Menu
Sign In Search Podcasts Charts People & Topics Add Podcast API Blog Pricing
Podcast Image

The Last Show with David Cooper

Dating Isn't Trading Stocks

19 Feb 2026

Transcription

Chapter 1: What is the main topic discussed in this episode?

3.119 - 27.342 David Cooper

We're here because your heightened awareness deserves heightened entertainment. The Last Show with David Cooper. People have described modern dating as a marketplace. You swipe, you rank people, you assign everybody objective mate value numbers, hoping for the best. But what if romance isn't like the stock market, just with perfume, cologne, and flirting? What if it's something else entirely?

0

27.382 - 42.221 David Cooper

What if this marketplace notion is wrong? Well, that is what we're going to discuss here with psychology professor at UC Davis. Check out his book, Bonded by Evolution, The New Science of Love and Connection, wherever books are sold, that is available online. The man I'm with is Paul Eastwick. Paul, welcome to the show.

0

Chapter 2: What does the marketplace metaphor get wrong about dating?

42.582 - 62.758 David Cooper

Thank you so much for having me back, David. I feel like I've seen so many reels on short form video platforms where people describe dating as a marketplace. There's apps that like this lingo in how you end up swiping on them. This metaphor is everywhere. OK, what does this metaphor get totally wrong about how humans pair up?

0

62.738 - 84.008 Paul Eastwick

Yeah, I mean, I do think that to some extent the apps are making this metaphor more omnipresent and making dating harder for a lot of people. And in many ways, the metaphor feels real when you are swiping on the apps. Like if you're doing well, you know, you feel like your inbox is full and you feel like you're winning the marketplace.

0

84.128 - 87.753 Paul Eastwick

And if you're not doing well, you feel like a loser on the marketplace.

0
0

88.574 - 110.585 Paul Eastwick

The point that I've been trying to make is that this is not inevitable. It does not have to be this way. And furthermore, this actually does a very bad job of mimicking the environment in which we evolved. It's very tempting to think, oh, there's something natural about having to compete for mates. And, you know, if you're a six, you settle for the other sixes.

111.406 - 120.758 Paul Eastwick

This actually, I think, is a pretty weak metaphor for thinking about the evolved nature of human attraction and relationship initiation.

120.788 - 125.396 David Cooper

And you can't explain why I've ended up partnered as a perfect zero using this model.

125.996 - 127.98 Paul Eastwick

I think I can. I think I can do it.

128.801 - 144.346 David Cooper

But look, the number of notifications you get, the number of super swipes you have in your inbox, this idea that it's this linear scale, I think that's where it gets it wrong. Dating exists on many, many dimensions, doesn't it? Yes, exactly.

Chapter 3: How do dating apps influence our perceptions of attraction?

207.132 - 208.814 David Cooper

I mean, we all got to agree on that one.

0

208.854 - 212.619 Paul Eastwick

Look, it's for me, but this is not for everybody. And that's the beauty of the thing.

0

213.04 - 227.779 David Cooper

Let's get a little bit into the science here. You're talking about how we evolved, you know, dating and more primitive, our primitive ancestors. It looked nothing like swiping left and right on the apps. What evidence do you have for how things were very different? And then how were things very different?

0

227.759 - 239.755 Paul Eastwick

Yeah, so I want to take us back as best we can estimate what it was like when you were looking for a partner, I don't know, 50,000, 150,000, half a million years ago.

0

239.975 - 252.151 David Cooper

Good at killing spiders because we were in caves and spiders are in caves. You better be very good at killing spiders and maybe the occasional mammoth as well. Got it. Okay, I swear I won't joke for the next 90 seconds.

252.191 - 282.353 Paul Eastwick

Keep going. OK, so you probably lived in a group of about 50 people. There might be a couple other groups nearby that you'd interface with. But so we're talking like 150 people. That's your social universe. And now how many of those folks are roughly your age? How many are unpartnered already? That's a pretty small market, especially relative to what we experience currently in the modern day.

282.822 - 304.24 Paul Eastwick

But you had one thing going for you, which is that you were likely to be able to get to know these folks over a pretty extended period of time, in some cases months or even years. And what we see in our research is that some of that consensus, that agreement about who's desirable and who's not,

304.22 - 331.233 Paul Eastwick

As people get to know each other over time, what starts to happen is that that agreement actually declines. So that thought experiment we did earlier where we see a photograph of a guy and we agree 65% of the time. If it's now somebody who's in our social milieu, like a friend or an acquaintance, now you and I are agreeing like 53% of the time. I mean, that's better than 50-50, but not by much.

331.974 - 353.397 Paul Eastwick

And what has happened is that as we have gotten to know folks over time, you see a spread in how we think about that person. So, okay, we agree they're a six at first, but with time, some of us think he's a nine and some of us think he's a three. But with that additional spread, what that means is you have more opportunities to

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Please log in to write the first comment.