[hartror]

I love pop psychology books that tell me it is fine to be lazy and uncaring. /sarcasm

We aren't talking about dating here, we are talking about long term relationships. The whole Red Queen thing breaks down when we add artificial human constructs such as marriage and monogamy.

We are not a Silver Back leading a band of gorillas, we are far more complex than that. Sure, signalling plays a roll in initial conditions, impressions and attractiveness. However once we get past the monkey brain and into the far more complex social behaviors humans have developed there aren't just a couple of sliders to adjust to determine how successful a relationship is.

I would love to hear of anyone having a successful and above all healthy long term relationship using the ideas you espouse.

[yummyfajitas]

I love pop psychology books that tell me it is fine to be lazy and uncaring

You are confusing normative and positive claims.

[hartror]

Sorry I don't understand your comment could you rephrase?

[spoondan]

It's the difference between "do" and "should". He's saying the book claims to explain human behavior; it doesn't recommend or justify that behavior.

[hartror]

Yet others are using it to recommend and justify the behavior.

[spoondan]

Sure, but I don't think your complaint is with the book. You can't blame the evidence for the case the prosecutor makes.

[hartror]

Point taken, given I haven't read the book I assumed the book made the same conclusion that was being forwarded on this thread.

[haploid]

Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting that once one has consciously elected to enter into a long-term relationship, one's biological drives and genetic predispositions immediately shut down?

Genetic expression and disposition toward gene-propagating behaviors do not cease to operate, no matter how far removed we think we are from the "lowly" Silverback.

Your other points regarding human social behaviors are being quite a bit more complex than that of gorillas is correct, but I don't think recognition of that fact is sufficient basis for assuming that all other factors are suddenly irrelevant.

[hartror]

Not at all, I am contending that there are far more complex social dynamics going on beyond the simplistic ape view that others are espousing. The fact we evolved from apes so our social brains are rooted in that make up is significant, however others seem to be treating it as significant to the exclusion of all else.

My original response to the whole "treat em mean, keep em keen" comment in fact makes a reverse argument using evolutionary biology. That is that this sort of behavior actually precludes building a successful relationship as the woman doesn't get the security she needs to raise her offspring.