Why dating advice is terrible: half right is all wrong

I'm Dr. Orion Terriban, and this is Psych Hacks, Better Living Through Psychology. And the topic of today's short talk is why dating advice is terrible. The fact of the matter is that most dating advice isn't worth the paper that it's printed on. Much of it can sound good and plausible, but that is often because, separated in the moment of consumption from the realities of the sexual marketplace, it describes how people would like dating to be, or how people believe dating should be. The reality, of course, is neither. It is what it is. And the more people can move in the direction of accepting that reality, as painful and difficult as it might be, the more success they will eventually have in their relationships. In my opinion, even the best of the most popular dating advice only ever gets it half right. And there's actually a very simple reason why this is the case. As I discuss in my book, the fundamental principle in the game of mating and dating is that everyone is attempting to get and keep their perceived best option. If this is true, then the perception perceived of value best option is at the heart of all human relationships. And this means that relationships always have two components, perception, which is psychological, and value, which is economic. The most popular dating advice tends to fail because it approaches dating as if it's either one or the other. That is either it's all psychological, and so relationship problems can be solved entirely by psychological means, or it's all economic. And so relationship problems can be solved entirely by economic means. In reality, relationships are both. And any model that focuses on one without the other is doomed to failure. Let's discuss what that might look like. By far, the overwhelming majority of dating advice fails because it focuses exclusively on the psychological and completely avoids the economic. This advice fundamentally assumes that all relationship issues can either be addressed intrapsychically, that is within the minds of the individuals in question, or interpersonally, that is within the dynamic of the couple in question. You'll recognize this immediately when I give you some examples. Dating advice that focuses on intrapsychic components holds out the promise that the main thing standing between most people and the relationships they want is their unhealed emotional wounding from childhood, or their inability to love themselves, or their lack of awareness into the dynamics of their family of origin, or their lingering trauma from previous relationships, or their tendency to self sabotage, or their low self-worth that leads them to accept less than they deserve, or a lack of appreciation for their attachment styles, etc., etc., etc. Like, I could go on and on. This perspective is a symptom of the therapization of Western culture, which believes that most or even all problems can be solved by therapy, introspection, and self-awareness. They can't. This perspective has some validity, but it has become narcissistic in its overextension. It may be difficult to hear, but a person could be the most psychologically stable, emotionally intelligent, securely attached individual on the planet, and if he or she is unattractive, it will be difficult for that person to get and keep a relationship. Men don't think, damn, look at the size of that woman's assertiveness. Ugh, gotta get a piece of that. And women don't **** men because they are emotionally available. Like, these are not the attributes that the other side rewards in the sexual marketplace. Don't kill the messenger. Believing that this shouldn't be the case is pointless. It is what it is. What's more, a lot of this dating advice focuses on the interpersonal dimension, the exists between the individuals in question. This perspective holds out the promise that the main thing standing between most people and the relationships they want is their inability to communicate, or their unwillingness to compromise, or their lack of appreciation for the other's love language, or their resistance to emotional vulnerability, or their poor boundaries, or their reluctance to argue, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I could go on and on. This perspective is flawed because it intellectually isolates the couple from the larger context in which it is embedded. It isn't. This perspective has some validity, but it ignores the fact that relationships do not occur in a vacuum. Rather, they always exist, even if you are married, even if you are soulmates, in the context of the overarching sexual marketplace. It may be difficult to hear, but a person could be the most empathic communicator, the most conscientious partner, and the most deferential lover. If a better option exists, it will be difficult for this person to get and keep a relationship. If you cannot beat out your intersexual competition, it's less likely that you will be selected for a relationship, and it's less likely that you will retain any relationship for which you were selected. Believing that this shouldn't be the case is pointless. It is what it is. If you appreciate the insights on this channel, I would highly encourage you to get your hands on a copy of my book, The Value of Others. Over the course of 432 pages, I delve deep into my economic model of relationships and explain the behavior of both men and women in the game of mating and dating. I also provide a lot of actionable advice on how to get and keep more of what you want in the sexual marketplace. Once you read The Value of Others, you'll never look at relationships the same way again. Now available in ebook, audiobook, and paperback formats. The links are in the Now, the other side of this problem is dating advice that exclusively focuses on the economic and ignores the psychological. This is definitely a smaller proportion of the circulating advice, but it exists nonetheless. You'll recognize this immediately when I give you some examples. Dating advice that focuses on economic components holds out the promise that the main thing standing between most people and the relationship they want is their body mass index, or their fashion sense, or their bank accounts, or their game, or their social status, or their height, or their curves, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on. This perspective fails because it assumes that everything about relationships depends not only on sexual marketplace value, but on SMV in its most standardized and impersonal sense, namely normalized sexual marketplace value. It doesn't. Though, to be honest, it does matter more than we would collectively like to admit. SMV is not the whole story, but it is absolutely the case that more attractive people are more frequently selected for relationships, negotiate more favorable terms for themselves in those relationships, and retain their relationships more successfully against their intersexual competition. Relationships are easier if you are attractive, and everyone can be more attractive than they currently are. This component is ignored and vilified at people's own risk. That said, relationships absolutely don't turn on the fulcrum of attractiveness. A rich, handsome, arrogant man and a beautiful, sexy, entitled woman are both very difficult to date. Like, all the benefits they provide might be completely nullified by their toxic personalities and sociopathic tendencies. However, for better or for worse, people will still try to date them, and people will still try to make it work with them, and they will try longer and harder to make it work with them before they give up. Why? Because they are attractive. Believing that this shouldn't be the case is pointless. It is what it is. Of course, the best dating advice should include both perspectives. The ideal is to be a good and attractive partner. However, this is very difficult and extremely expensive. Most people can't do both. So what happens is that people selectively emphasize the component in which they are stronger and denigrate the component in which they are weaker. Basically, good people think they shouldn't have to be attractive. Attractiveness is superficial and materialistic. Goodness is all that should matter. And attractive people think they shouldn't have to be good. Goodness is impractical and naive. Attractiveness is all that should matter. If you want to be optimally successful in the sexual marketplace, in the long run, you need to be both. However, if you absolutely had to prioritize one component over the other, you should err on the side of being attractive. If you have more of what more people most want, you will be awash in relationships of all kinds, and people will compete for the privilege of your company. It is what it is. What do you think? Does this fit with your own experience? Let me know in the comments below. And please, in this episode, to someone who you think might benefit from this message, because it's word of mouth referrals like this that really help to make the channel grow. And anyone looking to join my free weekly newsletter or book a paid consultation can do so on my website. The links are all down below. As always, I appreciate your support, and thank you for listening.