Dr. Paul Eastwick is a social psychologist from UC Davis. He clarifies that he is not a dating coach.
His classes cover the following topics (and it can be inferred these make up a core of what “romance psychology” is):
- initial attraction
- children’s attachments to caregivers
- studies about love
- studies about couple conflict
- studies about sexual arousal, studies about the physiological effects of a breakup
KEY ASPECT ABOUT PEOPLE
Everyone is developing their own theories about romance. People have preconceived notions before they hear the science.
- Sometimes this is deeply ingrained into who they are
Pet example with student (pg. xii):
- “At what point do I need to accept the fact that I am not attractive?”
- Did not ask about gaining attention, followers, or popularity.
- Implicit question is “Will the process of finding and keeping a partner always feel this daunting and grueling? Am I relationship material, and if not, is there anything I can do about it? Am I struggling because of something evolved or innate about me? Because if so, I’m screwed, right?”
This seems core to me about the motivation to get out there and discuss this stuff.
- “We’ve all been worried about these questions… Are you a catch or not?” (pg. xii)
People think we are something to be marketed.
Evolutionary Psychology
Acknowledges it has been successful (isn’t dismissive), but criticizes its pervasiveness in the romance discourse. E.g.
- Relationships are conflicts between men and women
- Men and women have distinct preferences and goals
- Romantic relationships are negotiations between offering value and extracting benefits to maintain a competitive edge.
Counterarguments he’ll get into later
- Evolution doesn’t prime us to chase the most attractive, highest status partner
- does not push us to worry about differences in mate value
- crave attachment bonds that can meet our needs in good and bad times
- treat partners as safe havens and assurances for adversity and insecurity
- Don’t need someone who matches a “type” or love language, no calibration of partnerships
- dynamics of what cause relationships success or failure or ever-changing and are environment-dependent and are individual specific
- people are not bound to a set of “good” or “bad” traits
States
- Relationships are hard
- can take time
- can fall apart without warning
- everyone struggles and has low points
Crux claim to be supported (pg. xv)
But I say this with confidence: The idea that you have a romantic destiny—that you have a stable value as a partner, linked to your ability to use a specific gendered set of mating strategies, and a “type” who makes you happy—is one of the weakest ideas ever promoted by scientists.