Decoding Love (24 page)
Authors: Andrew Trees
Luckily, we seem to have evolved mechanisms to protect us against our own personal Oedipal drama. One researcher decided to take a look at marriage on an Israeli kibbutz. Because of the way the kibbutzim is structured, girls and boys are raised in close proximity, almost like brothers and sisters of the same family. When researchers looked at their marriage patterns, it turned out that even though they would not have violated any incest taboos, children of the kibbutzim almost never married. Of the 2,769 marriages, only thirteen were between children who grew up together, and even in those cases, at least one of the children moved in after the age of six. So, it appears that the ultimate antiaphrodisiac is growing up from a young age in close proximity to one another.
Of course, if you want to maximize the number of children you have, there is a powerful incentive to choose someone in your extended family: greater fecundity. According to a study of the Icelandic population, the ideal degree of relatedness to produce the maximum number of children and grandchildren is a union between cousins of the third or fourth degree. Any closer and the couple risks inbreeding. Any further and the couple risks running into genetic incompatibility problems. Who knew that extended family reunions are a potential dating scene?
It also appears that there may be a genetic component that determines how likely a man is to cheat, what some researchers have dubbed the “promiscuity gene.” They have found that there is a variant in some genes for the D4 receptor, a dopamine receptor. Because dopamine is the chemical that stimulates us to want things and underlies everything from sexual attraction to gambling addiction, a change in dopamine reception can have a major influence on our behavior. Men with the promiscuity version of the D4 receptor have an increased desire for erotic adventure and have 20 percent more sexual partners than the average man. Researchers estimate that roughly 30 percent of men carry this gene, but before women go on a genetic witch hunt to weed out these philandering miscreants, they should know that, while similar research has not been done on women, it is very likely that some women have a similar genetic variation. Remember—all those children who are not the product of their legal parents’ loins need both a cheating father and a cheating mother.
For a more precise take on a man’s ability—or inability, if you are a glass-half-empty kind of gal—to be faithful, we need to take a look at the rather unprepossessing and very monogamous prairie vole. Upon reaching maturity, the male latches onto virtually the first available female partner. The couple will spend an entire day copulating like, well, voles and then spend the rest of their lives together. Even separation does not change the bond, and when one of the partners dies, the other vole, in a remarkable display of fidelity, does not take a new mate. However, there is another type of mole—the montane vole—which is polygamous.
So, what accounts for the unstinting and admirable monogamy of the prairie vole and the promiscuous polygamy of his montane cousin? It probably all comes down to one small slice of DNA that acts as a blueprint for a particular type of vasopressin receptor in the brain, and the reason that receptor is so important is that the hormone vasopressin, which is released during sex, plays a central role for males in forming monogamous bonds. The prairie voles have this slice of genetic code, which means that they have a lot more vasopressin receptors in their brain than the montane voles. That makes them much more susceptible to the pair-bonding power of vasopressin. When scientists inserted this genetic code into montane voles, they immediately became as monogamous as the prairie voles.
Vasopressin is so powerful that prairie voles don’t even need the sex to form a monogamous bond. They just need the vasopressin. If injected with it, they form a lifelong bond with the first available female, even though they have not had sex. When the vasopressin is blocked, the male vole acts as if he has never seen the female before, even after having repeated sex with her. How many women know that feeling? Vasopressin (and oxytocin for the females) has even been used to create monogamy among polygamous house mice. In a final twist, it turns out that all voles are not created equal when it comes to vasopressin. Further study revealed that some males have a longer version of the gene than others and that those with the longest versions are also the most reliable partners.
So, what sort of vasopressin receptors are men equipped with? The answer is far more complicated than anyone first imagined. Researchers have already found that the human version of the gene comes in at least
seventeen
different lengths, a number that is likely to grow as more work is done (similar work also needs to be done for women and oxytocin). What this means is that there is a wide spectrum of possibilities when it comes to the issue of how genetically predisposed individual men may be toward monogamy. Still, it may hold the key to understanding long-term bonds between men and women. To give you some idea of how significant this particular gene might be to male behavior, a shorter version of the gene has been found in those with autism, a condition characterized by difficulty forming relationships with other people. As men realize the possible seductive power of their receptivity to vasopressin, we may one day find that they have stopped bragging about the size of their members in order to brag about the size of their vasopressin receptors, which would, I think, have to be considered at least a small step forward.
seventeen
different lengths, a number that is likely to grow as more work is done (similar work also needs to be done for women and oxytocin). What this means is that there is a wide spectrum of possibilities when it comes to the issue of how genetically predisposed individual men may be toward monogamy. Still, it may hold the key to understanding long-term bonds between men and women. To give you some idea of how significant this particular gene might be to male behavior, a shorter version of the gene has been found in those with autism, a condition characterized by difficulty forming relationships with other people. As men realize the possible seductive power of their receptivity to vasopressin, we may one day find that they have stopped bragging about the size of their members in order to brag about the size of their vasopressin receptors, which would, I think, have to be considered at least a small step forward.
Of course, any definitive answers to the chemical nature of love are still a distant hope, but scientists are making progress. As we have seen, researchers have been able to sniff out at least a few clues about the elusive nature of attraction between a man and a woman. If all else fails in your search for love, remember that you can always simply follow your nose.
to Focus—Finally—On
the More Traditional Subject
of a Book About Attraction:
Practical Advice
THE REAL QUESTION IS, CAN SCIENCE PROVIDE PRACTICAL advice for all of us wayward daters? The surprising answer is yes. Some of that advice is common sense, and some of it is unexpected. Before I go into any of it, though, I want to issue a warning. I have read far more dating books than any human being should, and they have convinced me of one thing: be leery of anyone who confidently offers surefire dating tips. Most of these books are based on little more than a mishmash of anecdotes. I can promise that the information in this section is based on the same scientific studies and surveys as the rest of the book. That said, please treat what you are about to read as a casual buffet of dating tips from which you can pick and choose as you please.
I’ve broken this part into three sections:
1. For Him and Her;
2. For Him;
3. For Her.
Learn to love yourself. I know that sounds incredibly unscientific and touchy-feely—I can almost hear strains of “Kumbaya” in the background—but a great deal of research backs it up. Simply put, the more you have a positive view of yourself, the more likely you are to fall in love. And the more likely the love will be healthful, rather than destructive.
Although we like to believe we aren’t shallow people who simply judge a book by its cover, research shows that first impressions are very important. According to a 1993 study, people viewing a videotape of a teacher were able, after viewing the tape for only thirty seconds, to do a very good job of predicting how a teacher would be evaluated by his or her students. And here’s the real kicker: the thirty seconds included only nonverbal interaction and physical attractiveness. If you are unsure how to make a good first impression, there are many books that have been written on the subject, although I have one suggestion: focus on the other person. A good first impression depends more on showing interest in someone than in showing off.
Selective desire is better than generalized desire—in other words, don’t hit on every eligible person you meet like some kind of Energizer bunny of flirting. In a recent study, people who were seen as having generalized desire were perceived as less desirable, while people who showed desire for just one person were viewed much more positively. Also, in a study of speed dating, researchers found that the choosier people were, the higher others rated their appeal.
Try to bump into the object of your desire as often as possible. Familiarity has a powerful effect on attractiveness. In one study, men and women were shown a number of photographs and were asked to select the photograph of a person they could imagine marrying. Afterward, some of the photographs were projected several times on a screen, and then the participants were asked to select a photograph again. In a number of cases, both men and women changed their initial selection and switched to one of the photographs that had been projected several times. The other benefit of this for the less attractive among us is that physical attractiveness becomes less important over time as what researchers call the “familiarity effect” takes hold.
Keep your face animated—although not so animated that you come across as crazy. Research shows that a face animated with expression is seen as more attractive than one that is devoid of emotion. This is why people with good poker faces have trouble getting dates.
Use eye contact. We’ve already discussed this, but I can’t emphasize enough how powerful this is. Eye contact can boost attractiveness, regardless of the sex. In a study conducted by psychologist Arthur Aron, total strangers were paired up and had a ninety-minute conversation in which they shared personal details about themselves. Then they gazed silently into each other’s eyes for four minutes. Afterward, they were asked about their feelings for the other person, and many of the participants admitted that they felt strongly attracted. How strongly? Some of the couples eventually
married
! Not bad for four minutes of eye contact.
married
! Not bad for four minutes of eye contact.
Don’t obsess about how you look. Obsess about how you act. A recent study showed that while attractiveness, emotional expressiveness, and social skills all contributed to someone’s likability, attractiveness was the least important of the three.
If you aren’t attractive, at least try to hang out with attractive people. A study found that people sitting next to attractive people were also judged to be more attractive because of their proximity.
Show the person that you like him or her. Researchers have discovered that how much we think someone likes us has a powerful effect on how much we like them. I realize that it is somewhat disheartening to consider that we have not evolved much beyond junior high school when serious flirting involved passing a note telling someone that you liked them and asking them to check a box if they liked you, but it’s true. Studies have found, for example, that a similarity in attitudes has far less of an influence over how much someone likes you than does reciprocity (the feeling that both people like each other). And once both people are convinced that the other person does like them, it can create a positive feedback loop where increasingly positive feelings are created.
In fact, being liked or disliked tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy because it ends up affecting one’s behavior and, thus, shaping others’ perception. We act as if we are liked or disliked, and people tend to treat us in ways that fit with our behavior.
Similarity in values still counts, though, so don’t neglect that. In one study, blind dates were randomly told that they were similar or dissimilar in their attitudes toward life. Guess which couples ended up liking each other a lot more? The ones who had been told they were similar. Despite the premise behind almost all romantic comedies that opposites attract, dissimilar attitudes tend to repulse possible suitors. According to a 1986 study, people who said nothing were rated significantly more likable by the speakers than people who expressed dissimilar attitudes.
If you do find yourself attracted to someone with dissimilar attitudes, make sure that you laugh at his or her jokes, because humor plays a powerful role in attraction. Researchers led students to believe that an unseen stranger was 90 percent similar or dissimilar. The students read a joke to the stranger over an intercom, and the stranger either laughed or offered a neutral response. The result? Laughter proved far more important than similarity. When the students’ attraction to the stranger was later measured, the 90 percent dissimilar person who laughed at the joke was seen as more attractive than the 90 percent similar person who didn’t.
Be choosy, but not too choosy. Let me be a little more precise. You should send out signals that you are choosy but not toward the person you are trying to attract. Several studies were unable to find evidence to support the idea that playing hard to get is a successful strategy. While people like choosy partners, studies show that they only like them when they are choosy with others, not with themselves. In one study, men and women were presented with a choice between people who were “very choosy,” “choosy,” and “not choosy.” Both sexes were most attracted to people described as choosy and not attracted to the very choosy, with women even more negative about this category than men.
Other books
A Girl and Her Wolf (Howl, #7) by Morse, Jody, Morse, Jayme
Fort Laramie by Courage Knight
Hallow Point by Ari Marmell
White Trash Zombie Apocalypse by Diana Rowland
Storm Tide by Elisabeth Ogilvie
Retribution by Wards, Lietha
Taken Away by Celine Kiernan
Secret Harbor by Barbara Cartland
Introducción a la ciencia II. Ciencias Biológicas by Isaac Asimov
Better Out Than In Number Twos by Adam Wallace
