麻豆传媒

Enjoy what two insightful books have to say about mating intelligence and relationships 鈥� but don鈥檛 park your scepticism just yet

鈥淒O YOU have any raisins? No? Well then, how about a date?鈥� You don鈥檛 need Mating Intelligence Unleashed to tell you this is a dire chat-up line. On the other hand, you may be interested to learn that men may use 鈥渦nattractive opening gambits鈥� to 鈥渟creen out鈥� women seeking commitment in favour of those who fancy a fling. I鈥檓 interested, but sceptical.

It鈥檚 not the only observation to prompt a 鈥渞eally?鈥� Even so, this is a book built on sound biological foundations. Few would argue with the idea that humans possess evolved biases and preferences in courtship and mating behaviour. And, although the field of mating intelligence is relatively new, one thing that is clear in this eclectic overview is just how much research has already been done. The subject is almost guaranteed to entertain. Glenn Geher and Scott Barry Kaufman ask: how is individual mating behaviour influenced by gender, personality, and environment? Why do we find creativity and humour sexy? What does a woman/man want? And do nice guys really finish last?

Attentive 麻豆传媒 readers will find little that is new, and some that is laughable; you will marvel at the effort made to discover that 鈥渨omen do not like 鈥榡erks鈥� per se鈥�. Still, there are real revelations: intelligence is the second most desirable trait in a sexual partner, funny men are perceived as taller, and flirting doesn鈥檛 always signify sexual interest.

As well as elucidating research, Geher and Kaufman believe these revelations can improve your love life. But can it help to be aware of subconscious biases underlying sexual relationships? The authors think so, yet even they ask: 鈥淗ow often has your meta-cognitive awareness caused a drop in your ability to accomplish a task smoothly?鈥�

Perhaps it鈥檚 just sour grapes on my part, having failed to shine on their Mating Intelligence Scale. If you must know, I lack 鈥渃ommitment scepticism鈥�, and I should have answered 鈥渢rue鈥� to the statement 鈥渕y current beau spends a lot of money on material items for me鈥� because this would show that I was good at obtaining resources from my partner. But I doubt that mating intelligence improves through exegesis.

Call me old school, but I believe we learn about relationships via trial and error, directed by our emotions, yet Geher and Kaufman barely mention love. Luckily, I had Barbara Fredrickson鈥檚 book to fill the void. Or so I thought. It turns out Love 2.0 is not a treatise for old romantics, but something far more interesting. For Fredrickson, love isn鈥檛 the all-encompassing state of bonded bliss most people envisage. Instead, she redefines it as fleeting moments of emotion we feel whenever we make a real connection with another human.

鈥淔redrickson redefines love as fleeting emotions we feel when we make a real connection with a human鈥�

This 鈥減ositivity resonance鈥� is, she argues, mediated through three physiological channels: a synchronisation of brain activity with a loved person; oxytocin; and nerve impulses that travel between the brainstem and heart via the vagus nerve. This is a virtuous cycle 鈥� the more love your body experiences, the more it can experience. Such positivity resonance is transformative, bringing health, happiness, social integration, wisdom and resilience.

Yes, this can be excruciatingly New-Agey. And no, the science doesn鈥檛 quite stack up. Oxytocin, for example, isn鈥檛 all about positive relationships, and Fredrickson doesn鈥檛 mention the link between endorphins and well-being. She also ignores the finding that fear synchronises brain activity at least as effectively as love. Still, her research on the vagus nerve is intriguing, and no doubt her ideas will evolve. If you can stomach 鈥渓etting the heart of your I resonate with the heart of your we鈥� and other such purple prose, this book may change your life. Really. Give Love 2.0 a chance.