Skip to main content

The drives behind relationship make-ups and break-ups

Before we delve into this topic deeper, I advise you first read the post on positive and negative sexual selection. Essentially, both these types of sexual selection work together, and it must be stressed that sexual selection of whichever type is a primal drive of life, equal to the other drives typically seen as primal, such as feeding, survival, etc.

It might seem that examples of modern life sexual selection in humans, such as a mere facebook "like", or supporting Chelsea FC, are not big enough or relevant enough to be caused by a drive as essential and primal as the sex drive. But remember, this drive is of utmost importance in evolution, because it shapes humans' best bets when it comes to unforeseen selection pressures. A spirit of competition and fair-play, for example, might well play a key role if the future selection pressure involves people trusting each other to work together.

How does all of this relate to relationships between people? Relationships may be seen as alliances between people, things or ideas. So naturally, they tend to form as a result of these alliances. Of course, we can all guess which things go better together, that a couch potato is unlikely to marry a gold medallist.

Positive sexual selection is the initial drive behind selecting partners. Agreeing on similar things, doing similar things, and supporting the same attitude, or best bet for the next selection pressure. This could be a political view, a certain activism, or even the seemingly counter-intuitive "who cares" attitude. Sometimes, negative sexual selection brings people together. This can be seen in those who love each other because they hate the same things. To them it is not about focusing on promoting certain things, but about destroying others, be it religion, socialism, or a certain lifestyle.

We have many relationships in life, friends, acquaintances, family. The depth of these relationships comes from the amount of common attitudes towards things we pick to select. Acquaintances are people we have a few common things with. How about that acquaintance that you liked for decades, then found out something about them, and instantly started disliking them? That is long-distance negative sexual selection, where you decide to be against that acquaintance. When it comes to primary partners, things get complicated because you don't only have to consider that single thing that made you dislike your acquaintance. Usually, there are a lot of different things to weigh out. This is why sometimes friends are against your partner, because they have a few items of information about them that they disagree with, while you know a lot more, and find it harder to decide.

Relationships break when these small things add up to too much stuff one partner cannot longer support, be it a change in lifestyle, unforeseen events which change circumstances, or even not enough excitement. On the other hand, it may be just one thing that one partner deems too much to keep the partnership going. A perfect example is cheating. Evolutionarily speaking, it is crucial for sexual selection to work properly and not be compromised. This is why we are so fierce about, and ultimately our whole life boils down to, the things we are for, and the things we are against.

Read the next post to find out why evolutionarily speaking, cheating between partners has become so unacceptable, yet at the same time many people do forgive it. No, don't listen to the psychology blabber, it has nothing to do with babies. Not nowadays, at least, and not from the point of view of evolution.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

By-products of Evolution - why not everything has a purpose

Last time we looked at how certain major adaptations such as hair loss have enabled humans to survive over the millennia in different conditions, and when faced with competition from other species. Not everything about the human body has a specific purpose, though, in the sense that we expect it to. One example of such thing is the philtrum - that little channel leading from the base of your nose to the upper lip. Recent research suggests that this development dates back millions of years, and has been inherited from fish. Apparently, when human embryos develop their face in the womb, all parts of the forehead, mouth, etc come together and fuse where the philtrum is located.


Some adaptations, on the other hand, are no longer relevant not because of their nature, but because the environmental selection pressure for which they evolved has disappeared. For example, an East Asian's typical eyelid shape evolved as a result of higher light intensities in that area of the world, yet the …

The evolution of the human body

In order to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be able to answer the question "Why do I look like this?", we must look back to our ancestry and their lifestyle, over a very long period of time. For the purpose of this analysis, let's look at the human versus the neanderthal. Recently there have been found neanderthal genes within the human gene pool, but the two species are different enough to compare, yet not too different (human versus fly would be too different).

As you can see, the construction of the human pelvis and toes is different, and the human has less hair. This results in humans being able to run easily for long distances, in the detriment of short-distance running which we are worse at. We sweat better, so we can do more long-term effort. This feat is essential to better settlements, as we can discover a larger area with potentially better resources. It might seem counterproductive to not be able to run quickly for a short period, when it comes …

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it?



The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?".

Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about?


CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan, which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why:

1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely known in the ant…