Review: “The Mating Mind – David Buss on Evolution, Desire, and the Dark Side of Human Nature”

In a wide-ranging conversation on the Trigonometry podcast, evolutionary psychologist David Buss — one of the founding figures of the field — offers a characteristically bold, controversial, and illuminating tour of human mating. Drawing on decades of research, Buss explains why men and women think differently about jealousy, cheating, attractiveness, and even violence. The conversation is dense, provocative, and at times unsettling, but it consistently returns to a central theme: our deepest instincts were shaped by ancient problems, and they don’t always fit comfortably into modern life.

The Power of Evolutionary Mismatch

One of the most compelling ideas Buss introduces is “evolutionary mismatch.” Ancestrally, humans encountered only a few dozen potential mates in a lifetime. Today, dating apps offer thousands or millions. The result? Decision paralysis, reluctance to commit, and an overemphasis on photographs rather than real-life chemistry. Buss’s advice is refreshingly practical: stop messaging, meet for coffee, and take a vacation together to see how someone handles stress. In a world of swipes and ghosting, his call for embodied, low-stakes connection feels almost radical.

Sex Differences: Uncomfortable but Evidence-Based

Buss does not shy away from the most politically charged claims. He argues that men’s jealousy focuses on sexual infidelity (paternity uncertainty), while women’s jealousy focuses on emotional infidelity (loss of resources and commitment). He notes that men on average desire sexual variety, while women who cheat tend to be unhappy in their primary relationship and often fall in love with the affair partner. These are presented not as moral judgments but as empirical patterns supported by cross-cultural studies.

Similarly, Buss outlines sex-differentiated components of mate value: for men, economic provisioning and slightly older age; for women, youth and physical attractiveness (cues to fertility). He acknowledges that many people dislike these findings but insists they are biological facts, not male-scientist inventions. This is where the interview becomes most contentious. Critics may argue that Buss naturalizes what could be explained by culture, power, or historical contingency. Yet his defense — that similar preferences appear across societies — is not easily dismissed.

The Dark Side: Abuse, Stalking, and Rape

The conversation’s most difficult section deals with male violence. Buss suggests that stalking and abuse can function as “mate-guarding” adaptations — lowering a woman’s self-perception of desirability to keep her from leaving. He notes that the first three to six months after a breakup are the most dangerous for women, and that abuse often spikes when a man suspects infidelity, especially if a woman becomes pregnant by another man.

On rape, Buss is more cautious. He notes that from a woman’s perspective it is violence, from many convicted rapists’ perspective it is about sex. He acknowledges an unresolved debate among evolutionary scientists over whether rape is an adaptation or a byproduct. What is striking — and commendable — is his frustration that political sensitivities have made quality research on rape nearly impossible to fund. “It absolutely could benefit women if we knew more about it,” he says. That is a hard truth worth sitting with.

What’s Missing?

The conversation is almost entirely heteronormative. Buss defines sex by gamete size and speaks of men and women as two distinct categories. There is no discussion of same-sex mating, non-binary identities, or how evolutionary psychology might account for variation beyond the male-female binary. Additionally, the conversation focuses heavily on Western dating contexts (apps, Tinder, reality TV) while claiming universality — a tension that goes unexplored.

Finally, Buss’s emphasis on evolved adaptations sometimes risks sounding deterministic. To his credit, he repeatedly acknowledges individual differences, moral restraint (e.g., Jimmy Carter), and the role of culture in activating or deactivating latent instincts. Readers may wish for more on how to deliberately override or reshape those instincts, not just understand them.

While the term "mate value" is used frequently, the definition of this is left ambiguous and, in fact, Buss suggests that it has great variation. This should make it a somewhat vague premise for selection and therefore erodes the plausibility of his hypothesis. And no real explanation is given for how the archetypical mother determines "mate value" of a suitor for her daughter. As a concept, it has so many 'holes' that it really becomes quite meaningless in discussion.

Verdict

This conversation is a valuable primary source for anyone interested in evolutionary psychology, gender differences, or the science of mating. Buss is an engaging, intellectually honest, and occasionally provocative guide. The conversation is at its best when it connects ancient selection pressures to modern dating chaos, and at its most uncomfortable when it confronts the dark side of human nature. Whether you agree with Buss or not, he forces you to take evolution seriously — not as an excuse for bad behaviour, but as a necessary lens for understanding why we are the way we are.

If you are already engaged in this field, this is useful 'grist for the mill' and may unlock some critical lines of discussion.

Recommended for: Students of psychology, curious laypeople, and anyone who has ever wondered why cheating hurts differently depending on who you ask.

Proceed with caution if: You prefer your science neatly separated from politics, or your conversations about violence without evolutionary speculation.

Rating: 3/5 — Insightful, challenging, but also quite infuriating, exactly as good science communication should be.