures differently past age 11? Arab men aren't protectors or providers in their families? Because they hold hands with other men? What a bunch of nonsense and logical leaps this "research" is.
@@basiicbid8032 primal instincts, It's an uncontrollable urge to feel compelled to act without thinking. Men not stepping into that role is something conditioned culturally
Men and women are extremely different and their brains are different. Attributing changes in how boys see love after puberty starts to cultural conditioning… without even mentioning increased testosterone is beyond stupid.
This woman lost all credibility as soon as she started the whole, "men and women are exactly the same" speech. This idea is not only idiotic, it's wildly destructive.
@craigdangerous Yep, absurd. Also even if you are seeing similar firing and similar structures in the brain does NOT mean that they're codified in the same way.
If most people got long term partners from apps they would go out of business lol. It’s their incentive to make it as shallow as possible. Luckily I found someone really good 3 years ago on Facebook dating of all things. I’m so glad to be out of the dating market because it was fucking brutal, even as a tall decently attractive guy. I feel really bad for ugly people on dating apps they have literally 0 chance.
I'm actually in the planning stage of an app designed specifically for marriage or long-term relationships only. People are starting to realize that casual dating and hookups are not how we're meant to love, and we need to focus on creating and nurturing life-long fulfilling relationships.
@@arna8427 I don't want to discourage you but, unlike what people are saying here, the problem with dating apps are not the apps, it's the biology/people. It's similar to how people complain about youtubers using red arrows on thumbnails. You know where you find a bunch of them? In the comment sections. The reason they place red arrows etc, is because they work. The reason people don't find partners on dating apps is because of how men and women select. That's it.
@@eduardomartin8510 You're quite right. It's a much bigger mess than we realize. The root of the problem is the poor values and low standards that have become normalized in today's dating scene and society. The apps unfortunately just feed and profit off the unhealthy connections that people make. Part of solution will be showing and teaching people what long lasting and healthy relationships really are and giving them the opportunity to match with people that are actually searching for a life-long partner and not just immature or negative connections.
I disagree with at least two concepts here. She appears to be treating culture as separate from biology. Culture is downstream of biology. Culture serves the genome. This is called the Omega Principle put forth by evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. Second, no data here, but I can’t agree that love is felt, acted out, and experienced in the same manner between the sexes. The idea of the protector as cultural? I don’t go along with that. I would wager that more husbands would reflexively defend and subsequently die for their wives than the opposite. The hierarchy or the order of death goes (biologically driven): Husband for wife and wife for children.
I agree with you that there is a cohort of men who don't take the role of protecting the woman, but expect the woman to save and rescue them. These men aren't afraid to show their rich and colorful emotions; they express joy, rage, cry for love and other things, and they often project their frustration and anger onto their female partner.
@murphymacken et al, just published a new study, "Why women cheat: testing evolutionary hypotheses for female infidelity in a multinational sample," which takes a deep dive into the two mating strategies used by women.
Matthew 5:43-44 ~ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” It’s one thing to involve yourself in relationships that increase dopamine to aid survival, but it’s another thing to love those who despise your wellbeing.
Another point, the claim that we are by nature polygamous and or "serial monogamists" seems to fly in the face of human experience. I guess some folks can do the poly thing and be happy, but I'm willing to wager my 33-year marriage and our 11 children have brought far more goodness and happiness into the world that any group of perpetual adolescents narcissistically f***ing anything that moves ever will. The human heart is made for permanence and exclusivity, and anything that falls short of that will ultimately render only misery.
But that’s not poly. Poly is having multiple relationships at once. Serial monogamy is one at a time. Monogamy is the idea of one for life. Human behavior trends to the second option for the vast majority throughout their lifetimes. Most marriage ends between 8-20 years. The average relationship is less than 2 years. So it’s pretty clear. The 50 year happy monogamous marriage is rare
@@apriljohnson1067 "The 50 year happy monogamous marriage is rare" so is great wealth, professional success, fame, etc...and yet everyone aspires to these things. My parents have been happily married for 65 years. What a gift this has been to my siblings and me. I fully intend to give this same gift to my children. What greater privilege could there be? What greater legacy?
@@apriljohnson1067 The problem is that polygamous relationships have never worked out for settled societies; they all died out in terms of fertility. Monogamy was not enforced just for fun. It ensured that children grew up with some sense of safety. Polygamy, in itself, is rather a concept for one person in the relationship to open up their pool to at least one more partner. It is quite rare in psychology for a polygamous relationship to have more than three members because one partner typically engages in a two-person dynamic. If both partners do it, at some point, you will decide which one to favor, just in terms of resources. That's why these relationships are not long-lasting.
@@apriljohnson1067 Throughout most of our history marriage has been for life and our ancestors conquered most of the world. I'd say therefore that's a pretty successful model.
I thought my dog loved me more than life, I thought I was her world until someone offered her food to prove a point, and she let me down. But it taught me that if my car goes off the side of the road and my unharmed dog goes for help, not to hold my breath and I need to get myself the help 😂
If your dog finds you dead bleeding on the ground it will most likely eat you. Once they smell the blood they can’t resist. Dogs aren’t people as much as people like to pretend they are.
@@mbach003 it was an attempt at light humour, which I’m clearly not good at. My dog is my shadow and I love her very much and would do anything for her. I’m aware the same doesn’t apply to her if there’s something that has her interest.
50:43 Is it strange that I am incredibly proud of Chris for pushing back and pointing out the inconsistency of what she says here? He’s spoken about having trouble doing that because he want everybody to always like him, so that was proof of growth!
Some interesting things I think some points were more evolutionarily and she gave culture as credit. There are very real explanations for why women behave with eachother the way they do and the way men do with one another
Interesting. I'm also willing to throw in my two cents, because what is said here supports the background on which I based my theory: People who cheat, lie, manipulate, are simply put: less intelligent. Here's the deal about it: In the grand scheme of things, our society thrives because we can act according to the rules and regulations we imposed on ourselves which lead to the greater good, for everyone's benefit (including our own - long term). And it is a fast-changing and diverse topic, unlike our evolutionary systems which have been in place and changing only very very slowly over thousands of years. Those who are unable to control their urges, the commands from their hormones, and kick over all these systems for their own benefit fail to see how not only it harms people around them, but also how in the long term it basically engraves these undesirable patterns into their being while possibly ruining their own lives. The saying 'Once a cheater always a cheater' is true until the person doesn't get set back too hard by the consequences of their actions. Why that happened? Because they either failed to visualize and evaluate the possible outcomes and their impact, or even when they did they were unable to control their urges. Utterly animalistic. Feels subhuman - and I mean it not as the generic insult but as in the literal sense of the word. Our intelligence and nuanced social dynamics are what seem to elevate us from other species, and these individuals decided to take a step down on the ladder and act the way they do... It is okay to deviate from the "societal norm" (see the bit they talked on polyamory), but it is not nice to be an utter waste of a human being and trample over other people who have done nothing but good to you.
I've worked in the antivirus field for over a decade and the way she's describing them being abused is the exact same way women are abused. Perhaps she hasn't had that experience but it's very similar I also did legal advocacy for many many years + not court systems are favoring women And even then men are still allowed to see their children and be in their lives when they are extremely toxic i.e jug use abuse etc Abusers are abusers The way she's describing it isn't really gendered at all The one thing I would know is that men tend to be more physically abusive where women wouldn't abusive are usually more emotionally The physical abuse usually comes with emotional abuse, much more nuanced needed there
Intresting how during discussion about cheating question about how screwed it is that dads have to raise somebody else kids is wasn't raised at all. Basically don't get born with bad genes kids, or you might be cucked both financially and genetically.
They don't nuance evolutionary drive and ethics. Just because we have a primal urge for something doesn't mean it's good. Men who impregnate and then abandon women and women who get pregnant and have someone else raise it are both awful morally.
Simple empathy gap - every one cares if women are disadvantaged, no one cares if men are! If a woman is given the wrong baby at a maternity hospital - this is an emergency, all hands on deck to resolve the issue. If a man is givenn the wrong baby - man up and sacrifice for the the good of the family!
She is far too confident in her opinions. It was good that chris challenged her on mate switching but there were numeraus other dropped balls in this discussion. Jealousy etc.
1:11:00 Men hide their emotion because of the way that women respond to it. I may have been taught to be tougher from male influences, but the emotional repression has came from experience with women and how it has made relationships worse time and time again. Being cool and just sucking it up when I am feeling down leads to much better relationship outcomes.
Love is not nebulous or mysterious. Love is measurable and tangible. Love is the percent amount of resources you are willing to sacrifice for the object of your love. Resources include, time, money, space in your home, space in your life, bodily autonomy, future prospects, personal peace, etc. That which you love the most you are willing to die or kill for. What more could you sacrifice than your own personal safety and the remainder of your life. That which you are not willing to die for you still love, just less.
It is time that western culture acknowledge that men are people too. When a man gets married, immediately the relationship is unhealthy because the third party in the relationship (government) takes all of the power from the man and gives it to the women. This discrimination is why I tell my sons not to get married in the traditional sense. Rather they form companionships as a gf/committed relationship. Also, a strong prenuptial agreement. As a result, my sons now have healthy relationships with women.
This lady is a nightmare. Imagine being in a relationship with her. The idea of love and monogamy is what built society. Pushing poly relationships as some great thing, yet stats show over 90% of those relationships fail.
Great interview, but I have to disagree about "polyamory." Children raised in multiple-mate relationships have a lower survival rate, particularly in hunter-gatherer societies. Even in places that have official polygynous marriage, you get tons of court cases where one wife tries to poison the other wife's children. Affairs are different because there is ostensibly still commitment between parents and a chance to keep it hidden. I see long-term polygamous relationships tp be feasible mainly for gay men, as once children are involved, it becomes evolutionarily disadvantageous. Not to mention, a woman becoming pregnant without a partner who is soley committed to her has been incredibly dangerous for women for most of our history as homo sapiens. "Polyamory" amd hookup culture would not exist without the (rather empty) promises of the hormonal birth control. It is hardly natural.
I would like to take this segment at 1:08:00 apart a bit. Can men emote more, be more vulnerable? Sure. But only half of the question is asked. I would ask "can men emote more, be more vulnerable AND be the provider, defender, the rock of the relationship?" Maybe is it cultural, but can an emotional man be a leader? And what does it mean to be more emotional? All the time? At home only? Huge part of the cultural values affecting male - male friendships are religion (christian hate for gays, any effecting between two men viewed as gay)
As a very emotional guy....it's a tightrope act. Women want the empathy and compassion but they also want stability. You can be an emotional leader but you have to do a lot of work to regulate and understand their emotions and also project strength. A lot of men are emotional and just mask it with anger.
So there is no elevation of testosterone in saliva during passionate kissing? There is no evolutionary evidence for men’s role as protectors? Come on Chris, ask some challenging questions to her heavily politicized opinions. Her canned, predictable responses discredit her otherwise interesting points.
After listening to the video, and then reading some comments (some of which I agree with, others not) let's remember that Dr. Machin is speaking from her optics and her point of view. Being someone very empirical, it is normal that she will not put much stock in stuff she can't objectively quantify (such as the protective instinct a man has towards his female partner). Do remember as well, what she says is not a law, it's not objectively correct or incorrect. So like with many other things, glean whatever wisdom or knowledge you can with as little bias you can, and keep learning, keep searching for other sources until you reach the answer that is true for you
The point about dating apps seemed a bit off. She said people can’t truly determine attraction through looking at someone on an app, but that’s exactly what they do. Clearly people have some filtering process to decide who they swipe on and go on dates with. She did later slightly clarify by saying apps can make attractive women hyper selective which seems closer to the truth
I agree with her to a point. In one sense, clearly, you are attracted to pictures of people. Yet you get to know someone and you become more or less attracted to them based on knowing them more. So a very beautiful person could become undesirable to you if they have an ugly personality. And a picture didn't tell you that.
@@hankhooper1637 yeah, having chemistry is important. But many people get dismissed on apps because they don’t meet a looks or status threshold. And I think she downplayed how apps have predisposed attractive women to only go for the top 20% of guys. Which leads to those women complaining that men won’t commit. But I think it’s more so the top 20% guys tend to avoid commitment because they get lots of opportunity whereas many, probably a majority, of guys get limited to no results on apps
She misses the point that female emotional loyalty shouldn't trump their romantic relationship because the emotional loyalty is easier. It doesn't bear any impact when there is an issue.
Why is being the protector just a supposed cultural thing? Wouldn’t it make sense from an evolutionary aspect? Men being the stronger sex and therefore being the protector
It makes perfect sense that for monogamous species, infidelity is the way to maximize their reproductive success. It's so controversial to teach this in school, but I think we'll benefit from knowing that these are reasons that are well-founded to ensure our reproductive success as a species. Ethics and morality are different issues because they don't always align with our evolutionary desires. As Dr. Machin explained, the human male has an evolutionary desire to increase the genetic diversity of his offspring, and the human female has the same evolutionary desire, as explained by the mate switching hypothesis and the dual mating hypothesis, the latter of which has been largely abandoned by evolutionary psychologists.
@@hankhooper1637 Richard Dawkins explains genes are selfish by definition: their survival success comes at the expense of other genes. And evolution favors reproductive success.
@@hankhooper1637 Richard Dawkins explains genes are selfish by definition: their survival success comes at the expense of other genes. And evolution favors reproductive success.
@@hankhooper1637 “The picture is not a very pretty one, but humans were not designed by natural selection to coexist in mating bliss. They were designed for individual survival and genetic reproduction. The psychological mechanisms fashioned by these ruthless evolution criteria are sometimes selfish” - David Buss, “The Evolution of Desire: Strategies for Human Mating”
@v9b23j What's interesting to me is that I think every person inherently knows cheating is wrong. How can natural selection "design" both things? That we would cheat and that we'd all know it's wrong.
I think the best relationships start with natural interaction - Dating app and instagram interactions are fake and you don’t know how many people the other is talking to - Funny how approaching a girl in the gym nowadays is seen as creepy but it worked for me 🤔
She's clearly a talented researcher and scientist but she goes beyond her expertise and into the realm of making prescriptions based on her unscientific opinions and world view rather than science based conclusions. For example, she is clearly a critic of social influence on decision making and throws it away as a lesser form of guidance compared to a biological driver. Social influence can be responsible for some very terrible things, but it's also responsible for some of the greatest things we've ever accomplished as a species. Monogamy and religion are not for everyone but to throw them away as merely social pressure is just naïve and stupid. And for the scientific perspective on social influence: Why do you think social structures evolved? It's so our ideas can die instead of us. The lattice of society is the next evolutionary layer on top of our biology. To compare primate societies to human societies is like comparing the technological advancements of primates to humans and conclude that "The ape's live, survive, and reproduce without technology so the humans should just throw theirs away since it's unnecessary and unnatural." It's fundamentally short sighted and stupid. Be wary of scientists like Dr. Anna Machin. Take the knowledge they bring from science and apply it to your own life but don't take her conclusions as science because it's clearly not.
THE LEGAL SYSTEM Is Anna seriously fighting for the divorce laws, child custody laws, domestic violence laws and false accusation laws to be made fairer to men?
Polyamory - oy vey, woman. Just lean into your biological urges? What about the biological urge called "anger?" Should we lean into that to the degree that we feel murderous? URGES SHOULD NOT INFORM BEHAVIOR, PEOPLE.
“The picture is not a very pretty one, but humans were not designed by natural selection to coexist in mating bliss. They were designed for individual survival and genetic reproduction. The psychological mechanisms fashioned by these ruthless evolutionary criteria are sometimes selfish”. - David Buss, “The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating”
Exactly, love is such a nebulous concept...I am leaning towards not even using it when it comes to relationships anymore. (Same goes for the happiness concept and a few other overly used and under defined words) ...but I like evolutionary psychology ))
This was a priceless podcast and perfect timing for me. My wife and I moved away from a city we had lived in for 18 years a few years ago and have been dealing with losing our fathers and my wife has lost her best friends. We've been trying to figure out why we are struggling to get along and so much of this information is helpful to understanding why we've been struggling. Thankfully we are about to move and will be in an environment to thrive. Thank you so much beautiful podcast. 🙏🏻
We've all, such a broad net being cast there. People have varying degrees of ethics/values. The lower the value, the more the ego, and more self centered people are. It's rather simple to understand the quality of people
We can ramble all we want about our interpretations of human behavior but actions speak louder than words. Let a woman choose between a man who is submissive, demure, who doesn’t want to be seen as the protector and provider and then a man who is strong, a protector and willing to provide. 9 times out of 10 the woman will choose the strong man. The one who chooses the weak man will later regret her decision and cheat on the weak man with a strong man. Don’t tell me that men and women are the same. Men have had to become men because that’s what women and society chose.
Really enjoyed this one, a good conversation. I found her mix of evo-psych realism and liberalism quite unusual. See the views are low but more interesting than having another fitness / productivity guy on, a niche well served by tons of other podcasts.
Yes she is speaking so fast it is like the speed has been turned up. Someone might advise her to speak in a way that people will understand and absorb. This is too fast to do either. Too bad because she probably has a lot of good info to impart. ❤
There is a way to reach serenity and peace, and the Author touches on it. Love (not love) is everything and everywhere. Christianity has pointed to Christ as the source and inspiration. Others point elsewhere. It does not matter how one conceptualises it, for whichever one does this, it is the work of the EGO. Once one feels the Love of God, and is able to share some of this with others, there would be no need for constant seeking through need of this in others. But in this day and age, especially in the West, this has been lost. So people cannot be serene, feel disattisfied, lonely, easily disappointed, seeking this divine sense from people places and things, cheat, go round and round and round, looking for what is already there out in the Universe. Romance and Love can co-exist between two people, and do so for a long time through a sense of gratitude and serenity. Few people these days actually get to this sadly, thus live in perpetual Fear. And one other point to make: children need that Divine Love the most, to build more secure attachments within themselves. The "progress" EP alludes to is an illusion. It is arguably regression, for the way humans often behave now reflect that of chimps. Is this evolution?
Cultural background as well as the biological diversity between women and men play a major role in the differences between how men and women interact with love issues.
We teach young men to be in control of their emotions and be "stoic" in their emotional self-control because a man without self control is DANGEROUS. Being physically stronger and emotionally reckless is not a good thing for any relationship. So i don't believe that we should teach boys to bottle up or ignore their feelings. But they absolutely MUST NOT be governed by them. What was defined as "toxic masculinity (before EVERYTHING was) was just men with no control over their emotions pretending to not have them... not a healthy way to live.
Love is just a feeling of absolute safety, similar to what the infant felt towards parents. Nothing more to it. Also copulation has nothing to do with love. All the other types of relations like friends, enemies etc. also sit on that safety axis.
Children whose parents were divorced have an insecure attachment style and lower levels of oxytocin, according to a study cited by Katherin Cullen in How Divorce Can Affect Children's Future Relationships, published in Psychology Today, March 16, 2021.
Confidently speaking without saying anything is a talent and Anna has this talent. Fascinating, how confident and how often she said we don't know ... when she didn't know. There was sooo little science in this episode that I forced myself to listen through the episode in the hope to still find some science in what she says. But I had enough as she said: "Love is everything" 🤮 Chris I love your podcast and thanks for bringing more woman and more interesting topics to the podcast. I wouldn't listen to Anna to another episode when Anna is invited. But I always look forward to other new episodes. Thanks for doing this amazing podcast mate!
Been in a 20yr relationship. (3 kids) Didn't love my partner like I do now in the early days just wanted to lock her in and down as my sexual territory and overtime deep love grew.
48:11 Incorrect, a woman needs to couple up for the child to survive. A man, just like in the wild, can move on and continue to spread his seed. Needing to stay for the child is a social construct under monogamy.
1:09:13 she needs to study military men's friendships. We face death and bond. I don't want to say that women's problems are not severe or important, but men work through life threatening situations and women are sitting on a couch in safety. Her opinion is that men could benefit from doing things like women? Hmmmm
Finally somebody who doesn't not just brainlessly hammers the "we are social creatures" thrope. Being social costs a lot, it is not all positive, it is not easy, and for many the bare minimum is enough. I suspect the "we are social creatures" just means the more ppl the more money can be made.
12:00 so if females unconscious attraction is toward as different MHC, would that suggest that woman are naturally more attracted to people of a different race than they are. Like if my ancestors have been in Europe for 1000 years and hers is from Asia for 1000 years, can’t get less related than that
Dr Machin is brilliant, and this was a fascinating and enlightening discussion. However, if you (Chris) don't stop casually using the word "molesting" (when you are not actually referring to molesting), I will have to stop listening to your videos. As someone who was molested (by my father, throughout my entire childhood), I find it upsetting and insulting to hear that word used inaccurately and inappropriately.
How does the scent of smell work with gay woman when determining a partner? Are they still doing it and despite not being able to have children together, they are still detecting a good biology match or is that not a factor for gay women? Or is thing else happening?
The one with smells I am not sure about it. As a man for sure the smell of womens is a big part of actraction. And for sure men can smell if a women "wants" or not, if she is healthy or not, if she is conmpatible or not. I presume some of those (last) are less important for a man and more for womens. But smell is important for boths. This is the role of dancing and sports.
I found this woman interesting until she started talking about how men need to talk about their feelings more. This has been brought up for decades. Men talk about their problems. Talking about them does not fix them.
Hmmm if were animalistically polyamorous how does it tie into morality cause she said that poly people are more moral because they act more in line with the animalistic behavior concerning the succss of spreading genes.But animals are not concerned about morals and social responsibility, maybe it's because of like she said culture? But culture is so intigrated with the human spirit that maybe we are neither polyamorous nor monogamous afterall she did admit her bias with polyamory.
What did you think of Dr Machin’s research on love? Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com/books/ Here’s the timestamps:
00:00 Why Did Love Evolve?
04:23 Is Love Just a Neurochemical Motivation?
07:23 Stages of Romantic Love
13:19 Why Humans Kiss
15:51 Love’s Role in Long-Term Relationships
21:23 Do Men & Women Feel Love Differently?
24:49 How Genetics & Environment Impact Love
36:26 Why Do Men & Women Cheat?
43:24 Is Our Mating Ideology Working?
54:40 Balancing Rationality With Feeling Love
1:01:26 Love in Abusive Relationships
1:06:29 Romantic Relationships Vs Best Friends
1:13:43 The Pitfalls of Evolutionary Psychology
1:19:29 How Dating Apps Have Impacted Love
1:27:55 Explaining Parasocial Love
1:34:28 Where to Find Anna
@@ChrisWillx I disagree with at least two concepts here. She appears to be treating culture as separate from biology. Culture is downstream of biology. Culture serves the genome. This is called the Omega Principle put forth by evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. Second, no data here, but I can’t agree that love is felt, acted out, and experienced in the same manner between the sexes. The idea of the protector as cultural? I don’t go along with that. I would wager that more husbands would reflexively defend and subsequently die for their wives than the opposite. The hierarchy or the order of death goes (biologically driven): Husband for wife and wife for children.
This actually shows why shit ton of people just quit on the life and stoped. I completly understand them. Unless there is mandatory paternity tests at the time of birth for child and it is given to father then they should not try to provide for the children. I only want manditory paternity tests.
Dr Machin is brilliant, and this was a fascinating and enlightening discussion. However, if you (Chris) don't stop casually using the word "molesting" (when you are not actually referring to molesting), I will have to stop listening to your videos. As someone who was molested (by my father, throughout my entire childhood), I find it upsetting and insulting to hear that word used inaccurately and inappropriately.
Although very interesting I had the sensation, at various points of the conversation, that Dr. Machin has very reductive views on some themes. She understandably bases her takes on her field of expertise, but like she says (even though she then proceeds to try to do the opposite) not everything can be explained just by genes. Specially when it comes to psychological and emotional aspects of behaviour. Again, it's not her field of proficiency so I understand it, and it is very plainly to see so.
There's something really sad about saying that a dog can have human levels of love. Trust me i'm an incel.
Chris just procrastinating at this point. Just go out and talk to a girl bro you’ve done enough research 😂
I doubt he has any issues getting women. He’s good looking, articulate, and has a good personality.
@@godislove4540 It's called a joke.
@@Just_some_guy_1honestly could’ve chosen better wording for a joke. i feel like this guy actually prob thinks this 😆
😂
When somebody says, "What is love?" I say, "Baby don't hurt me."
That was the first thing that popped into my head! 😂😂
That is passive side. What is active side?
"we are the only creature that uses love to manipulate" ::My cat crying like a human baby to make me give her treats whenever she wants::
Hahahaha! I have two kids and I only look at it as an obligation. . . Not Love.
@@WilcoxNotreallythereYou should not have had kids then. Your kids probably feel this. I know I did.
@@godislove4540 I work my ass off 72 hours a week sometimes for my kids. I slave over them in my time off. They are my responsibility. We're having more.
@@WilcoxNotreallytherethis is really concerning, I hope ur joking.
@@arnie5691 nope. I'm gonna leave and have two kids with someone hotter. . . And then I'm going to rinse and repeat.
I don't believe anything she's saying about polyamory, either. I've known a number of people who are poly, and it's so much drama and jealousy and trainwrecks. I'm convinced that there's more abuse in poly relationships because partners get jealous and angry at their partner dating around or sleeping around. Generally poly women can sleep around 10x as easily as a man in a poly relationship, which causes a power imbalance. I've seen verbal and physical abuse happen multiple times. Most poly people also don't want children and they know it's incompatible with raising kids.
I got 49 min in and stopped listening to her. She started to sound like she was promoting poly relationships and not once brought up STDs. The downplay was real.
Thete iscacdifference between what adherents espouse and report as reality and the actual reality. As an academic woukd hope that she would be aware 9f such biases.
@Zen56103 but she says exactly this about the jealousy. It came across to me as an anthropologist explaining the scientific and cultural differences as as to what our biological drive vs societal drives are. She says it’s not for everyone. I personally would not ever be involved in a polygamist relationship, but I can see from what she’s saying (and the fact all other primates from which we descend are polyamorous) that there is some biological drives that might be against our social expectations.
The way she describes men's desires as being strong and protecting women in such a mocking way is worthy of contempt. It's a noble thing and it's something men deeply aspire to and it's doubtful its origins are cultural, and even if they were, it's something to aspire to. Literally just some moments ago I saw a video that praised a video game character for giving up everything he had for his family and daughter (Ethan Winters), even his own life. The comments were filled with men, and some women, praising his archetype and crying at the character's sacrifice. It's something that resonates with people at a deep level. Don't mock something so beautiful and transcendent of which you enjoy the fruits of today.
Sacrificing yourself for others in general is a noble thing. Doing it just for women and for no other reason that you being a man and them being a woman is basically a form of sexism. Every man should hold himself to the short, fat, bald man standard. If you wouldn't do it for him, don't do it for a woman.
Obviously people are going to have a desire and motivation to protect their families though, that's a different story.
@@roberthudson3386I wouldn't dismiss what you have said out of hand, but how you treat those that are weaker than you is very telling about your character. Often as a man, that means rendering aid at the cost of your own personal safety.
I'm not saying that you should blindly sacrifice everything for those that are undeserving or unappreciative of such sacrifice, but you are oversimplifying the issue.
@@Decimus-Magnus If you're helping someone weaker than you it has nothing to do with gender. As said, bald, fat, short (crippled) man rule. If you would do it for him, then go ahead and do it for a woman. But don't do it just because she's a woman. She isn't a higher being.
@@roberthudson3386 That's fine if you don't want to. I'm not stopping to help a man change his tire, because he should be physically capable of doing so. I will offer to assist a woman and see if she needs help because they are vulnerable and often are physically not capable of doing so due to how heavy a tire is, how much force is required to break a lug nut loose, etc. That's just one example, but it's a perfect one. I'm sorry, but men and women aren't the same, and while there is a lot of overlap where you would help a man just the same as a woman, there are a lot of areas where most men won't, and it's not because they are dicks.
We live in an imperfect world.
@@roberthudson3386 Ah, the women and men are completely equal fallacy
47:10 Is that the "natural" state though? As far as I've heard, polyamory mostly existed in a way that women shared a same husband cause he had resources which ensures the children have a higher survival rate and these weren't long-lasting relationships. Comparing that to today where people believe that they can just love multiple people at the same time across their whole lives doesn't seem to be accurate and that's why these relationships mostly fail.
I was irked by that, I doubt anyone would like their parents to be polyamorous.
Not only this relationships fail. Most relationships mostly fail.
Loved how she said she can explain all of these phenomena but they’re still not the experience of love. That really hit home
The out of times my brain responded “baby don’t hurt me” against my will
I was about to say the same thing lol
Great content! BUT... I'm afraid some of these ideas could have a negative impact on inexperienced or younger people who might not see the whole picture. Yes, humans can love in countless ways, but the healthiest and most successful form of love will always be a faithful, monogamous relationship where the offspring will be able to grow and mature in a safe and nurturing environment with two loving parents. History has shown this time and time again. Any other alternative might work temporarily, but in one way or another it will always fail in the long run.
Yes, and science seeks the truth. We can teach people the facts Dr. Machin laid out about infidelity as a way to maximize our reproductive success as a monogamous species; for men to increase the genetic diversity of their offspring, and for women to increase their offspring with men of superior genes. In doing so, it's important not to mix ethics and morality with biology. At the same time, we can teach young people about the pros and cons of monogamy and polyamory. It's not helpful to sugarcoat our biological urges and evolutionary desires. We can teach them to hold opposing thoughts and facts at the same time, so they can navigate the vagaries of life with knowledge.
That comment of living half a life if you've never felt love hit me hard. The affection my parents gave me grew smaller and smaller as I grew older in childhood, and I rarely heard them say they even loved me. I'm now in my mid 30s and I don't think I've ever been in love. Not even once. I'm not even sure what it feels like to be quite honest with you.
Love is necessary. "In-love" is not. There's a reason why the Greeks thought Aphrodite and Eros were to be feared. Like for example falling in love for the first time in your thirties when you are already married with kids....
Love is just a word. A four letter word. You could also say "loyalty"or "obligation" but both those words are meaningless in 2024.
that becomes a question about subjective vs. objective love. "in love" well, words maybe not accurate here. have you loved? have you had pets? or a hobby you loved... in love. sometimes I think that people are too concerned with the eternal aspect... as if we should be capable of always loving constantly. For me that's not true... even unconditional love only exists in the only moment that exists, now. Do you love now, then you're loving... maybe in love... idk. I do think love is a verb too, so that means you can put in effort to love... active love vs. passive love or effortful love vs. receiving love. They are both acceptable. So you can put in effort and it can happen. or you can be open to it...
1:10:45 “they don’t judge me like my family does.” What a beautiful thing. Adults void of accountability through negative behavioral enablement.
The truth is, everyone judges everyone. Anyone has opinions of anything. Everyone has their own level of applicable wisdom and discernment.
Having a bunch of dogs and cats to give you unconditional “love” may feel good and rewarding, that doesn’t mean you’ve lived a purposeful and fulfilling life.
A friend isn’t just someone who celebrates your successes. A friend is someone who will tell you when they think you’ve done wrong.
I strongly suggest that what many people have isn’t “tight and enduring same-s3x friendships, but shallow bandaids of enablement that keep them “protected” from addressing our very real weaknesses and negative behaviors.
Imagine this “no judgement no discernment no accountability” being all parenting and societal governance.
Society would cease to exist because there would be no incentive structure to be consistent, no negative incentive structure to deter violent and malignant behavior.
Get help
@@jasminegrandberry4990 Hit a little close to home huh, girlfriend?
@@jasminegrandberry4990😂
Fascinating conversation, but she gives way too much emphasis on infidelity as being a commonplace "strategy". She does not take into account the devastation it inflicts on the children involved, which you would think puts them at an evolutionary disadvantage. Even today it's rare, and society and cultures try to prevent it not to control people, but rather to prevent the human misery that inevitably accompanies it.
Trust me, the point you made is already proven. The concept of reversing monogamy to a more primate-like behavior, which involves more casual sexual experiences for both genders, does not work since humans became settlers. If monogamy is not enforced and more animal-like behavior prevails, where the upper echelon has as much sex as they want without pairing or having offspring, that culture or group eventually vanishes. Until it erases itself, it creates a lot of misery. Just compare the ingroups that still enforce monogamy, such as orthodox or extremely religious groups, with the average western ingroup. The latter is already dead in terms of fertility.
@@sad_wrangler8515 Well stated. And let's be honest...I doubt lots of casual sex would have worked even when we were hunter-gatherers. That is a very challenging lifestyle that requires a great deal of group cohesion. The effects of jealousy and not knowing who is related to whom would have be extremely deleterious to that cohesion.
Yes, and this is where she fails to understand that social influence is an additional layer of evolution. Our ability to have empathy for our spouses, our children, and our extended family is in part a "social construct" but why would we throw something away just because it is social in nature? Does it bring good to us and our society? If you conclude otherwise it's because you have a rotten value system. Does this mean we should force our morality on others? No, but we should continue to have that conversation and associate with those who share our moral systems so we can propagate them just like we do with genetic code. I have no qualms with anyone who is openly non-monogamous but I do have a problem with people who lie, cheat, and pretend the impact it has on friends, children, and family is simply a "social construct" that we all have to collectively move on from since it's not "biological."
@@_ima_b "pretend the impact it has on friends, children, and family is simply a "social construct" that we all have to collectively move on from since it's not "biological."" - Brilliantly stated. Thank you!
One could argue that societal schemes to prevent infedility have also developed on an evolutionary basis too. Evolution didn't stop 10,000 years ago.
Once you listen to Jordan Peterson talk about & debunk polyamory, you can’t take any positive discussion of it seriously. Apart from that, I thought it was a good pod
It’s basically always the female side that opens up the relationship to one more potential partner. I have never witnessed, in my entire time, the male side opening up to it. The ones that did it either mentally cheated or eventually favored one person and dropped the other because, even nowadays, the male is typically the party that puts in most resources in a relationship. So, at one point, that part of the relationship will focus on one person and not multiple ones.
Female initiates every time I see it.
I'm convinced that men and women experience romantic love differently. We assume that when we say we LOVE our partner, we mean the same thing, but it's not the same. Essentially, I think men love generously, and women love selfishly. I wish someone would study this!
I think the difference between male romantic love vs female romantic love shapes societal expectations when it comes to behavior within a relationship. Men are expected to always "do the right thing", which often requires a great deal of self sacrifice. Women are told to "do what's right for YOU", which usually means self serving actions.
Women value their man's financial and social status a lot more than men value their woman's financial and social status. Men mainly care about their woman's personality and physical appearance, while women can overlook one or both of those things if a man has enough finances and status. Men love idealistically, women love oportunistically.
@@SnoopyReads Women evolved to be nurturing to their children, but they are not at all nurturing to men in general. They strictly select the best man possible to maximize the wellbeing of their offspring, taking into account genetics, social status, and money and resources.
21:23 apparently not
@@mudblood9699 not all women value their man's financial status I'd understand the social status but still. Not every woman is gunning for those things alone because it's pretty empty how about emotional availability in the relationship yk? I'd say that is just as valuable if not more valuable
Saying that boys assuming the role of protector is due to cultural conditioning may be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
Right. Leftists believe evolution is incontrovertible until it contradicts their ideology. I realize I’m making assumptions about her politics but I wager I’m correct.
She explained how the research shows it though. What do you think the reason is?
@basiicbid8032 Because they draw pictures differently past age 11? Arab men aren't protectors or providers in their families? Because they hold hands with other men? What a bunch of nonsense and logical leaps this "research" is.
@@ReesKenny-bp7lc Sure. Let’s just give the kids a survey then. That better for you?😂
@@basiicbid8032 primal instincts, It's an uncontrollable urge to feel compelled to act without thinking. Men not stepping into that role is something conditioned culturally
Men and women are extremely different and their brains are different. Attributing changes in how boys see love after puberty starts to cultural conditioning… without even mentioning increased testosterone is beyond stupid.
Who created the culture that perpetuates the cultural conditioning in the first place? Maybe someone acting according to their biology.
This woman lost all credibility as soon as she started the whole, "men and women are exactly the same" speech.
This idea is not only idiotic, it's wildly destructive.
She was talking about brain activity
@craigdangerous Yep, absurd. Also even if you are seeing similar firing and similar structures in the brain does NOT mean that they're codified in the same way.
@@RadekPilich and she was wrong
Dating apps aren’t meant to help you date they’re just made to extract money
If most people got long term partners from apps they would go out of business lol. It’s their incentive to make it as shallow as possible. Luckily I found someone really good 3 years ago on Facebook dating of all things. I’m so glad to be out of the dating market because it was fucking brutal, even as a tall decently attractive guy. I feel really bad for ugly people on dating apps they have literally 0 chance.
I'm actually in the planning stage of an app designed specifically for marriage or long-term relationships only. People are starting to realize that casual dating and hookups are not how we're meant to love, and we need to focus on creating and nurturing life-long fulfilling relationships.
@@arna8427 I don't want to discourage you but, unlike what people are saying here, the problem with dating apps are not the apps, it's the biology/people. It's similar to how people complain about youtubers using red arrows on thumbnails. You know where you find a bunch of them? In the comment sections. The reason they place red arrows etc, is because they work. The reason people don't find partners on dating apps is because of how men and women select. That's it.
I've never spent money on dating apps and they've worked fine for me.
@@eduardomartin8510 You're quite right. It's a much bigger mess than we realize. The root of the problem is the poor values and low standards that have become normalized in today's dating scene and society. The apps unfortunately just feed and profit off the unhealthy connections that people make. Part of solution will be showing and teaching people what long lasting and healthy relationships really are and giving them the opportunity to match with people that are actually searching for a life-long partner and not just immature or negative connections.
I disagree with at least two concepts here. She appears to be treating culture as separate from biology. Culture is downstream of biology. Culture serves the genome. This is called the Omega Principle put forth by evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. Second, no data here, but I can’t agree that love is felt, acted out, and experienced in the same manner between the sexes. The idea of the protector as cultural? I don’t go along with that. I would wager that more husbands would reflexively defend and subsequently die for their wives than the opposite. The hierarchy or the order of death goes (biologically driven): Husband for wife and wife for children.
I agree with you that there is a cohort of men who don't take the role of protecting the woman, but expect the woman to save and rescue them. These men aren't afraid to show their rich and colorful emotions; they express joy, rage, cry for love and other things, and they often project their frustration and anger onto their female partner.
Agree.
Men love women. Women love children. Children love puppies.
(Yes, over simplified, but sounds like truth to me.)
the answer to the dual mating vs Mate switching is probably the best answer I have heard.
@murphymacken et al, just published a new study, "Why women cheat: testing evolutionary hypotheses for female infidelity in a multinational sample," which takes a deep dive into the two mating strategies used by women.
@@v9b23j I would be Very sceptical of anything from him
Matthew 5:43-44 ~ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
It’s one thing to involve yourself in relationships that increase dopamine to aid survival, but it’s another thing to love those who despise your wellbeing.
Another point, the claim that we are by nature polygamous and or "serial monogamists" seems to fly in the face of human experience. I guess some folks can do the poly thing and be happy, but I'm willing to wager my 33-year marriage and our 11 children have brought far more goodness and happiness into the world that any group of perpetual adolescents narcissistically f***ing anything that moves ever will. The human heart is made for permanence and exclusivity, and anything that falls short of that will ultimately render only misery.
But that’s not poly. Poly is having multiple relationships at once. Serial monogamy is one at a time. Monogamy is the idea of one for life. Human behavior trends to the second option for the vast majority throughout their lifetimes. Most marriage ends between 8-20 years. The average relationship is less than 2 years. So it’s pretty clear. The 50 year happy monogamous marriage is rare
@@apriljohnson1067 "The 50 year happy monogamous marriage is rare" so is great wealth, professional success, fame, etc...and yet everyone aspires to these things. My parents have been happily married for 65 years. What a gift this has been to my siblings and me. I fully intend to give this same gift to my children. What greater privilege could there be? What greater legacy?
@@apriljohnson1067 The problem is that polygamous relationships have never worked out for settled societies; they all died out in terms of fertility. Monogamy was not enforced just for fun. It ensured that children grew up with some sense of safety. Polygamy, in itself, is rather a concept for one person in the relationship to open up their pool to at least one more partner. It is quite rare in psychology for a polygamous relationship to have more than three members because one partner typically engages in a two-person dynamic. If both partners do it, at some point, you will decide which one to favor, just in terms of resources. That's why these relationships are not long-lasting.
Congratulations on your marriage.
@@apriljohnson1067 Throughout most of our history marriage has been for life and our ancestors conquered most of the world. I'd say therefore that's a pretty successful model.
Chris is back to relationships podcasts and I am all for it....lets gooo!!!!!
I thought my dog loved me more than life, I thought I was her world until someone offered her food to prove a point, and she let me down. But it taught me that if my car goes off the side of the road and my unharmed dog goes for help, not to hold my breath and I need to get myself the help 😂
If your dog finds you dead bleeding on the ground it will most likely eat you. Once they smell the blood they can’t resist. Dogs aren’t people as much as people like to pretend they are.
Or any animal that eats meat
Idk y u thought that. Dog are self interest motivated only
@@mbach003 it was an attempt at light humour, which I’m clearly not good at. My dog is my shadow and I love her very much and would do anything for her. I’m aware the same doesn’t apply to her if there’s something that has her interest.
@@mbach003based on what evidence? Dogs are most defo capable of selfless acts, and have proven so many a time.
50:43 Is it strange that I am incredibly proud of Chris for pushing back and pointing out the inconsistency of what she says here? He’s spoken about having trouble doing that because he want everybody to always like him, so that was proof of growth!
Some interesting things I think some points were more evolutionarily and she gave culture as credit. There are very real explanations for why women behave with eachother the way they do and the way men do with one another
My addiction to a hot curry makes so much more sense now.
Interesting.
I'm also willing to throw in my two cents, because what is said here supports the background on which I based my theory:
People who cheat, lie, manipulate, are simply put: less intelligent. Here's the deal about it: In the grand scheme of things, our society thrives because we can act according to the rules and regulations we imposed on ourselves which lead to the greater good, for everyone's benefit (including our own - long term). And it is a fast-changing and diverse topic, unlike our evolutionary systems which have been in place and changing only very very slowly over thousands of years.
Those who are unable to control their urges, the commands from their hormones, and kick over all these systems for their own benefit fail to see how not only it harms people around them, but also how in the long term it basically engraves these undesirable patterns into their being while possibly ruining their own lives.
The saying 'Once a cheater always a cheater' is true until the person doesn't get set back too hard by the consequences of their actions. Why that happened? Because they either failed to visualize and evaluate the possible outcomes and their impact, or even when they did they were unable to control their urges. Utterly animalistic. Feels subhuman - and I mean it not as the generic insult but as in the literal sense of the word. Our intelligence and nuanced social dynamics are what seem to elevate us from other species, and these individuals decided to take a step down on the ladder and act the way they do...
It is okay to deviate from the "societal norm" (see the bit they talked on polyamory), but it is not nice to be an utter waste of a human being and trample over other people who have done nothing but good to you.
I've worked in the antivirus field for over a decade and the way she's describing them being abused is the exact same way women are abused.
Perhaps she hasn't had that experience but it's very similar
I also did legal advocacy for many many years + not court systems are favoring women
And even then men are still allowed to see their children and be in their lives when they are extremely toxic i.e jug use abuse etc
Abusers are abusers
The way she's describing it isn't really gendered at all
The one thing I would know is that men tend to be more physically abusive where women wouldn't abusive are usually more emotionally
The physical abuse usually comes with emotional abuse, much more nuanced needed there
Intresting how during discussion about cheating question about how screwed it is that dads have to raise somebody else kids is wasn't raised at all. Basically don't get born with bad genes kids, or you might be cucked both financially and genetically.
That ancient problem is solved with DNA tests thankfully.
They don't nuance evolutionary drive and ethics. Just because we have a primal urge for something doesn't mean it's good. Men who impregnate and then abandon women and women who get pregnant and have someone else raise it are both awful morally.
Simple empathy gap - every one cares if women are disadvantaged, no one cares if men are!
If a woman is given the wrong baby at a maternity hospital - this is an emergency, all hands on deck to resolve the issue.
If a man is givenn the wrong baby - man up and sacrifice for the the good of the family!
She is far too confident in her opinions. It was good that chris challenged her on mate switching but there were numeraus other dropped balls in this discussion. Jealousy etc.
1:11:00
Men hide their emotion because of the way that women respond to it. I may have been taught to be tougher from male influences, but the emotional repression has came from experience with women and how it has made relationships worse time and time again.
Being cool and just sucking it up when I am feeling down leads to much better relationship outcomes.
I dont know if its because i just woke up. But this woman speaks 100 miles an hour constantly changing topics. Soooo hard to follow
I had to slow down the speed so I could even understand.
Here have some of my ADHD I've got extra. Speed and topic switching are helpful!
@@Thesteadfast that was my first thought "tell me you have ADHD without telling me you have ADHD". It was fine once I woke up more lol.
She teaches at Oxford - full of very intelligent intellectuals who can absorb ideas quickly.
@@jonahtwhale1779 She has really bad reviews at Oxford from students critiquing her erratic speech patterns.
Love is not nebulous or mysterious.
Love is measurable and tangible. Love is the percent amount of resources you are willing to sacrifice for the object of your love.
Resources include, time, money, space in your home, space in your life, bodily autonomy, future prospects, personal peace, etc.
That which you love the most you are willing to die or kill for. What more could you sacrifice than your own personal safety and the remainder of your life.
That which you are not willing to die for you still love, just less.
This is hilarious. Describing love as an evolutionary mechanism so confidently. Wow. Not a doubt in her mind.
It is time that western culture acknowledge that men are people too. When a man gets married, immediately the relationship is unhealthy because the third party in the relationship (government) takes all of the power from the man and gives it to the women. This discrimination is why I tell my sons not to get married in the traditional sense. Rather they form companionships as a gf/committed relationship. Also, a strong prenuptial agreement. As a result, my sons now have healthy relationships with women.
I would have liked her to talk about Hypergamy
This lady is a nightmare. Imagine being in a relationship with her. The idea of love and monogamy is what built society. Pushing poly relationships as some great thing, yet stats show over 90% of those relationships fail.
Great interview, but I have to disagree about "polyamory." Children raised in multiple-mate relationships have a lower survival rate, particularly in hunter-gatherer societies. Even in places that have official polygynous marriage, you get tons of court cases where one wife tries to poison the other wife's children. Affairs are different because there is ostensibly still commitment between parents and a chance to keep it hidden. I see long-term polygamous relationships tp be feasible mainly for gay men, as once children are involved, it becomes evolutionarily disadvantageous. Not to mention, a woman becoming pregnant without a partner who is soley committed to her has been incredibly dangerous for women for most of our history as homo sapiens. "Polyamory" amd hookup culture would not exist without the (rather empty) promises of the hormonal birth control. It is hardly natural.
I would like to take this segment at 1:08:00 apart a bit. Can men emote more, be more vulnerable? Sure. But only half of the question is asked. I would ask "can men emote more, be more vulnerable AND be the provider, defender, the rock of the relationship?"
Maybe is it cultural, but can an emotional man be a leader?
And what does it mean to be more emotional? All the time? At home only?
Huge part of the cultural values affecting male - male friendships are religion (christian hate for gays, any effecting between two men viewed as gay)
That seems to be a tall order for most men.
Men DO NOT trust emotional men.
Do women trust emotional men? I've seen women like the drama of it...
As a very emotional guy....it's a tightrope act. Women want the empathy and compassion but they also want stability.
You can be an emotional leader but you have to do a lot of work to regulate and understand their emotions and also project strength. A lot of men are emotional and just mask it with anger.
Great point. A female mind isn't going to be able to understand that.
So there is no elevation of testosterone in saliva during passionate kissing? There is no evolutionary evidence for men’s role as protectors? Come on Chris, ask some challenging questions to her heavily politicized opinions. Her canned, predictable responses discredit her otherwise interesting points.
Exactly.
After listening to the video, and then reading some comments (some of which I agree with, others not) let's remember that Dr. Machin is speaking from her optics and her point of view. Being someone very empirical, it is normal that she will not put much stock in stuff she can't objectively quantify (such as the protective instinct a man has towards his female partner). Do remember as well, what she says is not a law, it's not objectively correct or incorrect. So like with many other things, glean whatever wisdom or knowledge you can with as little bias you can, and keep learning, keep searching for other sources until you reach the answer that is true for you
Can she objectively quantify how much cheating helped our ancestors survive over long-lasting monogamous relationships?
The point about dating apps seemed a bit off. She said people can’t truly determine attraction through looking at someone on an app, but that’s exactly what they do. Clearly people have some filtering process to decide who they swipe on and go on dates with. She did later slightly clarify by saying apps can make attractive women hyper selective which seems closer to the truth
I agree with her to a point. In one sense, clearly, you are attracted to pictures of people. Yet you get to know someone and you become more or less attracted to them based on knowing them more. So a very beautiful person could become undesirable to you if they have an ugly personality. And a picture didn't tell you that.
@@hankhooper1637 yeah, having chemistry is important. But many people get dismissed on apps because they don’t meet a looks or status threshold. And I think she downplayed how apps have predisposed attractive women to only go for the top 20% of guys. Which leads to those women complaining that men won’t commit. But I think it’s more so the top 20% guys tend to avoid commitment because they get lots of opportunity whereas many, probably a majority, of guys get limited to no results on apps
Most accurate discourse on the dating app problem.
She misses the point that female emotional loyalty shouldn't trump their romantic relationship because the emotional loyalty is easier. It doesn't bear any impact when there is an issue.
Why is being the protector just a supposed cultural thing? Wouldn’t it make sense from an evolutionary aspect? Men being the stronger sex and therefore being the protector
It makes perfect sense that for monogamous species, infidelity is the way to maximize their reproductive success. It's so controversial to teach this in school, but I think we'll benefit from knowing that these are reasons that are well-founded to ensure our reproductive success as a species. Ethics and morality are different issues because they don't always align with our evolutionary desires.
As Dr. Machin explained, the human male has an evolutionary desire to increase the genetic diversity of his offspring, and the human female has the same evolutionary desire, as explained by the mate switching hypothesis and the dual mating hypothesis, the latter of which has been largely abandoned by evolutionary psychologists.
"It makes perfect sense" is not the thing I'd think someone would say about cheating. People are selfish seems like a better explanation.
@@hankhooper1637 Richard Dawkins explains genes are selfish by definition: their survival success comes at the expense of other genes. And evolution favors reproductive success.
@@hankhooper1637 Richard Dawkins explains genes are selfish by definition: their survival success comes at the expense of other genes. And evolution favors reproductive success.
@@hankhooper1637 “The picture is not a very pretty one, but humans were not designed by natural selection to coexist in mating bliss. They were designed for individual survival and genetic reproduction. The psychological mechanisms fashioned by these ruthless evolution criteria are sometimes selfish” - David Buss, “The Evolution of Desire: Strategies for Human Mating”
@v9b23j What's interesting to me is that I think every person inherently knows cheating is wrong. How can natural selection "design" both things? That we would cheat and that we'd all know it's wrong.
I think the best relationships start with natural interaction - Dating app and instagram interactions are fake and you don’t know how many people the other is talking to - Funny how approaching a girl in the gym nowadays is seen as creepy but it worked for me 🤔
I love her conclusion on Love after studying it. Around 59mins
She's clearly a talented researcher and scientist but she goes beyond her expertise and into the realm of making prescriptions based on her unscientific opinions and world view rather than science based conclusions. For example, she is clearly a critic of social influence on decision making and throws it away as a lesser form of guidance compared to a biological driver. Social influence can be responsible for some very terrible things, but it's also responsible for some of the greatest things we've ever accomplished as a species. Monogamy and religion are not for everyone but to throw them away as merely social pressure is just naïve and stupid. And for the scientific perspective on social influence: Why do you think social structures evolved? It's so our ideas can die instead of us. The lattice of society is the next evolutionary layer on top of our biology. To compare primate societies to human societies is like comparing the technological advancements of primates to humans and conclude that "The ape's live, survive, and reproduce without technology so the humans should just throw theirs away since it's unnecessary and unnatural." It's fundamentally short sighted and stupid. Be wary of scientists like Dr. Anna Machin. Take the knowledge they bring from science and apply it to your own life but don't take her conclusions as science because it's clearly not.
THE LEGAL SYSTEM
Is Anna seriously fighting for the divorce laws, child custody laws, domestic violence laws and false accusation laws to be made fairer to men?
Thank you for creating and sharing.
Heard her voice. Leaving now
Thanks for sharing.
😂😂😂
Excellent discussion
Thanks both
What a cold talk about love
Yeah, it’s very cold and calculated. This isn’t Disney
Polyamory - oy vey, woman. Just lean into your biological urges? What about the biological urge called "anger?" Should we lean into that to the degree that we feel murderous? URGES SHOULD NOT INFORM BEHAVIOR, PEOPLE.
Urges like Israel and Palestine?
@@WilcoxNotreallythere No one has any idea what you're talking about and more to the point, no one cares to shift the subject to politics, Wilcox.
0:24 I think sis needs to rethink this. Ants and bees (and others) are 100% cooperative for their entire lives which is more than humans.
“The picture is not a very pretty one, but humans were not designed by natural selection to coexist in mating bliss. They were designed for individual survival and genetic reproduction. The psychological mechanisms fashioned by these ruthless evolutionary criteria are sometimes selfish”. - David Buss, “The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating”
Exactly, love is such a nebulous concept...I am leaning towards not even using it when it comes to relationships anymore. (Same goes for the happiness concept and a few other overly used and under defined words) ...but I like evolutionary psychology ))
I see no love in this world.
This was a priceless podcast and perfect timing for me. My wife and I moved away from a city we had lived in for 18 years a few years ago and have been dealing with losing our fathers and my wife has lost her best friends. We've been trying to figure out why we are struggling to get along and so much of this information is helpful to understanding why we've been struggling. Thankfully we are about to move and will be in an environment to thrive. Thank you so much beautiful podcast. 🙏🏻
We've all, such a broad net being cast there. People have varying degrees of ethics/values. The lower the value, the more the ego, and more self centered people are. It's rather simple to understand the quality of people
Wild oversimplification of infidelity.
We can ramble all we want about our interpretations of human behavior but actions speak louder than words. Let a woman choose between a man who is submissive, demure, who doesn’t want to be seen as the protector and provider and then a man who is strong, a protector and willing to provide. 9 times out of 10 the woman will choose the strong man. The one who chooses the weak man will later regret her decision and cheat on the weak man with a strong man.
Don’t tell me that men and women are the same. Men have had to become men because that’s what women and society chose.
Really enjoyed this one, a good conversation. I found her mix of evo-psych realism and liberalism quite unusual. See the views are low but more interesting than having another fitness / productivity guy on, a niche well served by tons of other podcasts.
Ask these people why society (Western in particular) developed to have women so dependent on men to begin with.
She behaves very human for a robot with robotic ideas and conclusions. She probably thinks music is merely organized noise and thats it.
I feel personally attacked at the 58:35 mark. 😂
Yes she is speaking so fast it is like the speed has been turned up. Someone might advise her to speak in a way that people will understand and absorb. This is too fast to do either. Too bad because she probably has a lot of good info to impart. ❤
Change the speed of the RUclips on settings
There is a way to reach serenity and peace, and the Author touches on it. Love (not love) is everything and everywhere. Christianity has pointed to Christ as the source and inspiration. Others point elsewhere. It does not matter how one conceptualises it, for whichever one does this, it is the work of the EGO.
Once one feels the Love of God, and is able to share some of this with others, there would be no need for constant seeking through need of this in others. But in this day and age, especially in the West, this has been lost. So people cannot be serene, feel disattisfied, lonely, easily disappointed, seeking this divine sense from people places and things, cheat, go round and round and round, looking for what is already there out in the Universe.
Romance and Love can co-exist between two people, and do so for a long time through a sense of gratitude and serenity. Few people these days actually get to this sadly, thus live in perpetual Fear.
And one other point to make: children need that Divine Love the most, to build more secure attachments within themselves. The "progress" EP alludes to is an illusion. It is arguably regression, for the way humans often behave now reflect that of chimps. Is this evolution?
Cultural background as well as the biological diversity between women and men play a major role in the differences between how men and women interact with love issues.
We teach young men to be in control of their emotions and be "stoic" in their emotional self-control because a man without self control is DANGEROUS.
Being physically stronger and emotionally reckless is not a good thing for any relationship.
So i don't believe that we should teach boys to bottle up or ignore their feelings.
But they absolutely MUST NOT be governed by them.
What was defined as "toxic masculinity (before EVERYTHING was) was just men with no control over their emotions pretending to not have them... not a healthy way to live.
Love is just a feeling of absolute safety, similar to what the infant felt towards parents. Nothing more to it. Also copulation has nothing to do with love. All the other types of relations like friends, enemies etc. also sit on that safety axis.
What a concept, that love evolved. I suggest that it's God's essential nature manifest in the world.
In a video about the science of love: "I've fallen in love with evolutionary psychology."
Absolutely fascinating. One of the best in ages
Children whose parents were divorced have an insecure attachment style and lower levels of oxytocin, according to a study cited by Katherin Cullen in How Divorce Can Affect Children's Future Relationships, published in Psychology Today, March 16, 2021.
What is love? Baby don’t hurt me
No more.
What a very warm conversation on the texture of human love. I’m disgusted and done.
Confidently speaking without saying anything is a talent and Anna has this talent. Fascinating, how confident and how often she said we don't know ... when she didn't know. There was sooo little science in this episode that I forced myself to listen through the episode in the hope to still find some science in what she says. But I had enough as she said: "Love is everything" 🤮 Chris I love your podcast and thanks for bringing more woman and more interesting topics to the podcast. I wouldn't listen to Anna to another episode when Anna is invited. But I always look forward to other new episodes. Thanks for doing this amazing podcast mate!
when people ask "what is love?", my response is always "Baby, don't hurt me, no more"
I hope you do the A Night At The Roxberry dance alongside your answer.
@@Tom-qp6oh How can you not? 😆
SO SO SO FKRN BRILLIANT, evolutionary anthropolgy... woah i am so stunned (25:17 when they start talking about attachement, oh my gosh.)
So a stressful pregnancy can prevent your child from being symmetrical??
Been in a 20yr relationship. (3 kids) Didn't love my partner like I do now in the early days just wanted to lock her in and down as my sexual territory and overtime deep love grew.
48:11 Incorrect, a woman needs to couple up for the child to survive. A man, just like in the wild, can move on and continue to spread his seed. Needing to stay for the child is a social construct under monogamy.
Beater marriages are not much different from a 50yr marriage with a couple of temporary separations like mine
1:09:13 she needs to study military men's friendships. We face death and bond. I don't want to say that women's problems are not severe or important, but men work through life threatening situations and women are sitting on a couch in safety. Her opinion is that men could benefit from doing things like women? Hmmmm
Love is unique to humans because we have philosophy and psychology. These factors speak much more to love than this discussion.
Finally somebody who doesn't not just brainlessly hammers the "we are social creatures" thrope.
Being social costs a lot, it is not all positive, it is not easy, and for many the bare minimum is enough.
I suspect the "we are social creatures" just means the more ppl the more money can be made.
Second time on the podcast and calls Chris “John” 😂
Great stuff, I'll have to check out her books 📚
12:00 so if females unconscious attraction is toward as different MHC, would that suggest that woman are naturally more attracted to people of a different race than they are. Like if my ancestors have been in Europe for 1000 years and hers is from Asia for 1000 years, can’t get less related than that
Dr Machin is brilliant, and this was a fascinating and enlightening discussion. However, if you (Chris) don't stop casually using the word "molesting" (when you are not actually referring to molesting), I will have to stop listening to your videos. As someone who was molested (by my father, throughout my entire childhood), I find it upsetting and insulting to hear that word used inaccurately and inappropriately.
How does the scent of smell work with gay woman when determining a partner? Are they still doing it and despite not being able to have children together, they are still detecting a good biology match or is that not a factor for gay women? Or is thing else happening?
She keeps saying that word unconscious, but I don't think it means what she thinks it means...
First time I actually see the clips show on screen at the end :O
The one with smells I am not sure about it. As a man for sure the smell of womens is a big part of actraction. And for sure men can smell if a women "wants" or not, if she is healthy or not, if she is conmpatible or not. I presume some of those (last) are less important for a man and more for womens. But smell is important for boths. This is the role of dancing and sports.
Yes I knew it. A diverse immunity. I suspect men can actually sense when someone has immunity diverse from their own. That’s just a personal anecdote.
Can we psychoanalyze why Chris says says the way he says says?
I found this woman interesting until she started talking about how men need to talk about their feelings more. This has been brought up for decades. Men talk about their problems. Talking about them does not fix them.
Hmmm if were animalistically polyamorous how does it tie into morality cause she said that poly people are more moral because they act more in line with the animalistic behavior concerning the succss of spreading genes.But animals are not concerned about morals and social responsibility, maybe it's because of like she said culture? But culture is so intigrated with the human spirit that maybe we are neither polyamorous nor monogamous afterall she did admit her bias with polyamory.