Love is a complicated thing and finding someone who you can love and
who will love you back is the first step down that desirable but complicated
path. Making a romantic match is like matching two puzzle pieces when each
piece is a puzzle itself. We have to consider all the complexities of each
person and then only once we have a good picture of the individuals can we
consider how well they would fit as a couple. But what actually determines fit?
Both old wisdom and new science tell us a lot about what makes a good fit and
the list is pretty long. It includes similar social and economic class, similar
intelligence and physical attractiveness, similar political and religious
views, difference in dominant vs. submissive, etc. These factors are a jumble, though,
they all seem to help but none of them appear necessary or sufficient. Dating
services work by shoving all of these factors together and then rating partners
on how well they match up. This works because that’s the best service they can
offer since they have a limited pool. They match you with your first, second,
third, etc. best match until enough of the unmeasured factors also match up.
What dating services can’t do is identify that threshold point between success
and failure. To do that we need a unified framework that considers all of the
factors together. This is where ecology steps in [1].
Ecologists study how populations interact with themselves and other species and one of our key areas of focus is studying biodiversity: the number and types of species present in an area. To study how biodiversity is actually maintained, ecologists have devoted a lot of effort to understanding how species coexist, particularly how competitors (species which use similar resources and face similar threats) are able to coexist. The problem is that no species is actually trying to coexist with its competitors. If a species could kick out all of its competitors, all the better. So the only reason the best competitor in any environment doesn’t just kick out the less well adapted species is that it can’t. The rule ecologists have found is \[\frac{\text{Lesser species' effect on lesser species}}{\text{Better species' effect on lesser species}}>\frac{\text{Fitness of better species}}{\text{Fitness of lesser species}} \]
The
right side of the equation says that coexistence gets harder as the stronger
species gets better adapted than the lesser species. Basically, it’s easier to coexist
when both species are more equally adapted to the environment. The left side of
the equation says that coexistence gets easier if the species harm themselves
more than they are harmed by the other species.
What
do I mean by harm? Individuals harm their own species the same way you harm
yourself by eating food in your house: the more food you eat the less you have
to eat later. Species can harm themselves more than they harm other species if
they interact with their environment differently. Imagine two roommates who share
food and won’t buy groceries for a while. One roommate eats mostly meat in
every meal while the other eats meals that are mostly veggies. Each time the
meat-eater makes a meal, that is one less meal available for him but it has
little effect on how many more meals the pseudo-vegetarian can make since very
few veggies were eaten. Basically, the left side of the equation says that the
more complimentary the two species are the easier it is to coexist.
So
far we haven’t got anything new. Just like the common wisdom for dating, the
more equal species are the more likely they will coexist and the more
complimentary they are the more likely they will coexist.
The
new contribution from ecology is putting the whole equation together. Species
need to be as complimentary as they are unequal. The more equal they are the
less complimentary they need to be, the less equal they are the more
complimentary they need to be. For relationships, this means that partners only
need to be as different in their type
of needs and abilities (complementarity;
e.g., skilled at making money, friends, or a household, good at dealing with
big problems versus many small problems, good at making plans versus dealing
with surprises, etc.) as they are different in their ability to meet their needs (quality [2];
e.g., career level, intelligence, wealth, attractiveness, charisma, etc.).
Couples can have successful relationships even if they are quite different in quality
provided they are very complimentary. Likewise, couples can have successful
relationships even if they are very similar in their needs and abilities
provided they are also very similar in their ability to meet those needs.
Successful relationships can be found everywhere between these extremes, the
two aspects just need to balance.
Translating
from ecology, the Love Equation is as follows. For a romantic relationship to
be successful, the following equation must be true for both partners: \[\frac{\text{Quality of partner}}{\text{Quality of self}}<\frac{\text{Value of my partner's abilities to myself}}{\text{value of my abilities to myself}} \]
The Love Equation tells us the minimum
requirement for a loving and complete romantic relationship. Unfortunately,
relationships don’t exist in a vacuum so there are three external factors which
can interfere: (1) changes in circumstances, (2) differences in goals and
values, and (3) other potential partners. Changes in circumstances will happen
over the course of a relationship and can disrupt the relationship by changing
the values in the Love Equation. Differences in goals and values increase the
vulnerability of the relationship to changes in circumstance by increasing the
likelihood that one partner will be affected more than the other, reducing
equality. Finally, if there are lots of alternative partners available it is
more likely that a small reduction in equality or complementarity will make a
different partner more attractive than the current one (better potential
partners can also make a potentially loving relationship undesirable to begin
with). Fortunately, the way to guard against these factors is simply to start
with a relationship with more equality and complementarity.
That’s the equation for love. A
relationship can be built without meeting the Love Equation but it will not
develop into a fully developed intimate relationship. A stable and loving partnership
requires that individuals be complimentary enough to offset differences in
quality. There are two things I would like you to take away from this equation.
First, partners need to be similar and different, similar in their ability to
achieve but different in their approach, but how they go about being similar
and different can vary enormously. While rather cliché, it is entirely possible
for a loving relationship to be built on one partner being wealthy or powerful
while the other is physically attractive, it’s just a little more vulnerable to
changing circumstances. The second thing is that partners only need to be as
complimentary as they are different in quality. For example, a relationship can
survive two very dominant personalities provided the couple are also very
equal.
So, when looking for love keep the Love
Equation in mind to keep you realistic about what will work, despite advice to
the contrary, and what won’t work, despite you really wanting it (i.e., give up
on that celebrity crush). That being said, one of your brain’s main jobs is
figuring this all out behind the scenes so just trust your heart and make sure
that you both feel lucky.
[1] This is a shortened
and simplified version of a more technical and nuanced post available at http://evolutionandemotions.blogspot.ca/2013/11/LoveAndCoexistence.html
[2] As with species, a person’s quality is entirely conditional on the
environment we are considering them in (including everything from broad
geography and society to the specific social network). This has two main
implications. First, while people are not inherently better or worse than
others, people do vary in how successful they appear to be. This is contingent
both on how much they are able to achieve in their given environment and how
much their achievements matches what is considered successful by the people
around them (money, family, athleticism, intellectual/artistic contributions,
etc.). The second implication, which follows from the first, is that people
will choose to be in an environment in which they have high value. This can be
as subtle as choosing to spend time in places where people who value your
skills also spend time (e.g., athletics individuals at gyms, intellectual
individuals at universities, etc) or as major as moving to another city/country
where your strengths and weaknesses are more appropriate. For relationships,
this means that partners should be relatively well suited to the same
environment such that they are not sacrificing a substantial amount of
potential quality to be around each other (for most relationships this isn’t a
big deal as future partners tend to only meet because they thrive in the same environment).
No comments:
Post a Comment