Why Humans Are Wired for Love but Struggling to Connect | Dr. Justin Garcia — EP 745

Coming up next on passion struck we know that the from studies of fmri brain scan of people who are recently romantically in love and people are passionately in love. It is a very much parallel to addiction in the brain and in fact romantic rejection studies of people who have gone through breakups. They the brain looks remarkably like someone going through with drug withdrawal particularly cocaine withdrawal which helps explain why breakups can feel so intense and emotionally physically it's why people feel physical pain with breakups. That. I'm always a little cautious of calling it an addiction but it is very parallel to addiction and I in part because we're so used to addictions being negative and love is a positively balanced one for the most part. Welcome to passion struck. I'm your host John Miles. This is the show where we explore the art of human flourishing and what truly means to live like it matters. Each week I sit down with change makers craters scientists and everyday heroes to decode the human experience and uncover the tools that help us lead with meaning. He'll with Hertz and pursue the fullest expression of who were capable of becoming whether you're designing your future developing as a leader or seeking deeper alignment in your life. This show is your invitation to grow with purpose and act with intention because the secret to a life of deep purpose connection and impact is choosing to live like you matter. Hey friends and welcome back to episode 745 of passion struck throughout this life beyond the script series. We've been exploring what happens when the assumptions we've lived by about identity success health and purpose stop working. But there's another script most of us inherit without ever questioning it the script about love about relationships about what it means to feel connected in a world that has never been more digitally linked yet often feels profoundly lonely. Earlier in this series we've explored how biology shapes resilience with Dave Asprey how emotional strength influences physical health with Dr. Tara Neurula and how technology is reshaping entire systems of care with Dr. Robert Wachter. Today we turn to something even more fundamental intimacy because beneath achievement status and productivity. Most people are searching for one thing to feel seen to feel chosen to feel like they matter to someone. My guest today is Dr. Justin Garcia evolutionary biologist executive director of the Kinsey Institute and author of the new book the intimate animal the science of sex fidelity and why we live and die for love. In this conversation we explore a provocative idea humans didn't just evolve to survive we evolved to bond Justin explains how pair bonding touch sexual desire attachment and connection are deeply rooted in our biology. And why modern life is disrupting those systems in ways we're only beginning to understand. We discuss the evolutionary roots of romantic love and pair bonding. We go into why Gen Z is both craving connection and delaying relationships how technology is reshaping dating attraction and intimacy the underlying paradox between commitment and novelty. And why touch deprivation may be one of the most hidden crises of modern life. As Justin explains intimacy isn't a luxury it's infrastructure for human flourishing. Before we dive in a quick ask if this episode resonates with you sure it was someone who might benefit from it. You can also watch the full conversations on our YouTube channels. And if you haven't yet leaving a rating review on Apple Podcast or Spotify helps more people discover these conversations. Now let's dive into my conversation with Dr. Justin Garcia. Thank you for choosing passion struck and choosing me to be your host and guide on your journey to creating an intentional life that matters. Now let that journey begin. I am absolutely thrilled today to welcome Dr. Justin Garcia on passion struck Justin it's so great to see you today how are you. I'm great I'm thrilled to be with you. I we're going to get to talk about a lot of important parts of what it means to be human. We're here today to discuss your brand new book the intimate animal the science of sex fidelity and why we live and die or love. And when I got the book one of the first things I realized is that it features a blurb from a mutual friend Emily Morse. Right. You know Emily. Everyone should know Emily she's such a brilliant sex educator and has done such a good job at helping everyone of all walks of life and particularly the public really understand what we do as sex researchers and how we apply that to our lives. So she's a longtime friend we've had some opportunities to events together and someone whose work I really respect and admire. It's not easy to always talk about sex and sexuality and public spaces and to do it in a way that honors that honors the complexity of our sex lives and treats it with respect and Emily does that better than anyone. Well Emily and I are both huge Michigan fans so that's one of the ties for us. But I remember when she was telling me when she got her doctorate it was one of the first doctorates ever in the study of sex or intimacy. Yeah which is really interesting to see over the past 15 to 17 years what she has done with it. So. And it speaks to a larger I think pattern even still today so many people who study sex and sexuality. I have colleagues that they're only one in their department who studies sexuality. They're the only one in their college on their campus that studies sexuality. We're in a really fortunate position here at the Kinsey Institute. I run up and down the hall and we're probably the largest concentration of sex and relationship researchers in the world. And there's historians and psychologists and biologists and physicians and we bring all this just in different disciplinary perspective to bear every one of their own theories and methods. But it could be hard to study sexuality. It's hard difficult to get funding difficult to get jobs difficult. So it's a still a complex and misunderstood part of the scientific arena. Well it certainly is. Another thing I just wanted to throw at you is you probably don't talk to too many podcast hosts whose two siblings both went to IU. Oh really. I hope you were celebrating the football game this year. My brother was at the semifinal game and we were definitely celebrating. And there's a lot to be said about relationships and connection and fandom. We sort of question somewhere in there. Justin recently because of what you were just talking about I've tried to do a couple episodes that are deep diving relationships. One of these was Paul Eastwick and another one I was lucky enough to get Harry Reese and Sonja Lubomirsky to come on together which was cool to have the preeminent expert in happiness and relationships come on to discuss it. But we went into kind of how compatibility forms and relationships and how responsiveness actually makes people feel loved. What I wanted to ask you is from an evolutionary perspective why would the human brain and body be designed to depend so deeply on intimacy at all. I love John you jumped right into the deep end and I think it's such a big question. And for all of us this idea that we understand the role of intimacy of connection of love in our lives. It's a profound people do intense things for our romantic and sexual desires and our relationships. People around the world live and die for love. But why as an evolutionary biologist the question is why is that and I think there's a couple of ways we can and shouldn't answer that as we unpack it. The one part of that is that a lot of researchers have argued that we have patterns of what we call social monogamy or pair bonding that we're a pair bonding species. So what that means is that we form these intense romantic bonds. When biologists talk about pair bonds if we're talking about other species we say mutual territory defense mutual nest building mutual raising of offspring that mutual part is really important. You have a close partner that you're weathering life with. And typically as evolutionists we're thinking about survival and reproduction. So the evidence would suggest that our species our ancestors hominins were engaging in pair bonding behavior for over four million years and a little bit more in some according to some anthropologists. And so for us what that was about was survival and reproduction. And I think it's important to remember both of those. So on the one hand on reproduction we know that as humans continue to evolve and to what we know as anatomically modern humans that having a pair bond partner to defend offspring to be we gestate for nine to ten months it takes years and years for to raise children to the time that they're able to do anything on their own. That is part of a natural history that pair bonds helped us to invest in development and growth as a species only about three to five percent of mammals engage in that pair bonding behavior. So it's also relatively unique. That's the one lever is about reproduction. The other is about survival. And one thing I argued in the instrument animal is I think more and more we can understand that pair bonds also evolve to allow us to weather uncertainty to respond to changing environments social environments physical environments. We had a partner co pilot to go through life with to manage ups and downs and predators and resources and in many ways that's what's allowed our species to really dominate the globe. So I think there's a couple of different evolutionary pieces that play there. And then the next level is then we start to see the mechanisms what's going on in the brain and our biology physiology that all back up this idea that we have that our deep sense of connection to others is biological. Yeah. Well I love that that topic because it's one that I've been studying myself now almost two decades. And I have my own book coming up coming out on this in October titled The Mattering Effect. But I really trace this this loss of shared connection and its consequences and then go into kind of how do you rebuild it. But something I saw in your book and something I've been studying really connected. I started looking at loneliness helplessness. People burned out. People disengaged. People broken. And I said there has to be something in common with all of these. And for me that commonality is mattering. But you saw that a connection is also there with 40 percent of U.S. adults being single. And these things on the other side rising globally. What's the connection point. Yeah I love that. And I like this idea of mattering. And I think we're talking about different facets of the same diamond here which is exciting that the part of for me intimacy is this idea of being seen and heard and known that sometimes researchers talk about the need to belong that we we have a pretty good understanding from biologists psychologists a lot of social behavioral scientists that humans have a need to feel connected to others. We are a social primate through and through. We want to feel connected. But it's not just the having connections in many ways. We are more connected than ever before in our evolutionary history. We can log on to social media. There's thousands of people. We can be on a subway and interact with thousands of people. You've been a restaurant and interact with hundreds of people. But we also have more people in our phone or on our social media. But it's the quality of those connections. And I think for me the paradox in all of this on what you're talking about John and loneliness and is how are we more connected. But we seem to be struggling with loneliness. So it's not. How is it that people are have psychological loneliness when they wake up in a bed next to a partner every morning or they have all these people that they're connected talking to on social media. That is for me an issue of quality. It's the nature of the relationships. It's the depth of the connections. I think to use a word that you just use. Do those connections matter in their life to them. Do they feel like they are someone that you could actually rely on in a time of need. Do they feel that you're someone you can rely on a time of need. Pair bond relationships in the best case will when they're highly satisfying in terms of romantic and sexual satisfaction and relationship quality. Our partners are people that we think are going to catch us when we fall that we feel that we feel that there's a depth to those bonds and connections. That's what I think is our big issue. As I talk about it as an intimacy crisis. But it's almost thinking of it as a level above this loneliness epidemic. It's well what's going on that we're that we just don't feel connected to all the people around us. And that's my sort of entry point to a lot of them. I'm curious what you think too. I can't wait to read your book. I've been trying to really get my arms around this because what I'm saying is that mattering is breaking down in our families in our intimate relationships in our work environments in our community. So it is a common throughput. And when I think about intimacy when we say connection that's what a lot of people think of mattering. But I recently had a really interesting dialogue with Rebecca Goldstein. I'm not sure if you're familiar with her. She's a philosopher. She just came out with a book called The Mattering Instinct. Yeah. But she and I both believe something that's a little bit different than what most people are saying. When I think of connection. I'm thinking of the relational aspect that you have with someone else. When I am thinking about mattering. I think about our own human operating system. And what I think is happening is mattering is the foundation for connection. It is the foundation for meaning. But when people don't feel themselves like they matter. I think that's where this gap that I call the mattering gap starts. If you don't feel like you matter to yourself. If you don't feel like you are seen, etc. How are you ever going to feel that you could be intimate with someone. How are you going to connect with someone else. And so I think where this starts breaking down is in how we ourselves have lost mattering via a series. It's decades worth of micro collapses that end up happening to us. So it's not like we just wake up and we suddenly feel this. It's almost burnout. It happens gradually. What do you think about that? Yeah, I really like that. And I think and I'm gonna if I can build on that what I really like about that is this idea that if you're in a pair bond relationship, if you ever romantic parent, now you can also have best friends and family that romantic bonds aren't the only source of this. But inherent to a romantic relationship is that you rely on each other, you lean on each other, you at times need each other. And I think sometimes I hear folks say, Well, I don't want a partner that needs me or that I need them. And that's unrealistic. That's the part of if you're in a long hall with a close romantic bond, there will be days and moments that you need to rely on each other and you benefit from each other, you grow from each other that knowing that there's a beauty, but there's also a deep satisfaction that comes with knowing that I could show up from my partner that I because I matter for them. It gives a sense of a sense of purpose. Now it doesn't mean that you live only for serving them. And like couples sometimes joke about that. My wife and I talk about that. They want your purpose is to stay and carry you honey and you don't want that should be the only purpose but to know that you're there to support to be each other's best self. Something you said, John, I really like though it makes me think of this new data we have and I'm curious maybe we can work think on this puzzle on this together. We have a new study that we did in partnership with match group. We found that about 80% of Gen Z say that they want romantic love in their life, but 45% don't think that they're ready. They think that they have to work on themselves more that and then we ask in different areas they have to work on themselves. And what I'm making of that of what you just said in that new this new study we have I think somewhere what's getting lost, particularly for young people is the translating the how to part of that. Saying that they think in order. I worry that too many people nearly have think that in order to have that mattering they need to just go work on themselves in isolation. And I don't think that's actually the answer. I don't think that's the path to get there that we need to work on yourself that relationships can be a vessel they for figuring out who you are and what you want in the best cases and thriving together and experiencing the world together. So I'm curious the jump between I think you nailed it. There's this piece of feeling connected of feeling needed of having purpose. But I worry that too many, especially among the young and I think this is where we're seeing burnout in relationships and dating. As they think they need to go solve this mystery somewhere on their own on the peak of a mountain and in fact dating and connecting with people are a place to learn that. Before we continue, I want to pause for a moment. One of the central ideas in the life beyond the script series is that transformation isn't only about changing what you do. It's about understanding what you need as a human being on the United Life.net. I'm publishing companion reflections and articles for every episode in this series designed to help you examine your own life more deeply because awareness creates insight, but intentional action creates change. If you want to explore the reflections for this episode, visit the United Life.net. And I also want to thank our sponsors for supporting the show. Their support makes these conversations possible. Now a quick break for our sponsors. You're listening to Passionstruck right here on the Passionstruck Network. Now let's return to the discussion with Dr. Justin Garcia. So a couple of things. I was not aware of that study and I find it interesting because I have two kids who are Gen Z. Both who find dating now very complicated, especially the older one who's 27. But it's really interesting because when we grew up, there was much more of you just jump into it and figure it out, right? Then trying to make yourself perfect. And I think oftentimes you get years into a relationship and then realize you need to do some of that internal work. But if you keep delaying it because we both know how difficult it is for people to do that work, it often keeps getting put off. Until it's never done. It really does delay that inception point when you feel like you're ready to be in a relationship. Now you can look at this from my own perspectives. I was married for over two decades and we ended up getting divorced. And I went through a phase where like many people I dated a lot because I was trying to figure out what type of mate do I want to have in my life going forward. And I knew I didn't want the same thing I had before, but I reached a point where I realized I needed to take some time for myself to figure a few things out or the relationship I really wanted wasn't going to happen until I worked on a couple core pieces. So I do think that had I not done that, I probably wouldn't be married today and wouldn't have met the woman that I have. So I see the need for it. But it does beg a real big question of if you keep putting that off, how long are you going to keep putting it off for? And where you do it, how we work on ourselves. I worry that particularly for the young, they don't see interpersonal interactions and relationships and dating it as that. That's a context within which we work with ourselves and relationships. We grow together. You expect to grow together, not to just show off. Preformed and hit play. And that's it. Justin, one of the things that you describe in the book is a core paradox. We as humans are wired for pair bonding, but not necessarily strict sexual monogamy. How does that tension shape modern love? Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to talk about this, because I think it really is one of the key tensions that explain so much of the ups and downs in our relationships. So one of the arguments I make in the intimate animal and my colleagues and I have made an academic articles is that humans have this tendency for pair bonding. So what we call, so maybe let me take one step back. As a biologist, we don't, I don't talk about monogamy. We don't typically talk about a species that's monogamous in the same way that we tend to in the human sciences or in the public. And what I mean by that is we talk about two different pieces of monogamy. There's social monogamy, which is the pair bond. That's the relationship structure. And there's sexual monogamy, which is fidelity. That's your mating behavior. And that they actually have two different mechanisms in the brain. What's going on in terms when we form a deep romantic bond to someone and our interests in sexual variety are different mechanisms. And in some ways, they're different evolutionary pressures, different levers in some sense that we had this pressure evolutionary selection pressure to form pair bonds. It was good for survival and reproduction. But then also pressure for sexual variety and diversity, because that can be helpful if there's disease or if they have more variation maintains levels of competition. What the way I think of relationships is when people say, are we monogamous is a complicated question. We have a natural history, a tendency to form intense pair bonds, typically with one person at a time, although not everyone was interesting work on polyamory, for instance. Most people tend to form one at a time. And there's always variation as an evolutionary biologist. I've read in butter is diversity of traits is always variation. And then this question of sexual novelty. And I think in many relationships, we can come to understand that tension as I have a primary relationship and then there's infidelity occurs, or I feel like it's going to occur or I'm worried about it occurring. And all the management of jealousy and make guarding and all the stuff that goes into this infidelity stuff. But in fact, what can happen you're in a primary relationship either drive for sexual novelty can pull us towards infidelity. Or for some people, it pulls them towards opening up their relationship and we're talking more and more about that and publicly about different ways that people are expanding relationships or trying to open relationships consensual non monogamy polyamory. And that's another way to address that tension. The other way to address that tension and the one that I think when we understand we can harness as we could say, okay, I have a desire for sexual novelty. But I also have this long term pair bond. Well, we can take that desire for sexual novelty and pull it into our relationship. So then we say, let's do things in the context of our partner that are new and exciting that activate the dopamine systems in the brain. And I don't necessarily need to be pulled elsewhere to get that I can do it in my relationship, but it takes some effort and it takes understanding that seeing it and working towards it as a couple To do new things, whether that's in the bedroom sexual novelty or it's taking vacations, taking cooking classes, walking around a different park in your neighborhood. There's also a big range of ways that we can get our sense of novelty in our lives. It really is interesting, especially for someone with my background. I grew up in a very religious Catholic family went to parochial schools for my entire school and through high school. And was taught since I could breathe that that being in a monogamous relationship is the only sanctity of God. And I'm sure a lot of the listeners probably share some of that core, that core background I do. So how do you Like differentiate between spiritual or like that and what some people are now experimenting with that seems to be on the opposite side of that. I think the interesting thing about when my work, what I really enjoy is that we can understand that we have evolutionary tendencies or motivational systems. But they're always subject to an ecology. They're always subject to social context ecological context, whether that's religion or whether that's a particular country or culture or So people structure relationships in very different ways around the world. Sometimes it's based on resources. Sometimes it's based on religious edict. For instance, there's multiple religions that allow people to have multiple spouses. But in there, you often see things about. So for instance, in the Quran, you can have multiple wives, but you need to be able to provide for all of them equally. So it's not that it's a freeway. It's a swinging party. It's actually a religiously influenced way that you can expand the family, but you have to honor that there's multiple families. There was multiple pair bonds. There's multiple children. So when you dig, when we dig into how different religions structure these things, I think there's often an interesting story. And for me, that's different from I'm on the one hand thinking about the biology of love bonds and then everything else is about how Culture, religion, marital agreements, all of those things give us guidance on how to structure that those desires structure those So in the cases of I think in the cases of religious groups or that really phone in on marriage and monogamy. Well, then the question is, okay, but where are we getting on? That's a great example of, okay, but are we cultivating a desire for novelty in that relationship. And at times when you turn the screws so tight about so much regulation and people's intimate lives, they sometimes can develop what my late colleague Helen Fisher would call frustration attraction. So you tell them they can't do something, you tell someone they can't do something and we start to get more interested in it. So that there's paradoxes there. For instance, some of the highest consumption of sex toys and pornography is in the US Bible Belt in the country. So the region characterizes the highest religiosity. I don't say that as a moral statement one way or the other. What does the data tell us about when you're very restrictive about information? Sex education, thinking about people's diverse romantic and sexual lives. People start seeking it out and they start they have almost a greater craving for that seeking. I'm always cautious about when we think about how we regulate aspects of people's romantic and sexual lives. On the other hand, to the point of your question that I didn't answer yet, I'm sorry about the part about our spiritual selves and how we bring them to our relationships. There's also a whole lot of satisfaction that can come for people when they think about, well, how do I think about my romantic and sexual life and is it part of a spiritual experience and journey and is it important that we align because what's what social scientists call homophily. We tend to be attracted to people with similar backgrounds as ourselves. Sometimes it's based on religion, sometimes race. Increasingly, we're seeing in our data, it's political orientation. So it's your party of our political party affiliation. But we tend to look for people that we can understand with religion and spirituality. They're often super ordnance goals. It's about like our purpose in life and a realigning on that. That can add a lot of depth to a romantic relationship and it can also add a lot of depth, I think, to people's sexual experiences. But we have to do it within the confines of what makes us comfortable. And if you're coming from a religious or spiritual background, sometimes some thinking of some of that, that capturing that novelty can make us uncomfortable, really uncomfortable. Now, if we're uncomfortable, particularly if we don't feel safe, psychological safety, then you shut down all the mechanisms for mating, for connection, for sexual interest. So we have to balance that desire for newness with a sense of feeling safe and connected. So since I opened the door to marriage, I want to talk about modern families for a second. One thing that I interpreted reading the book is that humans evolved as cooperative breeders where care is shared across our groups that we exist in throughout history. And in modern families, what I think ends up happening more and more is that one person seems to become the fixer or the emotional rock that's carrying everything in the relationship. Does evolutionary science suggest that this kind of one-way investment that ends up happening is a distortion to our natural design and impacts the vitality of that family unit or that intimate bond? It's an important question and gets at how we structure our relationships. And in some ways, I know you mentioned Paul Eastwick's wonderful work and in some ways he's thinking about these notions of compatibility and his work, really nuanced ways that I enjoy. And so my take on this is particularly, I remember watching Brene Brown give an interview once and she said that her, she and her partner will sometimes say, as my cup filled today, like how much can I bring? And I've only got 10% in my cup today, so you bring 90%. And I think that for, so I want to start with that because that reminds us that relationships are dynamic and sometimes our efforts are situational. They're not necessarily always. Now, if you are in a relationship that's always lopsided, that for some people that can work, sometimes someone's more, much more of a caretaker, one's more of a caregiver, that sometimes can work. But by and large, what we know is that long term that can create problems, it creates resentment, it creates jealousy, it creates frustration. But the part that is more complex that researchers are questions, researchers continue to understand are that when those distributions of effort or investment that they are situational. So my wife and I, for instance, had a baby recently that there are days that one of us has more energy than the other. There are days that some of us, especially in the world of the States, my wife is recovering and now that that's an intense life experience and you're balancing that. But there's all sorts of things. You get a new promotion, you do a reorganization at work, you are writing a book, something you and I are both thinking about, you're in the final stages of finishing that book, you're not always functional at the dinner table that night. And when we can understand that our relationships are dynamic and that our lives are dynamic, that there are moments and sometimes it's not just a day, it's a season. Sometimes things are intense at work for three, four, six months. And how you navigate that. And in the best case, the couple, the relationship becomes your source of, hey, can I need to lean on you a little bit more right now? Because I trust and confide in you. It's actually the thing that we see in our studies over and over, the thing people most want in their romantic partner is someone they can trust and confide in, for exactly these reasons. Okay, here's I'm in the season that I need to trust and confide you, I can't show up fully. But in the best case, it's with the promise of, but I'm coming back as soon as I get a handle on work, as I turn the book in, as I get over the surgery, as I'm not so sleep deprived, whatever it is, that then we get back. So I think that it can be unhelpful to think of relationships as needing to split your effort, that there's some formula that we have to follow because it doesn't leave us the real, it's so divorced from the real world of the push and pull that we all experience in our lives that we show up with in our relationships. But when it's, when it feels permanently slanted, tilted, or that there's no way forward, there's no working together towards a goal to get back to it, that can create frustration. Now there are exceptions like there are to everything, or you can, there are, I'm thinking of cases of relationships like sugar baby, relationships that there's something built in those, the sort of transactional aspects that are present in all relationships, that maybe the, what one is providing is different. So maybe it's one is providing more financial resources and others more domestic resources or emotional resources. And when we start to think of that, it gets complicated quickly. But I'm hesitant to say that the literature, the available academic literature tells us a clear story of whether that's good or bad. I think we're understanding more and more that it can vary and that there's a lot of nuance to when it plays out in the real world. But we do know that permanent lopsidedness of effort, that will create on a relationship real fast. If there's not a sense of, it's the same thing as long distance relationships. If you're long distance for two years where you're working on your masters, okay, we have a plan, we can figure it out. If you move to the other part of the world and who knows when we're going to see each other, there's no end site, there's no end in sight for both of us. There's no goal that we work towards that really is a challenge for a relationship. Yeah, I spent a number of years in the military and I was just reading this article on there's a current carrier task force that was deployed last June. And they were the ones who were down in South America when we were down there and supposed to come back home. They were already overdue. And now they've been sent to the Middle East and they're not even there yet. So by the time they're done whatever they're doing and then have to transverse the whole way home, you can understand how for the five, six thousand people that this is impacting, how difficult that could be for their relationships. And the social support that they're going to need when they're back home. And I love that you bring this up, John, because I think in so many areas of our life, whether it's physical health, now I'm in your territory, so correct me, but I think in our physical health, in our mental health, in our careers, that knowing that our relationships can be a source of our flourishing, of our thriving. But I think one of the things I tried to deal with in the book was to when we understand the science of our romantic and sexual lives, can we honor it? Can we respect it? Can we cultivate it? Because exactly that's a great case of people are away and then they get moved around again and moved around again and hey, they got to get back to their relationships and be present for them. Because in the long run, we know that having that support, that emotional support is better for everyone's health, physical health, psychological health, their performance at work, their ability to focus, their ability to thrive. So I think we need relationship prescriptions to really focus in on our relationships because they're such a source of our well-being. And when they're disrupted, they can be such a source of distraction and pain and heartache for us. For sure. I know when I was in those deployments, we're tough on the relationship especially when they happened in quick succession or when they went way overdue and your mind is expecting it to be a certain duration and that's what you're preparing for and then it keeps getting elongated. It doesn't help. Well, I want to go back to the relationship angle and we were talking earlier about Gen Z's and how more and more of them are waiting to get in these relationships. But oftentimes we get into a relationship and then one of the things that really fascinates me is mate guarding. Why does that happen so early in relationships even in so many cases before exclusivity is even defined in the relationship? And I think that is evolutionary. We know that a lot of animals do this and some do it more intensely than others. I remember this example, I was watching Red Wing Blackbirds in a nature preserve in upstate New York and a male and female that were pair bonded birds, about 90% of birds will pair bond at least for breeding season. And another male came, one male flew off and then another male came in, tried to mate with the female and then the first male came back and the two of them grappled and they fought each other and they fell into the reeds around this pond and only one flew out. That's why we sometimes say mother nature is red in tooth and claw. And when we invest in a pair bond, when we invest, now we as humans, we talk about emotional investment, romantic investment, but all of us, any species that when you invest in courtship and you invest in a partnership, but also to the question you really ask often before you've really said it, we actually, a couple what's going on here, we're on mate guarding already. When you psychologically and emotionally start to invest, you start thinking of a future with someone, you start hoping for more connection with someone, we can activate all those mate guarding mechanisms. And then we try to protect our investment. And when I say protect, part of that means making sure you're safe. We do that when we care about people, typically, not always, we also know that there are people who are in unhealthy relationships and they make each other less safe. And, but so part of it is kind of protecting you, but then the other is protecting the relationship. And what comes with that is jealousy, mate guarding, it's trying to keep other people away because I've already built this connection, this emotional connection. So I want to keep everyone else away who thinks that they can build a connection and pull you away from what I've already started thinking and dreaming and hoping and desiring. And I was also going to say, I think there's also a component of this that romantic love does resemble addiction or anxiety on a neurobiological level. So I think that comes into it too, because you can get addicted to a person very quickly. Exactly. And there's a lot of evidence that romantic love, what goes on, so we know that the, from studies of fMRI brain scan of people who are recently romantically in love and people who are passionately in love, it is a very much parallel to addiction in the brain. And in fact, romantic rejection studies of people who have gone through breakups, they, the brain looks remarkably like someone going through with drug withdrawal, particularly cocaine withdrawal, which helps explain why breakups can feel so intense and emotionally, physically, it's why people feel physical pain with breakups, that I'm always a little cautious of calling it an addiction, but it is very parallel to addiction. And in part, because we're so used to addictions being negative and love is a positively balanced one for the most part. But part for people who study sex and relationships, we're always cautious about the notion of sex addiction. So then when we talk about love addiction, it's, wow, it's something different. And, but you're right, it really is, I really do think of it as an, as like an addiction, we, it's a repetitive reward. It's, we like being around the beloved, we fantasize with them. It's the way that psychologists describe romantic love, it's focused attention, intrusive thought, obsessive thinking. So there's euphoria that comes with that, but there's also a craving that comes with it. Justin, one of the things I've been spending my time on recently is, in addition to you, I've recently interviewed Barry Schwartz talking about relational choice theory. And I've got Alvin Roth coming on where we're talking about choiceology as well. And when I think about our choices, I think about agency. And when I think about love, I realize it's partly chemical. So how much agency or choice do we really have in choosing it? Yeah, this is a great question. And I think actually we do have a lot. I think we have a lot in that, so we know that one way we can look at that is what do we understand first for people who choose their partners versus arranged marriages. And in the studies on arranged marriage, about three years in the satisfaction levels are fairly similar to what we call love marriage, someone where you pick your own partner yourself. Now there's a lot that's to unpack there though, in most cultures that practice arranged marriage. One, it's culturally understood that it's something that you do. But also people, for the most part, and as Paul has written a lot about this, you can reject a partner. Maybe your families are setting you up and you go, no way, it's not going to happen. I think that sometimes, particularly in North America, we have a view that arranged marriages, oh, someone just got plucked out of nowhere and you're going to meet them tomorrow and marry them. And that's not really what plays out in cultures to practices. And the, so that tells us something that satisfaction can grow. I also think in our Singles in America study that we did with my colleague Amanda Gesselman, we've asked people have things about like love at first sight or if they are attracted to someone, when they fall in love with someone, we found that over 70% of people have become deeply attracted to someone that they initially didn't think they were. And over a third of fallen in love with someone that they wouldn't have initially predicted. That's why I'm a big advocate of second dates and third dates. But I think it's also a reminder that when we talk about attraction and we talk about love, yes, there's a biology to it. And there are some people we're attracted to more than others. But a lot of that attraction takes time to build that that chemistry is dynamic, that the biology of love is you fall in love with someone, it's not just how they look or how they smell or how they sound. It's also, again, is it someone you can trust and confide in? Is it someone who is nice? Is it someone who's funny? It's someone who you think listens to you and hears you and sees you back to that intimacy piece. You could be across the table from someone who's handsome or gorgeous and you say, this person doesn't even know I'm here. And those are the relational dynamics that take time. So I think that as much as it is a biological process that doesn't mean it's instantaneous, doesn't mean that you know right away. In fact, all the evidence suggests that love takes time to cultivate and to pull all those things out of someone. So I think in that case, it's, we shouldn't let the biology drive our decisions. We should make our decisions and then enjoy it. And as we understand what we're experiencing, understand the craving that comes for a person, understand that it takes time to really activate some of those because we're looking for information about trust, health, kindness, that can take time. So for me, it's understanding the biology makes the whole process richer and more pleasurable. We shouldn't just wait to be hit in the head with feelings of limerence. That's not necessarily the best driver. When I think about mating and intimacy, evolutionary wise, for millennia, we have, as humans, been able to find partners without technology. And when you think of modern technology, the internet really came online in the mid 90s and dating apps came in line much after that. But when I talk to a lot of Gen Zers now, and even millennials, and you ask them about going out and socializing and finding a mate, a lot of them tell me, that's not even where it happens anymore. You have to do it online. And it just leads me to shaking my head in many ways. Because when I think of dating apps, they've expanded the possibilities globally. And you talk a lot about this in your chapter three. But as we're just talking about choices, they also introduce decision overload, unrealistic expectations, instability. And in some ways, I think it's made it worse than what we once had before. How do you think there, in some ways, expanding connection, but in other ways, industrializing rejection and people not being able to find mates? I love that you bring this up because I think at its core, they're doing both. And that's the challenge. I think that so many of us want to have a hot take on online dating and app dating. Is it great? Is it terrible? Is it frustrating? Is it exciting? It's both. It's all of those things. And it's one we're meeting. We're seeing the technology meeting people where they are, which is on apps and websites. And to your point, our data show that it is the most common way that singles, well over 100 million singles in the United States, as you mentioned earlier, over close to 40% of the adult population at any given time, that the number one place that singles are meeting their most recent date is on an app or a website, far more than bars or clubs or church or school or friends. In that sense, they are working. They are the place that people are meeting partners and relationships are forming and marriages are forming. And for many people, particularly, let's say LGBTQ people, they're far safer than walking into a bar. Now, if you're in New York or Miami, you might be thinking, saying, what is this guy talking about? But in many places in the world, if you're LGBTQ, how do you find someone else in your community? Are you safe walking into a place to try to pick someone up? So they offer a level of getting through the noise to find someone that aligns with what you're looking for, particularly if you're a sexual gender minority. We have multinational data where we found that women, for instance, in India and Turkey and countries that are characterized by less gender egalitarianism, they find online and app dating much safer than dating in initial courtship face to face because they have more control in the digital context. So I think there's a lot of opportunity. There's also the, if you want to find someone of the same religion, of the same ethnic background, with the same hobbies, with the same kink, with the same allergies, whatever, that we have these opportunities to do that with these technologies. So I think there's extraordinary opportunity. All right, that's the pro. The challenge is, as you also suggested, that there's information overload, that our brains are not equipped for the idea that you can swipe 3,000 partners before lunch, potential partners before lunch. And that's where we get into this problem of you connect with someone and you just often think, yeah, but I can, you're not really perfect. I can get back on the app and swipe for a little bit more and find someone closer to my perfect. So we ruminate on our ideals. And it goes back to what you and I were just talking about. It forgets that so much of our relationships, so much of what we're attracted to, that comes out over time. So you're focused on these instantaneous ideals and not on getting to know someone, all the excitement and fun that comes from expansion of self, exploring the world, exploring who you are, who I am, who we are together, that the apps can help cause us to lose sight of that, of the beauty of the sort of engagement of going on actual dates, getting to know someone. So there, I think that's the complexity there. There's a lot of opportunity, but we struggle with the data. We struggle with the sheer volume of opportunity. And when the brain thinks that we have an unlimited resource, we have a really hard time focusing on the person in front of us. The other side of it, Justin, for me is I think we're biologically wired for touch and closeness. And when intimacy for so many people is becoming mostly digital, it just makes me wonder if we outpaced our evolutionary design for intimacy through the use of technology. And is that one of the biggest things that's causing this huge gap that we're seeing for Gen Z that we started the whole discussion with? I love that. And as a social primate, back to being a social primate, we know that touch is important. And it's whether it's licking and grooming behavior that we see in many, including primates, the 15% of primates engage in pair bonding. And we know that touch is important. We learn a lot of information, sensory information through touch. My colleague, Michelle Drew, in looking at my bookshelf, looking at her book, writes about, in her book, she calls it a touch famine that we're experiencing in her book, out of touch. And I love that phrase. And it's a reminder to your point, John, it's not just singles who are looking for it. We did a study here at the Kinsey Institute, Amanda and I, on we found that a third of Mary, a partner, people were long-term partner, 34.4%. I still remember the statistic, say that they're not touched enough by their romantic partner. That's a pretty high number of people in relationships who say they're not being touched enough, no less people who are single who are looking for that connection. And that it's part of our legacy. I totally agree with you. We are a social primate. We want to feel connected. And when we say feel connected, it's in the full sensory experience. We want to be heard, both metaphorically and literally, we want to be seen, we want to be felt, we want to be known. This is where I want to end things. Your subtitle is Why We Live and Die for Love. And a lot of the work that I've been doing, I really look at how the verification of our existence is a primary requirement for us to feel like we have meaning. So going to what I was just saying, if our intimacy is biologically tied to flourishing and our survival, is the deepest human drive ultimately to feel known, chosen and verified by another person? I think that we have, particularly those of us that study relationships, mating, sexuality, I think we focused a lot on the evolutionary drives for sex because it's so obviously related to sexual reproduction. And in so doing, we've ignored the enormous role and importance for the evolutionary drive for connection, particularly for intimate connection and how much of our lives that shapes, including the other, including the reproductive piece. But also, evolution doesn't necessarily, when we talk about thriving and flourishing, evolution is really about survival. And but we have the capacity to thrive, to move beyond the survival and reproduction. But we can only do that when we meet the conditions for survival and the connection, that being part of a social fabric and feeling connected, have a meaningful connection, intimate connection. That's when we are able to do what humans can do so well. And that is to thrive and to flourish and to enjoy our lives. So yes, my short answer is yes, I think that the more we understand of the science of intimacy, the more we understand it is what made us human and it's what allows us to flourish. Justin, it's been such an honor to have you today. Where's the best place for people to learn more about the work that you're doing in your book? Thank you so much. The Intimate Animal is available in bookstores and anywhere you can order a book. And I invite folks, if you read it, I'd love to hear from you. I'm having fun learning what people enjoyed about it or didn't enjoy about it. And follow me on social media. It's at Dr. Justin Garcia. And folks can also follow the Kinsey Institute, where we post a lot of our studies, opportunities to be engaged. And I hope I get to hear from more folks. And most importantly, thank you, John. It's been so much fun being in conversation and thinking about where our work combined could bring together and help us better understand the best parts of being human. Awesome. Justin, such a great time today. Thank you again. Thank you. That brings us to the end of today's conversation with Dr. Justin Garcia. What stood out most to me is how deeply human connection really is. Our need to bond, to touch, to feel known and valued is not weakness, it's a design. Justin's work reminds us that intimacy is not something we earn after success, it's something that sustains us through life itself. In a culture that often prioritizes independence and productivity, this is a powerful reframe. Connection is not a distraction from achievement, it's one of the conditions that makes achievement meaningful. And it raises an important question. If we don't consciously build connection, what quietly takes its place? That question leads directly into our next conversation. On Thursday, I'll be joined by my friend Nir Ayal, behavioral expert and author of the New York Times bestselling book, Beyond Belief. While today's episode explored intimacy and human bonding, Nir examines how our beliefs shape behavior, attention, and decision making in a world engineered to capture our focus. It's a powerful continuation of the life beyond the script, moving from connection to cognition, from relationships to the internal narratives that guide our lives. Another study that blew my mind was a study conducted at Yale, where they found that people who had positive views about aging versus negative views about on aging lived on average seven and a half years longer. Seven and a half years longer is a tremendous effect. That is longer than the effect of diet. It's longer than the effect of exercise. It's greater than the effect of quitting smoking on your lifespan. And for all the attention we talk about vitamins and minerals and don't eat, write and exercise and don't smoke, who talks to you about your beliefs? We almost never hear that. This episode resonated with you. Share it with someone who might need it. Leave a five star rating or review on Apple Podcast or Spotify. Watch the full conversation on YouTube. And until next time, remember, a meaningful life isn't built in isolation. It's built through the connections that remind us we don't have to navigate the world alone. I'm John Miles and you've been passion struck.