Do you know Steven who is the most

dangerous individual that a woman will

ever meet in her life? Her husband. And

the overwhelming number one reason is

because of

Dr. Gadsad is an evolutionary

psychologist

renowned for his thoughtprovoking and

challenging insights into the

underlining principles

that shape decision-m relationships and

societal trends.

If you think that there is some

knowledge that should not be pursued

because it doesn't support your

ideology, that's a grotesqually

dangerous principle. So, for example,

the idea that monogamy is natural is not

true. Men are much more likely to want

more sexual partners. That's what's been

found in many studies across many

cultures. But the fact that I explained

why it might make evolutionary sense to

cheat doesn't mean I'm justifying it.

But now, here's the interesting part.

Women too have evolved a very strong

desire for sexual variety. You know,

when a woman is most likely to cheat,

it's when they

In your book, you talk about a mate

desiraability score.

Yes. So usually we end up assorting on

our mating value, which is taking all of

our attributes and then saying, "What do

you score?" So for example, the number

one attribute that women seek is

anything that's related to social

status. Now, it wouldn't be good for an

87 to go with a 36. That's going to put

a huge stressor on our relationship. But

here's the good news. There are

effective strategies that could improve

my score. And let's break them down very

simply. First,

Dr. God, what are the ideas that you've

shared that have got you in the most

trouble?

I'm going to get hate mail for this.

Buckle up.

This is a sentence I never thought I'd

say in my life. Um, we've just hit 7

million subscribers on YouTube, and I

want to say a huge thank you to all of

you that show up here every Monday and

Thursday to watch our conversations. Um,

from the bottom of my heart, but also on

behalf of my team who you don't always

get to meet. There's almost 50 people

now behind the D of a CEO that worked to

put this together. So, from all of us,

thank you so much. Um, we did a raffle

last month and we gave away prizes for

people that subscribed to the show up

until 7 million subscribers. And you

guys love that raffle so much that we're

going to continue it. So, every single

month we're giving away money can't buy

prizes, including meetings with me,

invites to our events, and a,000 gift

vouchers to anyone that subscribes to

the D of SEO. There's now more than 7

million of you. So, if you make the

decision to subscribe today, you can be

one of those lucky people. Thank you

from the bottom of my heart. Let's get

to the conversation.

Dr. Gad Sad, what have you devoted your

life to? Uh the pursuit of truth and the

defense of freedoms.

And what does what does that mean?

So truth is uh what we hopefully can

achieve uh through the scientific

method. Of course, truth is provisional

in that whatever we might have thought

was true 300 years ago, we have the

epistemological humility to say, "Oh, we

were wrong. There's a new truth." But I

do wake up every morning thinking that

there are wonderful things to discover

about human nature given that I'm an

evolutionary behavioral scientist. And

so truth in that sense,

uh, liberty and freedom in that there

should be nothing that is off limits for

people to do research on, to speak out

on. So for example, you now hear a

growing intrusion of the concept of

forbidden knowledge. The idea that

there's some research that because it

might offend someone, it might

marginalize a group, it shouldn't be

pursued. I don't I don't believe in

that. So there is no research that is

off limits. As long as the research that

you're doing is pursued in an unbiased

manner pursuant to the scientific

method. So example, one of the ways that

you can end your career very quickly as

a social scientist, if you do any

research looking at group differences,

certainly racial differences, don't you

dare do any research on that. Even sex

differences is not a good idea. So if

you do research on sex differences and

it demonstrates that women are superior

to men on some task, go ahead, you're a

hero. Publish it. But if you do research

that shows that men are superior to

women on a task, you better file that in

the drawer and keep your mouth shut

forever more because we don't want to be

promulgating sexist patriarchal

stereotypes. And so as someone who is an

evolutionary psychologist who

understands that humans are made up of

two phenotypes called male and female,

uh it is expected that there are many

things on which men and women are the

same. some things that men do better

than women, some things that women do

better than men. It's called evolution.

It's called biology. Well, one of the

things where I first began seeing how

idiotic otherwise very intelligent

people can be called professors is in

the negation of what I said right now,

which is just admitting that there are

innate and evolved sex differences is a

dreadful thing to say in the social

sciences. And so that's how I first had

a kind of Eureka moment. Houston, we

have a problem. How could it be that

these educated, sophisticated professors

could negate something that on average a

3-day old newborn pigeon should be able

to recognize? And so that's what that's

what sent me on my journey to eventually

write the parasitic mind 30 plus years

ago.

So what is an evolutionary behavior

scientist?

Right. Great question. So

you can study behavior in many ways. So

for example, behaviorism which was

something that was developed in the

1930s argued that everything that we do

is as a result of stimulus and response.

So for example, Pavlovian conditioning

is a form of behaviorism. Right? You

associate a unconditioned response,

something that you already innately

have. The dog salivates when he sees

food. And now you condition him to if

they hear the bell to associate that

with the food. And now when I just ring

the bell, he will salivate. And so the

behaviorists of you know 70, 80, 100

years ago argued that all learning was

due to behaviorism. So there are many

different schools of thought when it

comes to what is the best framework for

studying human behavior. An evolutionary

behavioral scientist argues that you

can't study human behavior if you don't

root the framework of how you're going

to tackle this in an understanding of

how evolution would have shaped the

human mind. Now, this should sound as

blatantly obvious, but again, for social

scientists, that's Nazi talk because

social scientists believe that evolution

applies to every single species on Earth

except one called human beings.

Or if they believe that evolution

applies to humans, it applies to explain

why we have opposable thumbs. It applies

to explain why we've evolved the

respiratory system that we have. But

don't you dare explain something above

the neck called the human mind using

evolution. I'm speaking now as those

folks. They argue that we are cultural

animals. We transcend our biology. So

all that an evolutionary behavioral

scientist does is whatever he or she is

studying, they try to look for the

ultimate Darwinian signatures. I'm going

to give you two examples. This is from

uh a book called Homicide by uh Martin

Daly and Marggo Margot Wilson. a husband

and wife team who are two of the

pioneers of evolutionary psychology. I

first read that book as a first semester

doctoral student at Cornell where it it

was an advanced social psychology

course. About halfway through the

semester, the professor, his name was

Professor Dennis Regan, assigned this

book to us. What they did in the book is

apply an evolutionary framework to study

patterns of criminality. And in a second

now, I'll I'll unpack what that means.

So there are certain patterns of crime

that happen in exactly the same way for

the exact same reasons irrespective of

which culture it happens in and

irrespective of time period. So it

certainly can't be due to cultural

factors. It can't be to era factors

because it transcends all those things.

So let me give you two examples from the

book and that was actually my Eureka

moment where I decided ah I will now

take this evolutionary framework and

apply it to consumer psychology to

psychology of decision-m which

eventually is the field that I founded.

So, two examples. Example one, and

forgive me if I put you on the spot.

It's it's it's worthwhile to

what do you think is the number one

predictor of there being child abuse in

a home?

An absent

parent.

Okay. Very, very reasonable answer. And

so, usually in lecture one, when I'm

teaching an evolution psychology course,

I'll ask this question. I'll start

putting all the students answers. And

they're all reasonable answers. If there

is alcoholism in the home, if one of the

parents had been abused in their past so

that they they they mimic that behavior

onto their children. Then all

reasonable. Well, what if I and by the

way, no one guesses what the real answer

is. So then I say, well, guess what

guys, you just listed 25 reasonable

predictors. The number one predictor is

hundfold more predictive than anything

that's on that board. I've lectured this

a million times. I'm getting goosebumps

telling it to you right now. So, let me

explain what a 100fold means. In

science, when let's say you have I want

to check the efficacy of a drug, and I

want to compare it to a placebo, a sugar

pill. Well, if it has a 1.2 odds ratio,

meaning it's 20% more effective. So,

it's 1 to 1.2, that would be a big

effect. 1 to 1.2. What I'm saying is 1

to 100. So it is astronomically greater

effect than anything we would typically

publish in science. Well the number one

reasons Stephen I've kept you in

suspense long enough is if there is a

steparent in the family. So there's a

100fold increase in child abuse if the

home is not made up of two biological

parents. This is why the fable of

Cinderella is such a universal fable

because it speaks to an evolutionary

principle. the nasty uh uh stepmother is

only differentially nasty to her

stepdaughter. She's actually very very

nice to her two biological daughters. So

now you would say, well, what would be

the evolutionary explanation for that?

Well, we know in many many species where

you have very high parental investment,

say for example in lion prides, lions

are the only feline group where they're

a social group. Most other uh felines

are solitary that the only thing that

the male does is the copulatory act and

then there's not then he's off. Well, in

lion pride, the males do invest heavily

in their children. What ends up

happening is there's two or three

dominant males within a pride and they

kick out all the young males that are

now coming up so that there's all these

frustrated young males in the savannah

that are now looking to take over a

pride. They will challenge the two three

dominant males and for a very long time

those older males will rebuff the

attacks. But father time eventually

catch up to you and you're left with two

choices as the dominant male. You either

leave and you end up, you know, having a

slow death out alone in the wilderness

or they will kill you. Now when the new

incoming lions come in, do you know

what's the first thing they do? First on

the agenda list, first thing they do is

what?

They attack the kids.

Exactly. They kill off in a complete

systematic infanticide, genocide every

single cub who by definition could not

have been sired by them. Why? Because

I'm going to spend a lot of energy and

resources investing because we are a by

parental species as a lion pride. I

don't want I don't want to be investing

in another male's cubs. Therefore, I now

paradoxically, incredibly,

after the females put up a big fight to

try to stop those new incoming males,

they end up losing the fight. First

thing that happens after is the females

go into estrus, meaning they become

sexually receptive to the new males. So,

I joke with my students in the human

context, you put on Barry White music to

get the ladies interested. You buy a

beautiful gift, you pay attention. You

want to get the lady's attention in p in

lion price society, kill her children.

So that's one example of how we've

evolved the calculus in our brains to

not feel as happy investing in other ch

not in other children than our own. Now

the next thing that ends up happening is

some student will say, "Oh, but does

that mean you are justifying through

science

child abuse?" And of course the answer

is no. Right? An oncologist studies

cancer. That doesn't mean he or she is

for cancer. That doesn't mean they are

pro- cancer. It means that if you want

to understand cancer, you have to study

it honestly. So if you want to tackle

child abuse and you now know that that

step parenthood is the biggest

predictor. That's that's a valuable

tidbit to have. So that's example one.

Example two.

Do you know Stephen who is by far the

most dangerous individual that a woman

will ever meet in her life? Whether it's

the Yanomo tribe in the Amazon, whether

it's the Hata tribe in Central Africa,

whether it's in ancient Greece 2,000

years ago, or whether it's in Detroit,

Michigan 2,000 years from now, who is

the most dangerous person by far that

you will ever meet?

Um,

let me think about this. who's the most

dangerous person she will ever meet

by orders of magnitude more than anybody

else. And the minute that I'll say it,

you'll go, "Oh, no kidding." But the

fact that you don't exactly demonstrates

my point. And that's why evolution is so

important.

I think the most dangerous person she

will ever meet is

a another

You're already off.

Okay. I don't know.

Her husband.

I was going to say

there you go.

I was very close cuz my brain went her

my brain went her future husband,

right?

Because I was thinking in the in the

courtship process, that's quite

dangerous.

So whether it be her long-term partner

or prospective long-term partner, right?

So to your point,

a husband is the most dangerous. And

then the overwhelming number one reason

that might drive him to domestic

violence all the way to homicide

is suspected or realized infidelity.

Okay.

I'm a true crime addict and se the stat

is always in these true crime shows that

about I think it's 70% of the time when

a woman is goes missing was murdered

it's the husband.

Exactly.

Something crazy like that.

Exactly. Now, sometimes in those shows,

it's because I want to get rid of my

current wife so I can run off with

another one. Yeah. But notwithstanding

that potential effect, usually when I go

into homicidal rage, it's because I I'm

concerned that either you have cheated

on me or you actually I I have proof

that you have cheated on me. So then the

question becomes, why have human males

evolved the cognitive, emotional, and

behavioral repertoire to respond in this

way? Again, you're not justifying it.

You're not saying, "Oh, if I give you

the scientific explanation, that means

it's okay to beat women." But the reason

is because we are a by parental species.

Human dads are extraordinary dads in the

mamleian context. We're by far one of

the most vested dads. Well, now we don't

invest as much as human females, but we

are really super dads. So therefore your

ancestors and mine Stephen male

ancestors don't come from a line where

they said hey don't worry ladies have

have at it with the sexy gardener as

much as you'd like because I'd be happy

to then spend the next 18 years raising

go kids. And therefore we've evolved

that system to try to thwart a

fundamental danger to our genetic

interest which is paternity uncertainty.

There is no such thing as maternity

uncertainty. Right.

Mhm. So when I read that book

with such complicated phenomena that are

explained so elegantly, so

parsimmoniously, so simply so that you

go, yeah, that makes perfect sense. That

was my Eureka moment. And so

evolutionary behavioral science is

exactly what I just described the last 5

10 minutes, which is taking the

evolutionary biological and evolutionary

psychological lens to study human

phenomena. Before we get back to talking

more broadly, just came to mind that

with that context in mind then cheating

is justifiable.

Cheating in a romantic relationship.

So it depends what you when you say

justifiable, you're falling into the

trap of if you explain it

scientifically, it's okay. We also have

a moral compass that's due to an

evolutionary mechanism. So, one of the

difficulties of life is how to navigate

through the Darwinian strings that are

pulling me in different directions.

Right? I've evolved a desire to gorge on

fatty foods. But if I do that in an

unrestrained manner, I become a sumo

wrestler and I die of heart disease at

42. So, I've also evolved the mechanism

of self-control. So, the fact that I

explain why it might make evolutionary

sense to cheat doesn't mean I'm

justifying it.

Yeah. No. And I I think this is really

important because we have to give people

a toolkit to think about this

conversation

so that they don't assume that

everything that's being said is an

endorsement of the thing. It's just an

explanation of the thing through the

lens of evolution. And two very And you

know what? Some people can't do that.

Some people get so triggered by

Most people are called my colleagues.

Oh, really? Yeah.

That's right.

So, I just hope everyone listening now

knows that everything here isn't an

endorsement of a thing. It's an

evolutionary explanation for a thing.

And you know, I'm sure we're both full

of biases, so nothing is ever that pure.

But but we'll try and just hope that

from here on out people understand that.

When I ask that question about cheating,

what I'm trying to understand is through

an evolutionary perspective, is monogamy

a normal thing?

I'm off and running for the next 10

minutes. You ready?

I'm I'm ready. Let me let me give a

little bit of context. So, I've got a

lot of male friends and I see in all

honesty the full spectrum of

relationships. I've got and this is kind

of how I'll describe it. I've got a

cohort of male friends that are

absolutely faithful, in great

relationships, um committed to their

partners, and have exercised what I I

assume is a form of discipline to not go

after any temptations that they might

have. Love that group of friends. Great.

Have this middle group of friends that

are struggling with all kinds of forces.

everything from pornography to um to to

to maybe dabbling. And then I have this

other group of friends who I would

categorize as the cheaters who cheat

almost uncontrollably

on their partners uncontrollably. And

this is the spectrum of friends here is

about 20 people. Now I look at that

group of friends and I go who is right?

Because morally I can say the ones over

here are hurting people. The cheaters

are hurting people you know especially

if they they're found in what they're

doing. But who is right from an

evolutionary perspective?

Well, they all are in a sense in that we

all have the desire to stray, but we

don't necessarily instantiate that

desire through overt behavior.

Men and women.

Men. Yeah. So, that's very good. So,

usually if I were to say, oh, men have

evolved a desire for sexual variety,

most people, even if they know nothing

about evolution, would say, yeah, that

that makes sense. But now, here's the

interesting part. Women too have evolved

a very strong desire for sexual variety.

Now, not to the same degree as men. So,

there have been studies that have been

conducted across a bewildering number of

cultures. And in every culture that's

been documented, men are much more

likely to want more sexual partners and

so on. But that doesn't mean that women

are Victorian chased prudes. So now let

me give you multiple lines of evidence

that suggests that women are hardly the

Victorian prudes that we might otherwise

wish they were in a Victorian novel.

You know when a woman is most likely to

cheat situationally.

I know cuz I've read your work. So

Okay. F. Okay. So So I'll say it or do

you want to say it?

Well, it's when they're maximally

fertile, isn't it?

Very good. You've done your homework. So

when they are maximally fertile is when

they're most likely to stray. Now, that

strategy, by the way, and and they're

less likely to insist on contraception.

You would think that if I'm cheating

outside my marriage, I'm I'm speaking as

a woman now. If I'm cheating outside my

marriage, I would want to increase the

likelihood of wearing I mean using

protection because I don't want to be

pregnant. But if the strategy for why

I'm cheating is because I'm shopping for

superior jeans, then it becomes

incumbent that I don't use protection.

Right? So you seldom have a woman who

will cheat with a guy who has who is of

lower phenotypic quality, genetic

quality. So I I would love to have Bill

Gates as home as my long-term partner,

but then I want the male Olympic swimmer

as the guy behind the bushes. Now, if I

can convince Bill Gates that the Olympic

male swimmer actually looks a lot like

Bill Gates and it's really your sweetie.

It's you, Billy. you're the one who then

I I won the as a woman I've won the

genetic uh lottery game. Okay. So, it's

not that women are not interested in

sexual variet. So, that's one. Here's

another one.

If you map out, this is from studies. I

think it was in the early8s. I don't

have the exact reference, but it's easy

to find.

Sorry. Just in your work, you say that

women are more likely to cheat with

someone who has good genetic stock.

Yeah.

Is Bill Gates not got good genetic stock

cuz he's rich and smart?

So, yes. So the intelligence element is

yes. Maybe the drive element is yes. But

the phenotype is a no. I mean what's the

phenotype?

Phenotype is your physical

manifestation. Right? So if I say I want

a guy who is tall, who has a V, uh who's

got testosterone jawline, right? I mean,

I don't usually, if I'm a woman, I don't

in my uh uh deep recesses of my mind

fantasized about being ravished by Bill

Gates.

Do I?

Are those physical features just

pointing at the fact that this person

can provide for me?

Absolutely. I mean, and you're saying,

"But Bill Gates already provides."

Yeah. But it's this also what's called

the sexy son hypothesis. Bill Gates will

not produce I mean he'll produce kids

who potentially to the extent that

intelligence is heritable will give me

intelligent kids but he won't give me uh

the kids that are Bronny right and of

course some of us are lucky to have both

Bronn and brains but that's a rare kind

compliment thank you

now imagine if I were 4 in taller then I

mean that's it I would be crowned

emperor no but in all seriousness both

men and women are very duplicitous in

their sexual behior behavior. So the

idea that monogamy is natural is not

true. Now it is natural in that about

85% of documented cultures have monogamy

as an institutional mechanism because

we're a biparental species and almost

all the other ones are have what's

called polygyny which is a term not to

be confused with polygamy. So I'm going

to do a little parenthesis and I'm going

to come back to the lines of evidence

that proves that women like sexual

variety as well. So polygamy just means

one to many. People use it as synonymous

with one man, multiple women. But that's

not what polygamy is. Polygamy is one to

many, which can take two forms. It could

be one man, multiple women, which is

called polygyny. Or it could be one

woman, multiple men, which is called

polyandry. There are almost no societies

where institutionally we have polyandry

because it wouldn't make evolutionary

sense for that mating system to arise.

The only famous case of polyandri is

called Tibetan

uh fraternal polyandri. So the word

fraternal means that to the extent that

there are ecological reasons why we have

to tolerate one woman going with

multiple guys, it'll be brothers. And

the reason for that is because of a

mechanism called inclusive fitness which

is that I can increase my reproductive

fitness through direct reproduction. I

have children and therefore they will

share half my genes but I can also

invest in the children of my siblings

who share also genes with me and I could

still be increasing my inclusive

fitness. So therefore, polyandry need

not be a Darwinian dead end because I'm

still extending my genes even in in such

a system.

So is this why I take care of my

brother's kids in part because that my

nieces and nephews are

100%. As a matter of fact, I've done

several scientific studies where I

exactly do these kinds of tests where I

look at

what is the pattern of investment in

different family members as a function

of their genetic relatedness to me. So R

is something called the coefficient of

genetic relatedness. So me and my

brother are R is.5. Me and my identical

twin our R is one. Me and a random

stranger are R0. Me and my nephews and

nieces 0.25. Me and my parents 0.5. Me

and my grandparents 0.25. Okay.

So we wanted to test whether the pattern

of investments in this case through gift

giving whether they correlate to the

genetic relatedness between the giver

and recipient. And as you might expect

intuitively, even if you're not a fancy

evolutionary psychologist, the greater

the genetic relatedness, the larger the

size of gift. I'm much more likely to

give a bigger gift at my brother's

wedding than I am to my second cousin.

Okay? And so we've evolved this calculus

that allows us to met out these

investments in line with our genetic

rel, by the way, you see across

countless animal species. the likelihood

of you coming out of your borro to

protect people who are in the borro

increases if whoever is in the borro has

greater genetic relatedness to you. So

the other part in the 2018 paper that's

going to blow your mind because that one

you wouldn't intuitively have expected

it. The the first finding you say yeah

it makes sense I give more gifts to my

brother than to my third cousin. So we

wanted to check whether at an actual

Israeli wedding because they had data

from actual 30 I think it was 30

weddings. So they had field data. They

had the data of all of the uh attendees

and the gifts that they gave. Uh Uncle

Morai gave $180. Rafika gave. Okay. So

what we wanted to test is whether the

mother's side or the father's side of

the bride and groom across all genetic

relatedness coefficients which side

would give more. Now in the Middle East

it's a patriarchal society but

evolutionary theory would predict

something differently and let me explain

why. So take for example your four

grandparents. Okay there's maternal

grandmother, maternal grandfather,

paternal grandmother, paternal

grandfather. In terms of the genetic

relatedness, they're each equally

genetically related to you. 0.25 quarter

of their genes they share with you. But

here's the second part. Genetic

assuredness is not the same across the

four. Your paternal grandfather has two

layers of paternity uncertainty.

Your maternal grandmother has zero

generational paternal paternity

uncertainty because there is no

maternity uncertainty. So therefore, you

would predict that the paternal

grandfather would invest the least in

his grandchildren, the maternal

grandmother would invest the most, and

the two other grandparents in the

middle. That's what's been found in many

studies across many cultures.

You might have to explain paternity

uncertainty.

Paternity uncertainty means that when a

child is born, you never know that he is

your child, right? Uh you the mother

always know that it's her child. She had

the child, right? So we wanted to test

whether the mother's side of both the

bride and groom would give greater gifts

than the father's side precisely because

there is no such thing as maternity

uncertainty but there is such a thing as

paternity uncertainty and that's exactly

what we found.

So the women's family gave more

presence.

Exactly.

Okay.

Yeah. Thank you for summarizing that

long rant.

But and why why again just to clarify

why that is because they're trying to

make sure that the male is invested. No,

there because the mother's side is

simply more vested in investing in the

in either the bride or groom because

they know that that is their infant.

Yeah. Because there's no uncertainty.

There's no uncertainty. You got it.

Okay. So, now can we close the loop on

the sexual variety? So, so far I said

that uh there's definitely evidence that

women also have a sexual variety pension

by virtue of them cheating more when

they are maximally fertile with they and

not insisting on uh contraception and

all that. Here's another one. You do a

mapping of across primates. So, here

come the bonobos, here come mountain

gorillas, here come chimpanzees, here

comes humans. So you put all the

primates and you do a uh calculation of

the size of the testes of the males in

that species as a function of female

sexual promiscuity in that species. Are

you with me?

Yes.

So mountain gorillas

phenomenal beasts 450 lbs some of the

most majestic males. They have a

territorial they they have a polygenous

arrangement. There is one male dominant

male that controls control to sexual

access to many females. So based on what

I just said, can you predict what the

size of their testes are?

They can have small testes.

Yes. Because there isn't sperm war

competition. Therefore, imagine how

unbelievable it is that a fundamental

male morphological attribute, the size

of your testes, is an adaptive response

to a female behavior in that species.

Greater female promiscuity in that

species, bigger testicles. So, mountain

gorillas, very small testicles. Okay?

Chimpanzees are just walking testicles.

Their bodies just exist to support

massive testes. Why? Because in chimp

society, we say hello sex. We say

goodbye sex. We fight sex, postfight

sex. So there is constant sex happening

so that the same female

is being impregnated by multiple males.

So the way that I fight against that is

by developing bigger testes because then

there are mechanisms where having bigger

testes solves that problem. So now here

comes Robin Baker actually a British

scientist who wrote a book called Sperm

Wars where he argued in his book some

have said it's contentious others said

that it's tight that the morphology of

human sperm

the makeup of it

the makeup of it is not simply the

standard one that we're all used to

seeing which is there is a head with a

tail and they're all rushing to that

mythical egg. Those are called

fertilizers. He demonstrated in his

research that there are two other types

of sperm phenotypes within a man's

ejaculate. There are the blockers that

don't look like the fertilizer and

defense.

Defense. Very good. And then there are

the killers.

Oh,

that go around hunting other men's

sperm. Now, let's put it all together.

sperm is viable within the reproductive

a woman's reproductive tract for about

72 hours. Therefore,

for men to have evolved, the chemical

weaponry to have blockers and killers

means that in our ancestral past, the

likelihood of women having been with

more than one man within a 72-hour

period, whether willfully or through

aggression, would have been high.

Therefore, that's why you evolve that

response. Now, here is where you can see

what happens with ideology and therefore

how why I wrote parasitic mind. When I

lecture this in front of radical

feminists, they'll come up, Dr. Sad,

you're such a brilliant scientist. Why?

Because the research that I just

described demonstrates that women could

be just as sexually ver voracious as men

and that they've evolved a desire also

for, you know, a sexual appetite that

corresponds with my women's studies and

radical feminism classes. Therefore,

when from this side of my mouth I say

something that supports their ideology,

I become a hero. If from this side of my

mouth I say, "Oh, but incidentally

across cultures, it's been studied

across many many cultures. Men do have

much greater desire for sexual variety."

Boo. So I can either go from hero to

zero depending on whether what I just

said supports your ideology or not.

That's not how you adjudicate science.

Science truth exists independently of

whether it supports your ideology or

not. Hence eventually the parasitic mind

because you're parasitized by bad

ideologies.

What are what are the ideas that you've

shared that have got you in the most

trouble?

So in my scientific work, humans are

biological beings shaped by the dual

forces of sexual and natural selection.

Buazi. Buazi. Okay. I mean people are

coming around now because the beauty of

science is that it's autocorrective

right I mean some of the biggest works

you you now know that they're the

biggest work by how much they were

originally rejected so many Nobel prizes

the story is always the same scientist

proposes an idea that is completely

unorthodox contrary to the prevailing

whims of accepted science and is

constantly reed rejected until it's not

very

simple example. Probably the thing that

has saved human beings the most from

death over the past 100 years. Well,

it's stuff related to hygiene issues

because a lot of times you'd have

childhood mortality because of exposure

to different pathogens. Well, the

gentleman who came up with the idea of

why so often women die during

childbirth. Do do you know what the

answer is?

Um because the doctor's not cleaned his

hands or

Yes. Beautiful. Well done, Steve. So, uh

it's Seml Weiss who was a doctor who

said, "What's happening here? Why are

these women getting this post uh natal

very devastating uh fever and then

within an a day or two they're gone? And

so he said, "Oh, wait a second." So the

the surgeons have just worked on

cadaavvers.

What's a cadaavver?

Uh like a dead dead body. Okay. So like

let's say they're they're doing forensic

pathology stuff. Okay. and then they

move straight to a gynecological

intervention with the woman. So when he

said and he did the studies that that

showed, hey, here are women who we we

asked the guys to clean or didn't ask

the guys to clean it and people laughed

him out of town. He died in a sanitarium

in a mental institution. He he was

completely like today we we erect

statues of him. Right. So, so to answer

your first point, when I first started

my career, when I said, "Oh, by the way,

you can't study consumers without

understanding their physiology, their

hormones." What kind of bush is this?

This is not a biology department. Get a

grip. You should have you should you

should not be in the business school.

So, what do you mean? You think that you

can you think that when a consumer eats,

they transcend their biology? It's

outside of their biology. Well, now a

lot of them are coming around. So that

when I first promulgated this idea 30

years ago, I was a Nazi. Today it's dear

Dr. Sad, it would be an honor if you

come and give the plenary lecture at our

university. Oh, but what happened 30

years ago when I was a bullshitter?

Well, apparently they caught on. So, so

in my academic work, the mere fact of

saying that we're biological beings was

the most triggering thing. In my public

engagement work, that's not directly

related to my science. Well, it's a very

long list, hence the parasitic mind. But

certainly when I talk about things

related, say, to Islam, that doesn't get

me a lot of Islamic friends,

unfortunately.

You're Jewish, aren't you?

I'm Jewish context.

Yes, I'm Jewish.

But but what I say would be true whether

I was Jewish or whether I was uh

anything else.

So, how as an evolutionary behavioral

scientist, how much of what we do is

driven by sex and relationships?

uh I mean so in in my earlier books so

I'm going to answer it again in a broad

in a big way uh in my first book which

is the evolutionary basis of consumption

and then in the consuming instinct I

argue that there are four key Darwinian

mechanisms that drive much of our

purpose of behavior so that's speaks to

your point uh there is

behaviors that are related to natural

selection or our survival instinct. So,

for example, the fact that I'm almost

certain that you and I have a preference

for some instantiation of a fatty food

more than raw celery is almost a

guarantee. Am I right?

Yes, I agree. Yeah.

Okay. And I'm I'm willing to bet that

everybody who's in the studio will will

also agree. Okay. Now, we may have a

different preference. So, I I pref I may

prefer fatty steak. you prefer uh

chocolate mousse, but we both prefer

chocolate mousse and steak over raw

celery. And so there are many

consumatory acts and preferences that I

can easily ultimately map to that drive.

The most obvious of which would be our

food preferences. Okay. To your direct

question, then the next module. So that

first module I call it the survival

module. The next module called the

reproductive module. sex to your

question are all the things that we do

because they're very much driven by sex

related issues. So the types of products

that men and women use as sexual signals

are astonishingly the same across

cultures. So for example,

owners of Ferrari are 99% male. Even

though there are a million women who

have the resources to certainly buy a

Ferrari, yet they don't. Oprah Winfrey

is not stopped from buying a Ferrari cuz

she can't afford it. And yet she's not

doing it. In the human context, fancy

cars take on the morphological feature

of the peacock's tail. So all animals

that are sexually reproducing use sexual

signals. Humans, given that they're also

a consumatory animal, will use specific

products to signal, look at me, I'm

better than than Stephen. The way that I

do that is by hopefully demonstrating

cues that I have higher status than you.

Okay?

Now, women will also engage in vigorous

sexual signaling, but it'll be related

to things that are beautifification,

right? So cosmetic surgeries around the

world are almost exclus

but it's very very much of a female

domain and so there are many many

behaviors whether consumer related or

not that could be then mapped onto the

reproductive module to your question.

Then there are two other modules that I

hinted at earlier

when I talked about gift giving. So

there's the kin selection module. These

are behaviors that are related to the

fact of I increase my inclusive fitness

by investing in my kin. Okay. And then

there is reciprocal altruism module

which is why would I ever jump into the

river? So if I jump into the river to

save my three children that's skin

selection because each of my three

children on average shares 50% of their

genes with me. So if in the service of

saving those three kids, I end up dying,

the evolutionary calculus is totally in

favor of me dying. Who cares?

Okay. On the other hand, why would I

jump into the river to save Stephen?

First of all, until we met today, you're

a stranger. Why would I ever save a

stranger? If you're not a stranger and

you're a friend, you but you're still

zero genetic relatedness. So there the

argument is is that it's due to

reciprocal altruism and that human

beings have evolved the mechanism of

reciprocity to oil our social bonds

to return a favor

to return a favor. So so literally the I

scratch your back, you scratch mine

literally comes from our primate cousin

species where you engage in reciprocal

grooming. So what happens? There are a

bunch of parasites that are all over my

fur that I can't get to. And so what I

do is I come stand and I give you my

back and you will sit there and pick at

all of it. Of course the expectation is

you'll now return the favor. So I

literally scratch your back and you

scratch mine. Now where did that

signature come from originally? One

argument is that imagine we are walking

around in the savannah where the most

common threat that we face life is

basically two things. I mean other than

sex, get dinner and make sure you don't

become somebody's there.

Mic drop. That's it. That's life. Okay.

So, one of the problems that we've all

faced, hence why we've evolved gustatory

preferences for high calorie foods is

caloric uncertainty and caloric

scarcity. We don't have a neighborhood

store to go buy our food. So, I might

actually die of starvation. Well, what

if we mitigate that risk whereby we set

up an insurance policy with non-kin,

another group of folks that are also

walking around Savannah? Hey, next time

that we bring down the big prey, that's

1,000 pounds of meat, we will share with

you, but hey, you do the right thing and

reciprocate back to us. So, now you

might say, okay, well, that's all nice,

fancy science, but how does that

manifest itself in in human consumer

behavior? Well, there are so many

behaviors that you and I engage in if

we're friends that are completely rooted

in that reciprocal module. So, for

example, when it's your birthday, I call

you and I invite you out to dinner. I

expect, unless you're a social cheat,

that when it's my birthday, you will

reciprocate. Now, from a strict economic

perspective, why don't we skip this

whole charade? I'm going to pay $70 for

your meal, you're going to pay $70 for

mine. We're going to end up at the same

spot. Let's not do it. The reason why we

have to do it is because that reciprocal

ritual is what oils our bonds of

affinity. And so there are many many

behaviors that we engage in that are

exactly tailoring that. So to summarize

much of our behaviors I argue in my

earlier books could be mapped onto one

of these four modules.

And in that earlier book the consuming

instinct you talk about a mate

desiraability score

right?

What is a mate desiraability score?

So imagine a car. A car is made up of

many attributes, right? So the car could

be what's its gas efficiency? What's the

strength of its uh uh engine? How well

does it hug the the the road? What's its

green? Is it a green car? Or does it

have bad exhaust? So So a car is a

multi-attribute product. It's made up of

many attributes. And then it could be

that the way that I choose which car I

pick is the one that scores the best on

the totality of those attributes. Okay,

that's called the multi-attribute

choice. Well, human beings are also

products made up of many attributes. So,

in the mating market, you and I, let's

say we do men now, but of course it

applies to women, too. There's a bunch

of attributes that we know that women

are going to either

like about us or not like about us.

Overwhelmingly, by the way, the number

one universal attribute that women seek

is anything that's related to social

status. Right? So, in other words, it

could be my ambition. It could be my

assertiveness. It could be my social

dominance. It could be literally the the

big diplomas I have behind my back. It

could be the number of zeros behind in

my bank. It could be how many cattle

heads I have if I'm Hadza tribe. But in

no culture has a woman ever said the

following. Give me a non assertive beta

meek man who has pear-shaped hips and a

nasal voice and I'm turning into a

sexual frenzied animal. That those words

have never been uttered in the history

of humanity. Okay. But what women will

say by the way it's not that they only

look for rich guys, right? Because many

women will be madly in love with the

starving artist. But the starving artist

is showing what?

Ambition.

Ambition. Assertiveness. There is a

trajectory of creation that's coming

around the corner. I'm going to become a

big rock star. But no, that's why by the

way if you do uh I I think that study

has been done where you and actually

some of my students in one of my classes

did a similar study for their project.

Just show a guy, exact same guy in a

personal ad. He's got a guitar or he

doesn't have a guitar. Nothing changed.

It's the exact same guy. It's Stephen.

But give me a guitar. No. Oh, with the

guitar, Steven's gorgeous. Without the

guitar, he's less gorgeous.

What's the other explanation for that

that people might jump to? They might

say, "Well, I like music, so that's why

I prefer Steven with a guitar and he's

going to play some songs and I'm going

to feel good and then I'm going to have

sex with him."

So, so that's a very good question. So

that is the difference between proximate

explanations and ultimate explanations.

Much of science operates at the

approximate level. It explains the how

and the what of a phenomenon. How does

diabetes work? What are the factors that

increase the likelihood of you having

diabetes? That's perfectly fine. The

ultimate explanation is the Darwinian

why. Why would the phenomenon have

evolved to be of that type? So you could

say, "I'm just drawn to a guy who knows

how to play music." You've just

explained proximate. It's like saying,

"Why have we evolved to have sex?"

Because it feels good. That's

approximate. The ultimate explanation is

that a sexually reproducing species has

to have a mechanism by which you're

drawn to engage in the behavior that

results in procreation. So it's not that

ultimate explanations are superior to

approximate ones. is that you need both

levels of analyses to fully explain a

phenomenon.

So what is going on there with the

guitar from an evolutionary perspective?

Why is the guitar attractive?

He's creative.

Yeah.

Uh he's got the assiduousness to have

the discipline to pi

virtuoso attractive all other or

Picasso. Picasso is a short little guy.

He's frumpy. He's bald. Yet he's got a

very very long line of very attractive

women saying, "Can can I have sex with

you, Picasso, tonight? How is that

possible?"

Is it because at some level we're

associating that talent with status?

Absolutely.

I the person that can play the piano at

the party probably has a lot of status.

They're going to have a lot of options.

100 as a matter I mean just listen to

famous rock stars and what they say as

to why they became musicians. I mean,

literally almost to the word. It's as if

they plagiarized each other. Oh, I

quickly realized that that's how I can

get the girls, right? They never said

it's because in my childhood, I grew up

listening to Bach and Mozart and it

tickled my auditory reflex, right? They

usually said, "Oh, I go to a party and I

break out the thing and the lineup

begins." And then Jean Simmons sleeps

with 5,000 girls and the lead singer of

Simple Red, who's a rather forgive me,

whatever your name is, He's ginger guy.

He's not exactly the model of my sexual

dreams if I'm a woman. But yet he was,

you know, with tons of women, right? But

to finish the point about mate

desiraability scale. So now imagine all

of those attributes that I can cook. So

okay, God sad. Well, I'm not tall. That

goes against me. But I'm not very hard

to look at. That goes for me. I play

soccer really well. I learned very

quickly when I was 15 that the best way

that you won't get bullied by anybody is

when you're the big soccer star. Okay.

Uh I've done pretty well in my life. So

there are some traits that I score badly

on and some traits that I can compensate

on. And so we can put them all into a

basket and say, okay, well, what on a

scale of 0 to 100, what would God score

on his mate desiraability scale? And so

that's what that scale is. It's

basically taking all of our attributes

and then saying what do you score is is

Stephen a 78 or a 92. Now here's what's

very interesting to to that question

which you didn't ask.

Humans engage in what's called

assortative mating. Assortative mating

is the idea that birds of a feather

flock together. So there are two maxims.

There's the birds of a feather flock

together and there's the opposites

attract. Opposites attract only works

well for short-term mating. I am

sexually koi and shy and I'm an

introvert. You're sexually daring and

extroverted. That complimentarity might

actually result in a nice tric behind

the bushes. But for long-term mating, if

you want to assure success of a

long-term marriage, then it's

overwhelmingly birds of a feather flock

together. And usually here what we mean

is we share similar values. We share

similar goals, similar mindsets. We

really have to assort on these. If I'm

an asserbic atheist and you're a

committed Catholic who views everything

through Jesus, it doesn't take a fancy

professor to know we're not starting on

the right foot. Okay. But here's the

other part about associative assortative

mating. This is actually something that

I first um proposed as an open question

many years ago on one of my appearances

of Joe Rogan and I received like a

hundred emails saying, "Oh, I want to do

that research with you." Which I still

haven't done, so maybe it'll happen now.

So, let me repeat it.

So, I argue that people assort based on

their overall mate desiraability score,

which is the question you asked. Meaning

if I'm an 87,

I'm unlikely because the mating market

is is literally a market. It's a market.

Okay?

If I'm an 87, I can command a girl or

expect a girl in the 80s. It wouldn't be

good for an 87 to go with a 36. We all

want to get the 100. Both men and women

want to get the 100. But what stops us

is that I don't score 100. So, I want to

get the gorgeous supermodel and so on,

but maybe I'm not good enough to get

her. And and and all women want to get

the highly accomplished gorgeous male

Olympic swimmer who's both Bronny and a

neurosurgeon, but they can't get him

because he's got the pick of the litter.

So, usually we end up assorting on our

mate value. But now here's the part

where I proposed as a hypothesis and it

it it's it's never been tested although

I discuss it in the happiness book. So I

argue I predict although I haven't

tested it that what will predict the

likelihood of a couple staying together

into the future is whether their mating

overall mating scores stay in line or

they begin to diverge. So, I'm the high

school quarterback, so all the girls

think I'm hot. I get to go to the prom,

whatever it's called, uh, with the

cheerleader, the head cheerleader. She's

the hot girl. I'm the king of the high

school. That's great. At that point,

when we're both 18, we assort on our

mating value. Now, let's fast forward 10

years later. The hot cheerleader is now

finishing her third year in

neurosurgery. Yes, there's a lot of hot

pretty smart looking male doctors. The

the hot quarterback when I was 18 has

become fat. He's lost his hair and he's

uh consistently unemployed and shows no

interest other than playing video games.

So, what's happened? When we first met

when we were 18, our mating values were

the same. But now hot cheerleader has

become neurosurgeon. Her score has gone

really up. Hot quarterback is now a

degenerate. Now there's a huge

difference in our mating scores. That's

going to put a huge stressor on our

marriage. So one of the things I argue

in the happiness book is yes, make sure

to meet someone who matches you in your

mating value and work hard at making

sure that you stay at the right mating

value. Once we get that divergence, I'm

predicting divorce.

Okay. The It's super interesting. The

question that springs to mind is

as men and women age, who tends to drop

in their desiraability score?

What do you think?

I don't know.

You want me to answer it because then I

can get the hate mail? No problem.

No, no, but I I asked that as well

because there's clearly some data on

who's asking for the divorces, who's

initiating the divorces, who's cheating

the most. That would

so women are overwhelmingly the ones to

instigate a divorce.

Yeah,

that's true.

Although from a strict evolutionary

perspective,

the mate val all other things equal maid

value of men goes up with age. Mate

value of women goes down with age. Now,

here is how you reduce your chances in

the mating market if you're a woman. You

ready? Of course, just aging. Yes.

Number one. Number two, if you're tall,

that's a death blow. Why? Because wh

it's not that women want only tall guys

because then

we all the other guys would we would

have been twiddling our thumbs in

frustrated celibacy. But women want a

guy who's taller than them. That's

what's guaranteed. There was actually a

study done a few years ago now where

they looked at 720

actual couples. Guess how many violated

that norm? Women taller than men out of

720.

I don't know.

One.

One out of 720.

One. Right. So, women, it it's a it's a

non-starter that a woman doesn't want a

shorter guy than her. She might I mean,

Lionel Messi is my height, but he's

Lionel Messi, and he found a gorgeous

woman who's shorter than him, right? But

what you don't want now, if I'm a 6'1

woman, now of course they are still 6'2

and taller men, but just statistically

speaking, we've just shrunk the possible

pool. There's a gorgeous guy, super

handsome, very funny, very educated,

who's 5'8, but I'm 6'1. I tower over

him. If I wear heels and I add another

four inches, he becomes my son. Well,

this all brings to light something else

which has been discussed a few times on

this show, which is if we said there

that men's mate desiraability score

stays pretty consistent

unless all goes up unless they do

something very bad. But the kind of

inverse conversation there is that

women's desiraability scores are now

higher than ever when they're younger

than ever. Yeah.

So you've got and I believe from what

I've been told that the male's

desiraability score is now lower than

ever if we think about income

age groups

in the lower age groups. So if you think

about income um differences, if you

think about educational differences,

who's graduating from college, who's

smarter and all these kinds of things

because of the very important changes

that have happened in society, um men

and women are getting closer and closer

to par here.

Yeah. Which means that the I mean

someone on the podcast described it to

me as the tall woman problem, but it can

also be described as the small man

problem.

Well, and it's small. It's small and

tall. Not I was going to finish. Yeah.

It's not just the height. So I said

death blow would be you get older,

you're tall and you're very educated.

So, if you are a 38-year-old

6'2

PhD from Stanford and you're a woman,

good luck. Why? Because number one, I've

gotten older, so there's a smaller pool,

right? Uh, number two, I'm tall. I want

a taller guy. Number three, when I'm a

PhD, I'm a woman now. When I'm a PhD, I

want a guy who is as educated and

accomplished as me or more. So now I

need to find a 6'4 guy who's also a PhD.

Right? Here's the paradox by the way

that people don't realize. People think

that oh the reason why women always

desire high status guy that this is

[ __ ] It's not true. Is because

historically they have been dominated by

the patriarchy. So they sought that

which they didn't have. And that's

completely falsified by the fact that

very high status women actually insist

more on the guy being higher status. So

if it were, so for example, if I am a

neurosurgeon and a diplomat and I'm a

woman, I don't say, "Oh, well, now that

I have all that I need, let me look for

the illiterate 17-year-old Cabana boy

who can't read three words cuz that's

what I want." No, she even wants She

insists more on the guy being meeting

her or higher in status. So if I'm if

I'm older, tall, and super educated,

it's a death blow.

What does this all say about what's

going on with masculinity at the moment?

Because um when I've said this a few

times on the show, but when you look at

the stats around suicidality amongst

men, um when you look at mental health

issues amongst men, when you look at

some of the influencers that men are now

drawn to more than ever that are

offering a new vision of masculinity,

there's clearly some kind of transition,

something going on in society at the

moment as it relates to what it is to be

a man. You you said this thing about

beta male earlier on. No one wants a

beta male. Well,

you know, it feels like there has been a

narrative that has encouraged a bit more

beta maleness in society and we're

seeing a bit of like a counter movement.

I've had so many women, some of which

have been on the show, say to me that

they've got a young son, um, and they

are confused about the advice they

should be giving their young son in such

a world. I get tons of women who write

to me and and ask me sort of the f I'm

paraphrasing

where where are the bold men, right? I I

I go to a place I'm looking super,

you know, ready to meet people. I'm easy

to look at and no one approaches me.

Well, if you inculcate over many

generations that if I approach you and

say, "My god, my name is God, you you

look lovely. What a beautiful dress."

That's a compliment becomes a form of

compliment rape. Then is it surprising

that I may be a bit ambivalent in

approaching you? I mean I I often joke

that given some of the what is now

considered hashtagme too Italy should

cease to exist because the whole country

is hashtagme too right what do I mean by

that Italians stereotypically of course

are seducers they pursue women I mean

women will say you I love Italian guys

how they approach now we're not talking

about uh you know being persistent to

the point that they're harassing you

that they're pinning you down physically

but there is a dynamic of courtship

whereby men who are bold, men who

approach, men who take chances, who are

confident are going to get the pretty

girl. Well, now imagine if you create a

dynamic

in for all sorts of reasons, one of

which is radical feminism, the other one

of which is to pathize half of humanity

called men through the label of toxic

masculinity. No, it's called sexiness. a

guy who jumps into a a building to save

a puppy and he's called a fireman.

That's what we fantasize about. That's

not toxic masculinity. That's

masculinity, right? And so, a lot of

women will write to me and say, "Where

are those men, professor?" Well, those

men are too afraid to come out. I I'll

give you a couple of examples. Okay?

At my university, we now have a

mandatory sexual training module that we

have to take otherwise we can't

continue, right? It's it's part of like

you you know you have to October 15th to

get the refresher because until my

benevolent

kind employer taught me how to speak to

women, I was clueless. So the first 57

years of my life, I walked around as a

Middle Eastern savage, not knowing how

to interact with women. Of course, I'm

being sarcastic, right? But then the my

benevolent employer came along and

through very very cute, condescending,

and patronizing

cartoon vignettes,

they teach me how to act. So, you know,

a compliment that is in the wrong

context could be a form of sexual

violence. So, for example, uh you're

walking down the street and you see a

guy complimenting an a woman and it

appears that she's not uh welcoming that

compliment. Is that sexual violence? And

so, I will first just to test the

algorithm say no. And then it comes out,

ooh, I understand why you might be but

that is a form. Are you with me?

Yes. So now I'm 59 with a big

personality. This kind of [ __ ]

doesn't get to me. That's why I speak

openly and publicly to the chagrin of

all of academia. But the 21-year-old who

doesn't have that same strength of

personhood. Do you think he's going to

think twice before at the next party

walking up to a girl mustering up all

his courage to ask her if she wants a

coffee? Of course he is. So I think

that's where that problem of dynamic

comes from. And I'm now going to share a

personal story with one one of my

brothers which is also in the happiness

book which speaks to when you're the

opposite of the non-bold timid guy.

One of my brothers uh has been in

Southern California since 1984. He

became very very successful and wealthy.

Uh was an Olympian uh judoka. He he

represented Lebanon in the 1976

Olympics. The reason why that's relevant

is because physically he's very

dominant, but my brother is 2 feet tall.

Obviously not, but he's he's shorter

than me. He's Okay. I'm like 5'6, 5'7. I

mean, he's maybe five three. Okay.

But but a bulldog, right? I always like

to say just because then it makes it

easy. I say I mess his height. So that

makes it easy.

Okay. So, uh, he's not Messi's height.

He's shorter than Messi's height. He's

shorter than Meridana, right? So, but he

walks like he's seven feet tall. Okay.

So, we used to in the early 90s, I would

come visit him. He he used to live in in

Newport Beach where we are now. And we'd

go to clubs. I'm I'm single at that

point. And my brother would say, "All

right, God. We're going to play the

game." I'm like, "Oh, his name is Dave."

No, David. I'm not in the mood. Find the

most beautiful and unattainable girl

here. Oh, come on, man. I don't want to

do this. Do it. Okay. All right. So, I

look around. So, now I want to find not

only the prettiest girl. I want to find

an impediment to you getting her. What's

an impediment? A really doineering

looking man that she's with. Therefore,

that makes it even less likely that you

can get her. Yes.

Okay, David. I found her. The the girl

over there with the high heels in the

middle of the dance floor. That's the

one. You sure got? Yes. That's the one.

Okay. He stands there.

Dominant tattooed guy goes to the

bathroom.

David in great white shark mode goes up

to the girl. She with her high heels.

He's coming up to here. I just Okay.

Haha. I hear them smiling. He comes back

to me complete cold. Says she'll call me

tomorrow. [ __ ] David. No way. Zero

chance. It's not happening. Next day.

Come. Come. This is kind of an Arabic

thing. Come.

Hi, David. It's Candy. We met yesterday.

The thing I'm looking forward to meeting

you. How did he do it, Stephen? He did

it because testicles this big. He's 7

foot2

in his aura.

Now, you might say, well, yeah, boy does

it add a lot of inches metaphorically

when you have Ferraris and so on. But

there's a more general story here. He

owns the world. He walks like he owns

it, right? But he's not of great. So, if

you ask women, yeah, it' be great if I'm

6'2 and I walk big, but I could be 6'2

and very meek and very tepid and very

beta. Or I could be 5'7 and I'm messy.

most are going to go for messy. So

that's what I mean by the way when I say

that mating is a compensatory choice.

Compensatory means that it to your

earlier point about made desiraability,

we are judged on a basket of goods. If

it were that we're only judged in a

non-compensatory way, meaning so for

example, if it were that women say, "I

always go out with the tallest guy,"

then there's no way for me to compensate

for that. my humor won't get me higher

score, my looks won't get me, my

education, my accomplishment, I'm dead

because there's there are a lot of

taller guys. But if the way you choose

me is as a function of how I score on a

basket of goods, then I might have a

shot. So that's why I tell people, by

the way, that even though we all score

poorly on some things, but there's a

whole bunch of other things that we that

is within our possibility to improve. I

guarantee you for all that you are, if

you improve on assertiveness, ambition,

if your vocabulary changes so that when

you sit at a party, people can judge you

by the way within the first few

sentences that you say. Just your

elocution, the vocabulary that you use,

the the thoughtfulness of your answers.

I can very quickly judge where you are

where I could put you in the in the in

the pigeon hole. So there are way you

know what why don't you crack a book and

read a bit right why don't you stop

playing video games

on this point of masculinity the just

further upstream a little bit we talked

about men approaching women now I have

to present the counter narrative to this

because I don't think most men

understand what it is to be a beautiful

woman and and what they go through on a

daily basis this um ITV made a piece se

I think seven days ago I saw it on on X

or Twitter um which showed what it's

like to be a a beautiful woman walking

down the

Um, this was only 7 days ago. There's

been a variety of different videos like

this, but I'll just play it for you so

you can see.

What's going on?

I'm filming undercover alone in Cardiff,

where police recently announced a

decrease in violence against women.

Within seconds, a group of men

approached me.

I play tennis.

Yeah.

This guy didn't respect my personal

space.

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but

I saw you. I had to say hello. You look

nice.

That's kind of my friend.

That's fine.

The guy in the black t-shirt sees me up

ahead and speeds up to get next to me.

And like many others, he overstays his

welcome.

I think I'll be okay.

20 people approach me in just 2 hours.

Now, I don't think men realize that that

that's the nature of what a woman goes

through. So, in the context of this

conversation about,

no, we do have to be on the front foot

if we are going to find a mate. When you

understand that that's what that

beautiful woman that you're thinking

about going up to has already gone

through it does change your you know

I got you but I I've got an a ready

deployed answer for that life is about

modulation right saying the right thing

in the right way at the right time right

I'm sort of paraphrasing a quote of

Aristotle which in in the per not the

person in the happiness book I have a

whole chapter that is going to address

your beautiful woman story. So I talk

about the inverted U. Uh does that ring

a bell? Do you know what that is? The

inverted U.

I can imagine on a graph.

On a graph, but not not this way.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, the other way. Like a

hill,

right? So the inverted U is basically

the the mathematical representation of

something that certainly the ancient

Greeks taught us long ago, but they

weren't the only ones to say this. You

know, everything in moderation, right?

So Aristotle in his golden mean argument

said look if you have let's say a uh

soldier who's very cowardly meek lacking

courage that's not good. If you have a

soldier who is so bold rash reckless in

his risk takingaking that's not good

either. So too little is not good too

much is not good and the sweet spot is

in the middle. So in the happiness book

I have an entire cha chapter whereby I

argue that everything in life the number

one universal rule of optimal

flourishing is to find the sweet spot

irrespective of any context that you're

talking about and then I demonstrate it

through a bewildering number of examples

at the neuronal level at the individual

level at the societal level okay so now

let's apply that principle to here right

those guys are at the other end of the

curve, right? Knowing when to act in the

right way, at the right time, in the

right measure, that they're not doing

that because the likelihood of that

beautiful girl when you come up and act

like a rather harassing buffoon in that

context of her saying, "You know what?

I'm sold. Let's have massive sex behind

that tree right now." Right? Therefore,

we know that statistically speaking,

that approach is never going to work.

It's done for no other purpose than to

harass. Whereas when I'm at a party

where we are supposed to be mingling and

I come up to you and I say, "Forgive me.

I hope you don't mind. I just want to

say gorgeous dress." Does that seem like

what I just said is similar to how

they're acting? So life is about

modulation and those guys are certainly

not modulated. Obviously, there's a

bunch of things that are clearly

violations there. Um, of everything

you've just said about the right place,

the right time, they they look drunk.

Uh, it's very late. She's alone, so

she's in a position of vulnerability in

many respects. So, rolling up to her in

such a way is But from the from the male

perspective, you said the probability of

getting a good outcome there is so low.

But from the male perspective there,

they're probably thinking, listen, if

the probability is 0.001,

why not?

I'll take it. They're probably thinking

that. Well, by the way, perhaps, but if

you were an empathetic person, you'd say

the fact that she may feel threatened is

enough reason

not to. Yeah.

Not to do it.

Therefore, to me, they're all [ __ ]

I agree. And I I at the heart of this

though is this idea of self-awareness.

Exactly.

Because the men that rolled up there,

they might in their own heads think they

have a chance. They might like have a

distorted view of their probability. I

mean, one of them rolled up and said,

"Hey, uh, do you want some tennis

lessons? I'm a tennis coach." And from

what I saw in the video, he was a good

30, 40 years older than her.

Yeah.

And in his head, he must have thought

that the effort he's exerting there is

worth the probability that he's assumed

because there's just like no

self-awareness. And I think at the heart

of this is like, how do you build that

that self-awareness to know? Oh, I I

love that you're asking this because one

of the things that frustrates me the

most in social interactions is when so

I'm not a beautiful woman, so I don't

get that violation, but I get a million

other violations for all sorts of

reasons. One of which is that people do

recognize me a lot and they do come up.

So they don't do it because they're

trying to get me behind the bushes. But

then they'll stop me and lecture for the

next 25 minutes about whatever idea

they're having in their head. Now, I'm

polite. I'm thankful that people

appreciate my work and will come up. But

I didn't sign up while I'm walking with

my children and wife for you to lecture

me for 25 minutes uninterrupted without

me saying a word. If you come up and

say, "Oh, I read the perfect mine.

Professor, loved it. Do you mind if I

take a picture with you?" I'm always

gracious. I'm always but so all of those

social phauas almost all of them could

be linked to what you said which is a

complete lack of self-awareness which

let's break it down even more.

There is a concept in uh psychology uh

called theory of mind. Are are you

familiar with it? No. Theory of mind is

a ability that you must have in order to

have meaningful social interaction. What

does theory of mind mean? When I'm

chatting with you, I have to be able to

put myself in your mind. So, for

example, if I'm talking to an audience

that knows nothing about evolutionary

psychology, I might alter the specific

words I use because I have theory of

mind that makes me say they don't know

what domain specific computational

systems would be. If I use those words,

I just lost not because they're dumb,

but because they don't know that jargon.

So, I already exhibited a good

communicator skill, which is I put

myself in the theory of mind of my

audience and I modulate my message

depending on who I'm speaking to. Well,

autistic children, by the way, fail on

theory of mind. So, one of the ways that

you are able to diagnose because autism,

you can't give a blood test that shows,

oh, there's a marker of autism. So the

way that you typically uh diagnose

autism early is through various tasks

that they go through. So there is a task

for children that you suspect might be

autistic where they will fail on such a

test which makes sense intuitively

because you know that autistic children

don't have very good social skills are

emotionally withdrawn don't read cues

well. So, for example, if I'm sitting

with you for 25 minutes while you

lecture me about why Camala Harris is a

great president. I didn't sign up for

that. You want to shake my hand? That's

great. Now, you can tell if you're not

if you are self-aware that I'm getting

impatient. You should be able to tell

that my children are starting to shuffle

uncomfortably because they're getting