The Science of Love and Compatibility with Paul Eastwick: Evo Scripts, Compatibility, and Dating Apps

The episode with Dr. Paul Eastwick challenges popular myths about love rooted in evolutionary narratives, introducing the Evo script’s three pillars and arguing that contemporary research contradicts them. Eastwick explains that compatibility, not merely finding the “best” partner, drives long-term relationship success and that real-life attraction emerges from dynamic interactions rather than static traits. He also examines the limits of predicting compatibility, the prevalence of love at first sight, and how dating apps have reshaped dating, often in ways that can be demoralizing. The conversation offers practical insights for using apps wisely, maintaining bonds over time, and guiding younger generations toward healthier relationship understanding.

Section 1: Introduction and the Evo Script

Speaking of Psychology opens with a reintroduction to a popular cultural frame around relationships: the Evo script. Paul Eastwick describes the Evo script as a set of three pillars that are said to reflect deep ancestral pressures. The first pillar centers on mate value—localizing potential partners along a hierarchy of 10s, 6s, and 2s. The second pillar asserts pervasive gender differences in what men and women look for in partners, suggesting divergent motives and preferences. The third pillar is the ability to pursue short-term versus long-term relationships strategically, with some people naturally adept at flings and others at settling down. Eastwick argues that contemporary research has moved beyond these three ideas, showing that they do not fully capture the complexity of human mating and relationship formation. The Evo script remains influential, but scientific progress has refined our understanding of how attraction and bonding actually operate in everyday life.

“the Evo script ... has three components to it” — Doctor Paul Eastwick, author and psychologist

Eastwick frames the conversation as a corrective to a set of overextended evolutionary narratives that have at times justified gendered stereotypes and social hierarchies. He emphasizes that attraction and compatibility are not reducible to simple traits or a linear formula; rather, they arise from ongoing interactions, shared experiences, and the way two people grow together over time. The discussion promises a nuanced take on love and bonding grounded in empirical research rather than tropes or science-by-slogan.

As the episode progresses, the host sets the stage for a deep dive into how researchers study attraction in controlled settings and in naturalistic dating contexts, such as speed dating, to test whether abstract trait preferences translate into real-world attraction. The tone is cautious but hopeful: by integrating laboratory findings with real-world observations, researchers can provide a more accurate map of what makes relationships work and endure.

Section 2: Gender Differences in Attraction versus Real-Life Preferences

The conversation pivots to the question of whether the differences commonly described between men and women in what they want from relationships hold up in face-to-face interactions. Eastwick notes that historically, men report a stronger emphasis on physical attractiveness, while women emphasize earning potential; these patterns are robust in self-report data. Yet, when researchers examine how people respond to potential partners in real life, differences between the genders in the appeal of attributes such as ambition tend to shrink. The crucial implication is that what people say they want on paper does not always predict what actually attracts them in social encounters. This points to the importance of situational cues, interpersonal chemistry, and the context of in-person interactions in shaping attraction and early judgments.

“there might be a 10% bump in how women in general feel about the ambitious guys, relative to the unambitious guys” — Eastwick

Eastwick also discusses same-sex dynamics, acknowledging that data in this area are less abundant but suggests that similar patterns may emerge, though larger samples are needed to draw firmer conclusions. The upshot is that partner preferences are nuanced and context-dependent, challenging broad-stroke claims about gender-differentiated mating strategies. The episode then transitions to a more technical treatment of compatibility, which Eastwick defines as a core driver of lasting bonds beyond initial impressions or superficial traits.

Section 3: Compatibility as the Secret Sauce

Compatibility is framed as a distinct component of attraction. Eastwick adopts Dave Kenny’s social relations model to deconstruct attraction judgments into three components: selectivity, popularity, and compatibility. While popularity can rise quickly as social consensus about someone forms, compatibility captures the unique alignment between two individuals. The data consistently show that compatibility explains more variance in attraction judgments than either selectivity or popularity. Eastwick emphasizes that compatibility tends to become more central as people get to know each other, but it can also be unstable in early interactions as individuals revise their views. The key message: successful relationships hinge on a strong, durable match between two people, not merely on superficial traits or high initial appeal.

“the biggest component of those three is compatibility” — Eastwick

Eastwick discusses how long it takes to assess compatibility, noting that its predictive power grows with time and shared experiences. Early on, people may overestimate or underestimate a partner’s fit; as couples interact more, divergent opinions about a partner’s value can emerge, shaping the trajectory of the relationship. The practical advice is to center evaluations on compatibility, but to recognize that impressions will evolve across the first several interactions and that stability tends to emerge with more time together.

Section 4: Predicting Compatibility and the Limits of Data

The episode then questions the feasibility of predicting compatibility using pre-relationship data. Eastwick cites Samantha Joel’s machine-learning studies, which analyze a wide range of pre-meeting information and attempt to forecast compatibility. The findings are striking: at speed-dating events, machine-learning models could predict 0% of the compatibility component. This result suggests that the evolution of attraction is fundamentally emergent and dyadic, arising from real-time interactions between people rather than preexisting individual differences. The takeaway is that compatibility likely reflects the dynamic process of two people learning about each other through dating experiences, conversation, humor, similarity, and shared goals.

“machine learning ... could predict exactly 0% of the compatibility component” — Eastwick

Eastwick contrasts predictive performance for ongoing relationships versus pre-match predictions. He notes Gottman-style approaches can predict relationship dynamics once a couple is in a relationship, but cautions against treating this as a pre-relationship forecast. The discussion emphasizes that robust predictions about who will end up with whom from pre-relationship data may be unattainable because the crucial information is formed through early interactions and mutual growth.

Section 5: Love at First Sight and Trajectories

Engaging with the romance trope of love at first sight, Eastwick explains that many people experience intense initial feelings, while others form attachments gradually. He describes longitudinal attempts to reconstruct how people felt at the moment they first met and how those initial feelings relate to long-term outcomes. The data show a broad distribution: some individuals experience strong early warmth that predicts lasting bonds, while others begin with indifference but later form meaningful relationships. The key insight is that lightning-in-a-bottle moments are possible but not necessary for lasting love; the trajectory of a relationship matters, and growth over time can lead to comparable levels of closeness even when initial impressions are modest.

“on average, most relationships that will go somewhere, the average one, I don't know, people feel kind of meh when they first meet” — Eastwick

Eastwick also notes that relationships formed without an immediate spark can still become deeply connected, underscoring the importance of time, shared experiences, and mutual adaptation in the bonding process. This has implications for how people approach dating: while a strong initial signal can be exciting, it is not a guarantee of lasting love, and patients with time and genuine engagement can yield fulfilling partnerships.

Section 6: Keeping Bonds Strong and the Role of Motivated Reasoning

Turning to long-term relationships, Eastwick acknowledges that many relationships face challenges and tend to become harder over time. He highlights motivated reasoning as a central mechanism that helps people maintain and sustain partnerships. The idea is to hold a positive view of one’s partner, downplaying faults, and emphasizing the aspects that are special or unique. He connects this to the broader literature on relationship stability, noting that derogating alternative partners—seeing others as less attractive when alternatives loom—serves as a protective mechanism against relationship dissolution. Eastwick argues that these strategies, while adaptive in maintaining bonds, must be balanced with honest communication and realistic appraisal of a partner’s strengths and limitations. This nuanced view helps explain how two people can maintain warmth and fidelity even when challenges arise.

“derogate alternative partners” — Eastwick

Eastwick also discusses dating apps in depth, noting their mixed impact on relationship formation. Apps can expand dating pools and provide access to potential partners who might not be encountered in daily life, yet their design tends to favor superficial attributes, amplify gender differences, and create a market where most people experience less favorable outcomes. He offers constructive strategies to mitigate these effects, such as broadening search criteria, delaying quick judgments, and integrating more opportunities for face-to-face interactions that foster real social connections.

Section 7: Evolutionary Perspectives, Misuse, and Youth Guidance

One of the most provocative sections of the interview addresses how evolutionary psychology can be misused to justify misogyny or social inequities. Eastwick argues that the public often interprets evolutionary explanations as deterministic, which can bolster regressive beliefs. He calls for careful and responsible communication about what is evolved, what can be changed, and what does not follow from evolutionary claims. He urges scientists to clarify that evolution does not imply immutability and that cultural shifts can and do alter human behavior. The goal is to preserve the value of evolutionary perspectives while mitigating harmful interpretations and misapplications in public discourse and policy.

“the everyday person hears the message, oh, this thing will be harder to change” — Eastwick

Eastwick also reflects on how gender stereotypes have evolved and how societal changes influence dating practices. He argues that changes in education, earnings distribution, and relationship dynamics have altered the landscape in ways that many commentators have misread. The conversation emphasizes the importance of aligning public commentary with up-to-date science and resisting simplistic narratives that ignore complexity.

Finally, Eastwick discusses ongoing research in how people absorb and interpret biology-laden messages. He aims to understand when biological explanations reduce perceived agency and when they can be paired with actionable interventions to improve relationship health. The overarching theme is responsibility: accurate science communication can empower people to form healthier relationships without succumbing to fatalism or cynicism.

Section 8: Takeaways and Future Directions

The episode concludes with a look forward to Eastwick’s ongoing research program. He highlights questions about how people digest biological narratives, how to design interventions that respect both science and agency, and how to reconnect people with real-world social interactions that sustain healthy relationships. He underscores the importance of empirical work that bridges laboratory findings and lived experiences, enabling people to navigate romance with greater understanding and less reliance on outdated myths. The conversation leaves listeners with practical guidance for dating, maintaining relationships, and guiding youth toward constructive, evidence-based conceptions of love and partnership.

In sum, the episode presents a nuanced, research-driven vision of love and bonding, challenging simplistic myths and offering actionable insights for individuals and society at large.