Through the conversation.
20 sectionsHosts Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof introduce their guest, evolutionary psychologist Daniel Conroy-Beam, highlighting his application of computational and mathematical methods to human mate choice and discussing the scope of the episode.
The hosts describe Daniel Conroy-Beam as a top-notch thinker in evolutionary psychology applying computational methodology to mate choice.
“one of the most uh uh excellent top-notch thinkers in the field of evolutionary” 1:02
022:12 – 12:02Discovering Evolutionary Psychology at UT Austin
Daniel Conroy-Beam shares his academic origins with hosts Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof, describing how an introductory psychology course taught by David Lewis at the University of Texas led him to evolutionary psychology and his subsequent work in David Buss's lab.
Conroy-Beam recalls how discovering that evolutionary theory could be applied scientifically to human thought and behavior was a revelation to him.
“the fact that you could take evolutionary theory, you could take this” 6:30
Conroy-Beam describes attending his first academic conference as an exhilarating turning point that solidified his career path in evolutionary psychology.
“conference halls full of people who are exactly as obsessed with this topic as I am.” 10:31
Hosts Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof discuss with guest Daniel Conroy-Beam how human mating serves as an intrinsically compelling gateway topic into evolutionary psychology. They contrast the intuitive appeal of mating research with more mysterious topics like political ideologies and sacred values.
mating was especially like sort of a a gateway drug for Ev Psych too
“mating was especially like sort of a a gateway drug for Ev Psych too” 12:56
I wanted to like I I wanted to be more ambitious and like tackle something that was really confusing
“I wanted to like I I wanted to be more ambitious and like tackle something that was really confusing.” 14:05
Guest Daniel Conroy-Beam outlines the historical trajectory of human mating research, highlighting foundational works like Don Symons's evolution of human sexuality and David Buss's empirical survey approaches, which utilized personality psychology methods to validate evolutionary theories through cross-cultural sex differences.
human mating is at the core of it what evolutionary psychology is
“human mating is at the core of it what evolutionary psychology is,” 16:46
David Buss really like established a particular brand that was very empirically successful
“David Buss really like established a particular brand uh that was very empirically successful” 18:58
0524:02 – 31:51History and Controversies of Evolutionary Psychology
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Daniel Conroy-Beam discuss the historical origins and trajectory of evolutionary psychology, reflecting on how starting the field with sex differences brought prominent attention and solid findings while also stamping the discipline with a controversial public reputation compared to more cooperative approaches.
established that there are these cross-culturally universal sex differences, at least among, you know, thirty-seven relatively industrialized cultures.
“established that there are these cross-culturally universal sex differences” 24:16
And so I'm I'm imagining like what would evolutionary psychology be in the parallel universe where it didn't start with sex differences and it started with something else?
“what would evolutionary psychology be in the parallel universe where it didn't start with sex differences” 25:21
The speakers analyze the dominant constructs in human mating research established by David Buss, such as jealousy, mate preferences, and mating strategies, arguing that decades of research have heavily rehashed these same themes through sex differences and that the field must move beyond them.
So so much of the mating research for the last what has it been, 30 years has been just sort of rehashing through those same three constructs again
“so much of the mating research for the last what has it been, 30 years has been just sort of rehashing through those same three constructs” 34:14
We know that now. We don't need any more papers on sex differences and mate preferences
“We know that now. We don't need any more papers on sex differences and mate preferences” 34:53
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Daniel Conroy-Beam discuss the limitations of focusing predominantly on sex differences in human mating research. They advocate for a broader, more computational approach to understanding shared mating psychology, partner preferences, and the systemic incentives in academia that favor safer research topics.
a lot of the human mating research has been studying sex differences in psychology, I think to the exclusion of studying the psychology itself.
“a lot of the human mating research has been studying sex differences in psychology” 36:14
we without a doubt have substantial similarities between men and women in that parabonding psychology.
“we without a doubt have substantial similarities between men and women in that parabonding psychology.” 39:15
0842:01 – 48:08Mate Preference Integration and Speed Dating Studies
Daniel Conroy-Beam explains his research on mate preference integration and how speed dating studies challenged decades of questionnaire-based assumptions by testing whether stated abstract preferences actually predict real-world partner choices.
people kind of forgot to ask, do those preferences actually get reflected in behavior?
“do those preferences actually get reflected in behavior?” 43:27
knowing what a person's preferences were before that speed dating event did not give you a lot of statistical power to predict the people they actually said yes to
“knowing what a person's preferences were before that speed dating event did not give you a lot of statistical power” 46:17
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Daniel Conroy-Beam examine differing interpretations of human mate preferences, contrasting Todd's view on measurement limitations with Eastwick's argument that attraction is unpredictable. The speakers analyze how artificial contexts like college student speed-dating studies restrict range and fail to capture natural human mating decisions, noting that expanding participant diversity yields better preference predictability.
The Eastwick interpretation was that preferences don't matter. People don't know what they want.
“And then the Eastwick interpretation was that preferences don't matter. People don't know what they want.” 48:35
Throughout our evolutionary history, we almost certainly would have had tons of exposure to a person before attempting to form a romantic relationship
“Throughout our evolutionary history, we almost certainly would have had tons of exposure to the person to a person before attempting to form a romantic relationship with him.” 53:40
1053:54 – 1:00:10Ideology, Evolutionary Psychology, and Longitudinal Evidence
Daniel Conroy-Beam and David Pinsof discuss ideological opposition to evolutionary psychology and how critics use null results from speed-dating studies to challenge the field. Conroy-Beam then highlights recent longitudinal research demonstrating that when studying naturalistic real-world choices rather than brief speed dates, stated mate preferences successfully predict long-term partner selection.
Preferences can predict future choices when you are looking at, and Lauren Campbell has a similar paper. Uh, when you're looking at sort of naturalistic real world choices
“preferences can predict future choices when you are looking at, and Lauren Campbell has a similar paper. Uh, when you're looking at sort of naturalistic real world choices” 59:22
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Daniel Conroy-Beam discuss how researchers poorly define and measure mate preferences. Conroy-Beam argues that traditional univariate approaches ignore the complex bundle of traits people must evaluate and fail to model how the mind evolved to solve adaptive problems.
people have been studying preferences for a really long time, but have been really unclear on what a preference is supposed to be
“people have been studying preferences for a really long time, but have been really unclear on what a preference is supposed to be” 1:00:21
The speakers examine mating market dynamics, noting that individuals must consider mutual interest and their own mate desirability. Conroy-Beam critiques psychology's reliance on simplistic statistical models over robust theoretical frameworks, highlighting agent-based modeling as a better approach.
mating doesn't work that way, you're making the choice in the context of a mating market where you have to pick a partner and also be picked back
“mating doesn't work that way, right? You're making the choice in the context of a mating market where you have to pick a partner and also be picked back by them” 1:05:45
psychologists are stricken with theoretical amnesia, where like we just don't know what a scientific theory even looks like
“psychologists are stricken with theoretical amnesia, where like we just don't know what a scientific theory even looks like” 1:09:04
131:12:10 – 1:19:15Integrating Cooperation and Mating Research in Evolutionary Psychology
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Daniel Conroy-Beam discuss the historical divide between cooperation research and mating psychology, noting how early evolutionary psychology focused heavily on sex differences and broad constructs rather than detailed task analyses of ongoing relationships and parenting.
I'm shocked at the extent at how little integration there has been between cooperation research and mating research
“I'm shocked at the extent at how little integration there has been between cooperation research and mating research” 1:14:54
mating people very much go into that area and they don't necessarily read as much of the cooperation stuff
“mating people very much go into that area and they don't necessarily read as much of the cooperation stuff” 1:16:53
The speakers discuss how early debates over domain specificity and sex differences served as useful wedges to establish evolutionary psychology, but argue that the field must now move past those old arguments toward rigorous task analyses and adaptationist approaches.
we need to, we need to give up on these like old dead debates
“we need to give up on these like old dead debates” 1:23:05
there are a lot of people who are in the field now because they just like making people angry
“there are a lot of people who are in the field now because they just like making people angry” 1:23:39
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Daniel Conroy-Beam discuss historical shifts in evolutionary psychology conferences and programs. Conroy-Beam expresses concern over a perceived decline in rigorous adaptationist task-analysis approaches, arguing that some modern researchers apply mainstream psychological statistical methods to topics like mating without grounding their work in rigorous evolutionary problem formulations.
Conroy-Beam bemoans a decrease in adaptationist approaches over time, noting that contemporary work sometimes substitutes rigorous evolutionary task analysis with mainstream psychological methods.
“I worry that the the percentage of like adaptationist approaches is decreasing over time.” 1:25:23
Conroy-Beam highlights that researchers often study mating topics like Tinder preferences without examining underlying adaptive problems or psychological designs.
“There's no task analysis. There's not really much consideration of like what is the specific adaptive problem” 1:27:43
The speakers pivot to positive developments in the field, highlighting advancements in mate choice debates, behavioral genetics, and cultural evolution from the Paris school. They discuss neglected yet crucial human topics such as communication, reasoning, epistemic vigilance, parenting, emotions, and friendship networks, praising specific researchers who are producing insightful work in these areas.
Conroy-Beam notes that despite positive trends like behavioral genetics and cultural evolution frameworks, major foundational areas like parenting remain largely ignored compared to initial attraction.
“and not parenting, which is completely ignored, which is the whole purpose of of of mating, right?” 1:34:33
Pinsof points out that communication is a fundamental human superpower, yet remarkably little empirical work investigates it at conferences like HBES.
“how little work there was being done on communication at HBS.” 1:32:29
Host Dave Pietraszewski asks guest Daniel Conroy-Beam what he would change about psychology or Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES). Conroy-Beam suggests requiring evolutionary psychologists to express hypotheses through formal adaptationist models and task analyses. The speakers also discuss anthropology's broader scope, structural publishing incentives, and the tendency for evolutionary psychology to sometimes resemble standard psychology with an evolutionary twist.
force all psychologists to express their hypotheses in the form of a formal adaptationist model
“force all psychologists to
express their hypotheses in the form of a formal adaptationist model.” 1:36:53
it's so easy to publish a six differences paper
“It's so easy to publish a six
differences paper.” 1:39:38
The speakers discuss the replication and theory crisis in psychology, critiquing the collection of disconnected empirical effects and factor analyses masquerading as theories. They emphasize the creative and rigorous nature of task analyses and theory-building. Toward the end of the excerpt, Daniel Conroy-Beam reflects on the pleasure of deep scientific conversations with peers and asks the hosts how they perceive the current standing and future trajectory of their field.
we need theory to derive what to look for in the first place
“we need theory to derive what to look for in the first place.” 1:42:13
In this discussion, Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Daniel Conroy-Beam examine the historical and current status of evolutionary psychology. They discuss how general acceptance of evolutionary approaches has grown over decades, while noting ongoing challenges regarding adaptationism, task analysis, and how the field interfaces with broader psychological research.
you will get way fewer uh adverse reactions to bringing up evolutionary psych ideas
“you will get way fewer uh adverse reactions to” 1:48:20
the idea that evolution is useful, which is something that Lita famously talked about
“the idea that evolution is useful, which is something that Lita” 1:50:50
The speakers discuss concerns about how the social capital and credibility of evolutionary psychology are utilized within the scientific community. The episode concludes with acknowledgments, information about guest Daniel Conroy-Beam's Computational Mate Choice Lab, and standard closing remarks from the hosts about future episodes.
collecting people who are interested in controversy does leads to a dynamic where sometimes controversy is sort of coddled at the expense of good science
“collecting people who are interested in controversy does uh” 1:54:12
we have this common resource of our credibility as a field and people are squandering it
“we have this common resource of our credibility as a field and people are are squandering it” 1:56:18