(A lot of people misunderstand natural selection. Mutations in nature are random and undirected. Human variation, on the other hand, is often directed.)
I was talking to my girlfriend earlier, and she quizzed me about the relevance of my fanaticism for trial and error in the context of romantic relationships. Or, in simpler terms: “If you love trial and error so much, how come you’re still with me?”
(I love that woman.)
It’s a good question, though. Why do people stick around in romantic relationships when evolution promotes randomized trial and error?
A lot of people misunderstand variation and selection.
Step one is trial.
If it doesn’t work, you vary.
Some people might interpret this as “vary your partners!”. That is a valid interpretation- just not a particularly refined one. Variation does not necessarily mean changing partners altogether!
If you want to be truly scientific, you ought to try varied approaches with your existing partner first. It would be an insult to science if you gave something up just because it didn’t work the first time. (A dire waste of a test subject. Tsk tsk. How can you call yourself an evil genius if you fail Minion Management 101?)
If you started up a video game, and the first character you tried got killed almost immediately, do you move on to the next character, or do you try playing with the same character in a different way?
Add in this caveat- once you get rid of character, you greatly diminish the odds that you will be allowed to use that character again.
In most video games, the character won’t judge you for your actions, and will happily stick around no matter how many times you get him or her killed. (Some of the more recent games are getting a lot more complex and interesting, and your actions do have realistic consequences.) In real life, if you upset someone, your chances of having any sort of meaningful relationship with them diminishes substantially. (Or maybe not. People are complex.)
THE POINT IS: If you sabotage any sort of relationship without first trying a few different ways of making it work, you are shortchanging yourself. It’s like folding a hand when you ought to see the flop. It’s poor decision-making.
If it works, you stick with it, and you try variations anyway, and discover ways to make it work better! We can spend our entire lives doing this, and that’s how you keep your relationship interesting, challenging and intriguing. (We do the same with our crafts- as writers and musicians. Variation and selection allows us to explore and build complexity, which is intensely pleasurable for the human mind.)
A sustained relationship has value in itself. It’s something that grows over time, like a tree. A familiar old relationship is like a nice sturdy tree-house that you can climb into and rest in. There’s no reason why anybody would want to trade that for brand new seeds- because it means having to start all over again, and that’s a lot of unnecessary risk!
The new seeds could be worth more than the old seeds were worth- but a sturdy tree is worth more than good new seeds. Always. Because there is no guarantee that even the most perfect seeds will survive harsh weather and other conditions. Experience suggests wisdom, and wisdom suggests a peaceful, happy co-existence.
(Another quick analogy- imagine you’ve got a fantastic employee at your company who knows all the ropes, knows all the people, all the insider information, and is performing well. Would you ditch her for a promising young graduate with no work experience? You might, but those would have to be rather remarkable circumstances, and you’d have to be really sure of what you’re doing, and why.)
A relationship is a living thing, and life is somewhat precious. Killing it should only be a last resort-when it’s diseased, contagious and beyond salvation. When it’s a danger to the people involved. For the most part, good fundamentals should be able to get it healthy again. The actual act of killing a relationship (or any other living thing) is painful, and can have pretty drastic consequences. Act wisely.
Why do people give up on relationships instead of sticking around and working on them?
That’s another good question. People seem kind of extreme, don’t they? We stick around longer than we should, yet we leave when we shouldn’t. This runs parallel to the reality that most of us suck at poker.
Most of us are naturally unwilling to explore our own flaws. It’s the philosophical equivalent of hitting the gym. It’s uncomfortable, difficult, tiring, and the pay-off isn’t immediately obvious. We’re just not wired to do it. Natural selection provides a satisfactory explanation for this: when human interactions were simpler, the cocksure dominated the doubtful.
It’s easier to assume that there’s nothing wrong with us. It takes less effort, consumes less resources, and it allowed our ancestors to act more decisively. The alternative extreme would be to doubt ourselves every step of the way- which would make it impossible to function. (As usual, finding the right balance is key. And like physical fitness, it’s a lifelong pursuit.)
“If my relationship isn’t working out, it can’t be because there’s anything wrong with me. I’m fine! It must be her. And she’s so stubborn, she doesn’t see it, she doesn’t understand. There’s something wrong with her. She isn’t changing her behaviour, she won’t see things my way. It’s a lost cause, a dead end. I’m cutting my losses and moving on.”
There are so many kinds of relationships out there (and in there!), not just romantic ones. Imagine the above exchange happening within a single individual’s mind. And we have justification for suicide. Imagine it within a nation-state, and we have genocides and other terrible regimes. Between two or more nation-states, and we have Cold Wars, the Middle-East crisis and all sorts of other fun stuff.
Do you see how all of these problems have the same fundamental roots?
The problem, I think, is that we never quite learn to see relationships as something that we can directly influence through our own actions. We think of them as something outside of ourselves. We forget that we can choose how we want to perceive things, and that we can influence things for the better. I suspect that this tendency may have similar evolutionary roots- it’s a coarser framework built for a coarser time-period. You are either with me or against me. Friend or enemy. Black or white. Good or bad.
TL;DR:
We have to adapt to our circumstances to survive. If civilization returned to what it was 5,000 years ago, our simplistic emotional responses, fight-or-flight impulses and vengeance-driven mindsets would ensure our survival.
But times are changing, and if you want to survive, you better take notice. If you can no longer crush your enemy, the only way forward is compromise. Negotiation is power. Compassion is power. Mercy is power. Kinship is power.
I’m putting my money on this- natural selection is going to force us to become more compassionate, empathic human beings. Our interactions are increasingly complex, and coarse solutions are becoming increasingly unsustainable. This isn’t a touchy-feely, spiritual new-age voodoo fantasy. This is the harsh reality of Life.
Adapt or perish.
Variation and Selection: A Darwinian Approach To Relationship Success
(A lot of people misunderstand natural selection. Mutations in nature are random and undirected. Human variation, on the other hand, is often directed.)
I was talking to my girlfriend earlier, and she quizzed me about the relevance of my fanaticism for trial and error in the context of romantic relationships. Or, in simpler terms: “If you love trial and error so much, how come you’re still with me?”
(I love that woman.)
It’s a good question, though. Why do people stick around in romantic relationships when evolution promotes randomized trial and error?
A lot of people misunderstand variation and selection.
Step one is trial.
If it doesn’t work, you vary.
Some people might interpret this as “vary your partners!”. That is a valid interpretation- just not a particularly refined one. Variation does not necessarily mean changing partners altogether!
If you want to be truly scientific, you ought to try varied approaches with your existing partner first. It would be an insult to science if you gave something up just because it didn’t work the first time. (A dire waste of a test subject. Tsk tsk. How can you call yourself an evil genius if you fail Minion Management 101?)
If you started up a video game, and the first character you tried got killed almost immediately, do you move on to the next character, or do you try playing with the same character in a different way?
Add in this caveat- once you get rid of character, you greatly diminish the odds that you will be allowed to use that character again.
In most video games, the character won’t judge you for your actions, and will happily stick around no matter how many times you get him or her killed. (Some of the more recent games are getting a lot more complex and interesting, and your actions do have realistic consequences.) In real life, if you upset someone, your chances of having any sort of meaningful relationship with them diminishes substantially. (Or maybe not. People are complex.)
THE POINT IS: If you sabotage any sort of relationship without first trying a few different ways of making it work, you are shortchanging yourself. It’s like folding a hand when you ought to see the flop. It’s poor decision-making.
If it works, you stick with it, and you try variations anyway, and discover ways to make it work better! We can spend our entire lives doing this, and that’s how you keep your relationship interesting, challenging and intriguing. (We do the same with our crafts- as writers and musicians. Variation and selection allows us to explore and build complexity, which is intensely pleasurable for the human mind.)
A sustained relationship has value in itself. It’s something that grows over time, like a tree. A familiar old relationship is like a nice sturdy tree-house that you can climb into and rest in. There’s no reason why anybody would want to trade that for brand new seeds- because it means having to start all over again, and that’s a lot of unnecessary risk!
The new seeds could be worth more than the old seeds were worth- but a sturdy tree is worth more than good new seeds. Always. Because there is no guarantee that even the most perfect seeds will survive harsh weather and other conditions. Experience suggests wisdom, and wisdom suggests a peaceful, happy co-existence.
(Another quick analogy- imagine you’ve got a fantastic employee at your company who knows all the ropes, knows all the people, all the insider information, and is performing well. Would you ditch her for a promising young graduate with no work experience? You might, but those would have to be rather remarkable circumstances, and you’d have to be really sure of what you’re doing, and why.)
A relationship is a living thing, and life is somewhat precious. Killing it should only be a last resort-when it’s diseased, contagious and beyond salvation. When it’s a danger to the people involved. For the most part, good fundamentals should be able to get it healthy again. The actual act of killing a relationship (or any other living thing) is painful, and can have pretty drastic consequences. Act wisely.
Why do people give up on relationships instead of sticking around and working on them?
That’s another good question. People seem kind of extreme, don’t they? We stick around longer than we should, yet we leave when we shouldn’t. This runs parallel to the reality that most of us suck at poker.
Most of us are naturally unwilling to explore our own flaws. It’s the philosophical equivalent of hitting the gym. It’s uncomfortable, difficult, tiring, and the pay-off isn’t immediately obvious. We’re just not wired to do it. Natural selection provides a satisfactory explanation for this: when human interactions were simpler, the cocksure dominated the doubtful.
It’s easier to assume that there’s nothing wrong with us. It takes less effort, consumes less resources, and it allowed our ancestors to act more decisively. The alternative extreme would be to doubt ourselves every step of the way- which would make it impossible to function. (As usual, finding the right balance is key. And like physical fitness, it’s a lifelong pursuit.)
“If my relationship isn’t working out, it can’t be because there’s anything wrong with me. I’m fine! It must be her. And she’s so stubborn, she doesn’t see it, she doesn’t understand. There’s something wrong with her. She isn’t changing her behaviour, she won’t see things my way. It’s a lost cause, a dead end. I’m cutting my losses and moving on.”
There are so many kinds of relationships out there (and in there!), not just romantic ones. Imagine the above exchange happening within a single individual’s mind. And we have justification for suicide. Imagine it within a nation-state, and we have genocides and other terrible regimes. Between two or more nation-states, and we have Cold Wars, the Middle-East crisis and all sorts of other fun stuff.
Do you see how all of these problems have the same fundamental roots?
The problem, I think, is that we never quite learn to see relationships as something that we can directly influence through our own actions. We think of them as something outside of ourselves. We forget that we can choose how we want to perceive things, and that we can influence things for the better. I suspect that this tendency may have similar evolutionary roots- it’s a coarser framework built for a coarser time-period. You are either with me or against me. Friend or enemy. Black or white. Good or bad.
TL;DR:
We have to adapt to our circumstances to survive. If civilization returned to what it was 5,000 years ago, our simplistic emotional responses, fight-or-flight impulses and vengeance-driven mindsets would ensure our survival.
But times are changing, and if you want to survive, you better take notice. If you can no longer crush your enemy, the only way forward is compromise. Negotiation is power. Compassion is power. Mercy is power. Kinship is power.
I’m putting my money on this- natural selection is going to force us to become more compassionate, empathic human beings. Our interactions are increasingly complex, and coarse solutions are becoming increasingly unsustainable. This isn’t a touchy-feely, spiritual new-age voodoo fantasy. This is the harsh reality of Life.
Adapt or perish.