The Biology of Dating: Why Him, Why Her? - yahoo.news

AllardChardon

Literotica Guru
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Posts
4,797
The Biology of Dating: Why Him, Why Her?

Reuters … Ah, the eternal question: Why is he with her?

Biological anthropologist Helen Fisher thinks she has found the answer after studying academic literature on personality and poring over 40,000 responses to a questionnaire on a dating website. A Rutgers professor and paid adviser for Chemistry.com, Fisher not only believes in romantic chemistry but is zeroing in on specific chemicals. She spoke with TIME about her latest book, Why Him, Why Her: Finding Real Love by Understanding Your Personality Type.

Time: A lot of things influence who we're attracted to, but one thing that has always puzzled scientists is the role that personality plays in mate selection. Have you solved that riddle?

Fisher: There are two parts of personality. There's character, which is everything you grew up to believe and do and think. And then there's temperament, which is your inherited traits. Some people are more stubborn than others, some are more curious, some are more aggressive. What I'm trying to do is add the role of biology, of temperament, to our human understanding of love.

Time: You basically break people down into four broad temperaments, each associated with certain brain chemicals.

Fisher: There was a great deal of data that people vary in terms of their expression of dopamine and norepinephrine, serotonin, estrogen and oxytocin and testosterone. I culled from the academic literature all of those data points that show that these particular brain-chemical systems are related to certain aspects of personality. And I saw constellations of temperament traits that seemed to be associated with these chemicals.

Time: What are the four types?

Fisher: People who express dopamine - I call them Explorers - tend to be risk-taking, curious, creative, impulsive, optimistic and energetic. The traits associated with the serotonin system express themselves in what I call Builders. They're cautious but not fearful, calm, traditional, community-oriented, persistent and loyal. Directors have traits associated with activity in the testosterone system. These people tend to be very analytical, decisive, tough-minded; they like to debate and can be aggressive. The fourth type is the Negotiator. Men or women who express activity in the estrogen system tend to be broadminded imaginative, compassionate, intuitive, verbal, nurturing, altruistic and idealistic.

Time: How did you choose the four types and ascertain who they like?

Fisher: They emerged out of the genetic literature. I didn't impose them. I read the literature, and I found them. And then I developed the questionnaire to make sure these people did express these four [types of temperament] and expressed them in these ways. That study was done on 40,000 people. And then on the dating site Chemistry.com, I watched who gravitated to whom.

Time: Could you actually test people for these chemicals?

Fisher: We're doing that study right now at Pacific University [in Oregon]. It's taken us longer than we expected, and the problem is that it's a college population. We can get participants, but they're taking Ritalin or Wellbutrin or Prozac or anabolic steroids, or they're taking birth control pills or they're taking cocaine, or something which alters their brain chemistry. Science is not easy.

Time: Is it possible that you could have a blood test and know what kind of partner you should look for?

Fisher: It's possible. Remember with mate selection that timing is important and proximity is important. And don't forget your childhood plays a role. Let's say you're an Explorer type who grew up with Explorer parents who were just so nutty that you were constantly holding on to your high chair. Then in your college and early 20s, you went out with people who were risk-taking and novelty seekers, curious and creative like yourself and had some bad experiences. You might turn to a nice, solid, loyal, conscientious family-oriented Builder to have your babies. Even though it might not normally be the most natural type for you.

Time: So you can use your system to see who you might be drawn to and seek them out?

Fisher: There are other things too. When you're going out on a date, if you understand your primary type and the type of person you're going out with, you can better reach them and create more intimacy with them. Because the four types define intimacy differently and look for different things in a partner. They even use different words. In one of my studies on Chemistry.com, I looked at what words people used and, sure enough, the four primary types used very different kinds of words. If you use the words that ring true to this person's temperament type, with your lover or even your children or your lover's parents, and behave in ways that click with this temperament type, you can reach people more effectively.

Time: If we're to some extent directed toward certain people by our neurochemicals, does that mean if we take Ritalin or Prozac or are on the Pill that we're likely to make bad dating decisions?

Fisher: Yeah, that's a problem. You're going to marry a different kind of person. As long as you stay on the drugs, it might be O.K. What I'd do is get off drugs before you fall in love - and marry the person after that very early intense stage of love has worn off. I've always maintained that it's adaptive to marry after that stage. I think all over the world people are doing this, because they're living with their partners and even having children first.

Time: Explorers are drawn to Explorers, Builders are drawn to Builders, and Negotiators and Directors are drawn to each other. But what if you're already married? Is your study useful then?

Fisher: Yes. You can understand where the pitfalls are going to be and how to avoid them. In a long relationship, you have to pick your battles. There are some you're just never going to win. And there are others you'll win more effectively if you profoundly understand who your partner is.

Time: According to your theory, I'm an Explorer-Director married to a Negotiator-Explorer. Is there any hope?

Fisher: How long have you been married?

Time: Eighteen years.

Fisher: Do you have any children?

Time: Two.

Fisher: Well, from a Darwinian perspective, you've already won.

View this article on Time.com

***I think I have exhibited all four traits at different times of my life but I appreciate the association of brain chemicals with behavior in this article.
 
This is interesting, but it's also something o a crock, at least in my case. Maybe some guys had their choice of girls and women, but I never did. To me, it was only necessary that a female be reasonably available and willing. There were very few such females in my youth and early adulthood. :(
 
Wouldn't giving potential mates the Meyer's Briggs be easier?
 
Explorers, Builders, Directors and Negotiators, hmmm.

An early American immigrant finds a large expanse of land, as the explorer. Then, as the builder, he erects a home. To do this he must direct others or, at least, himself. In the end, he just might have to negotiate with the local Natives for the right to stay. Which chemical is dominant? Each of them, at different times.

This example is not excluding women, who, of course, follow these same lines in the course of life. It was just an illustration of the transition from one phase to another, possibly with a coinciding brain chemical assisting the process, I really don't know.
 
Explorers, Builders, Directors and Negotiators, hmmm.

An early American immigrant finds a large expanse of land, as the explorer. Then, as the builder, he erects a home. To do this he must direct others or, at least, himself. In the end, he just might have to negotiate with the local Natives for the right to stay. Which chemical is dominant? Each of them, at different times.

This example is not excluding women, who, of course, follow these same lines in the course of life. It was just an illustration of the transition from one phase to another, possibly with a coinciding brain chemical assisting the process, I really don't know.

I wonder about the guy who is asked: "Why are you dating her?" And he answers: Because she's got big tits and gives head. What do explorers, builders, directors or negotiators have to do with that?

Or, the woman who is asked: "Why are you dating him?" And she answers: "Because he's got a lot of money and spends it on me."
 
Not to mention the woman who replies, "Well, you haven't seen the entire package!" Forget the money. Show me the stuff that makes my heart go pitter pat.
 
I wonder about the guy who is asked: "Why are you dating her?" And he answers: Because she's got big tits and gives head. What do explorers, builders, directors or negotiators have to do with that?

Or, the woman who is asked: "Why are you dating him?" And she answers: "Because he's got a lot of money and spends it on me."

Are you really that fucking shallow? No wonder you had to marry the first woman that showed the tiniest bit of interest in you. :rolleyes:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I wonder about the guy who is asked: "Why are you dating her?" And he answers: Because she's got big tits and gives head. What do explorers, builders, directors or negotiators have to do with that?

Or, the woman who is asked: "Why are you dating him?" And she answers: "Because he's got a lot of money and spends it on me."


Are you really that fucking shallow? No wonder you had to marry the first woman that showed the tiniest bit of interest in you. :rolleyes:

That post was not about myself, although other posts on here were. The post being quoted was about hypothetical men and women, and was intended to show the basic fallacy of the opinion expressed in the first post of this thread.

ETA: She wasn't the first woman, BTW, she was the first unmarried woman.
 
Last edited:
I'd have to say I express all four as needed, but I probably center on serotonin most of the time.
 
It's hardly exhaustive, a risk taker might be a mountain climber or a drug dealer, this only addressees temperament, not character.

I wonder about the guy who is asked: "Why are you dating her?" And he answers: Because she's got big tits and gives head. What do explorers, builders, directors or negotiators have to do with that?
Who pissed in your Cheerios?
 
The list of traits she mentioned for each "type" aren't a fallacy. The reason I say that is because these are the traits that are *predominantly* exhibited with each type, but they are not the *only* traits that a person will exhibit regardless of what type they are. We all exhibit all of those and probably others not listed at different times in our lives...hell, even at different times during the day as needed by our jobs, families, etc. For instance, a Negotiator is very likely to easily understand all sides of an argument even though they may be in a situation where they must take a side. So let's say this Negotiator has a supervisory position at work. They'll exhibit some of the traits of a Director, and also probably of an Explorer, but if a dispute arises between managers in a meeting, say, the Negotiator is very likely to be able to understand why each side feels the way they do, even if they strongly agree with only one side.

When talking about personality traits and character traits psychology understands that there aren't hard and fast rules; a person whose predominant traits put them in one category absolutely does not mean that they will never exhibit the traits of another category, or even that they'll only exhibit a few traits of another category on very rare occasions. As stated above, she's discussing what's *predominantly* expressed in various people, not what's *only* expressed.

ETA: In response to Box's example of the shallowness some people have when it comes to dating, that kind of thing is *part* of certain personality traits. That's what Explorers, Builders, Directors and Negotiators have to do with that.
 
Last edited:
Interesting...but studies such as these come out every few years and I suspect to found a dating system or some such trivia.

But...If Hawkings is right, and Sagan seemed to agree, if the future of the human race is in space, then the ability to chemically determine compatible couples might be quite valuable.

There is also another factor, but it is a bit of a stretch, and is based on several programs and studies concerning evolution and gene mutations caused by ever present solar and cosmic radiation coursing through each and every human body, thousands of times per second.

Female flight attendants are even advised not to work polar flights as the solar radiation is much higher in those regions, and far greater for Astronauts who spend time outside the earths atmosphere.

While changing the nature of humanity through evolution and mutation often produces beneficial changes, (otherwise we would have gone extinct), the bad effects include cumulative radiation that acts as a carcinogen and can render both male and female sterile.

On a real level, y'know, the one we 'romance writers', inhabit, I suggest the mystery of two people finding that illusive attraction to each other beyond the gonad stage, remains a fertile area for exploration and speculation.

:rose:


Amicus....
 
According to this article, my dominant trait is Director and that puts me back in the testosterone group, again. Again.
 
From what is posted here on this thread, I move from one to another as the situation demands. Go figure.
 
Back
Top