The Dark Side of Desire

Exploring modern dating dynamics

Below is a transcript, lightly edited, with some highlights from my discussion with Erik Torenberg. We spoke about dating, relationships, the Dark Triad personality traits, Luigi Mangione, and more. Enjoy:

Erik Torenberg: Rob, thanks for coming on the podcast. Excited to chat with you.

Dr. Rob Henderson: Thanks. Great to be here.

Erik Torenberg: So Rob, you write a lot about the intersection of evolutionary psychology to explain questions in relationships, like why do women like dark triad men, how do dating apps change the dating marketplace, and how to think about picking the right romantic partner. How did you get interested in these questions as it relates to evolutionary psychology, and what do you think evolutionary psychology has to offer?

Dr. Rob Henderson: Well, I got interested in that intersection—evolutionary psychology and modern dating—probably because around the time I was studying psychology, I was in my mid-20s. There’s a whole backstory to that, and you and I have talked about this on a previous episode—why I got to college so late. But I arrived in undergrad at age 25, majored in psychology, studied a lot of evo psych, and so through my mid-20s, late 20s, that’s also the period that coincides with when young people devote a lot of effort to dating and to becoming attractive and wondering why these sex differences exist, why we like what we like.

It was a relief when I started digging into the empirical research, reading a lot of books, listening to interviews with evolutionary psychologists and other scholars, that there are scientific explanations for why men like what they like, why women like what they like.

Of course, there’s a lot of overlap, and women and men tend to like a lot of the same things, but there are pronounced differences as well. That was what got me initially started: personal experience, but also I just find people endlessly fascinating. Digging into how mating efforts explain so many other facets of human behavior—from jealousy to homicide to envy to insecurity and anxiety around social status and those kinds of things—things that you would think might be far removed from romance and sexual attraction, but a lot of those are actually intertwined.

That was what got me initially interested. More recently, I’ve written a piece about how people choose romantic partners—how to go about it in a wise way. Right now, there’s this ongoing discussion with the shooter of the United Healthcare CEO, Luigi Mangione, and I found that was a unique opportunity to write about something I’ve been meaning to explore for a while. Maybe you and I can get into it in this conversation now or a little bit later—what is it about violent and aggressive men, men who score highly on the dark triad personality traits, that seems to be so uniquely appealing to women, especially young women?

Erik Torenberg: Let’s get into Luigi, because I think it’ll be a good segue into other topics. I mean, if he wasn’t as good-looking as he was, or if he didn’t go to Penn, would he be as attractive? Or why don’t you explain the phenomenon of why women are attracted to violent men?

Dr. Rob Henderson: Well, obviously his looks help, no doubt about it. He’s a good-looking guy. But I suggest in my Substack post that above and beyond that, his murderousness actually added a little extra something to his appeal—why women were especially intrigued by him. My suggestion here is that even if Luigi Mangione was less attractive but committed the exact same act, I think the interest in him would be greater than if he was just a normal guy who hadn’t committed the act. Or if he was still physically the same, if he looked the same, but he had never committed murder, he would still get some romantic interest based on his looks alone. But the fact that he committed this shocking act actually may have boosted his appeal among some women.

I used this event to explore this idea of why women are attracted to men who are high in the dark triad, this personality construct in personality psychology. This is narcissism, which is entitled self-importance; psychopathy, which is callousness and cruelty and impulsivity; and Machiavellianism, which is strategic exploitation, using duplicity as a means to get what you want. There is a lot of interesting research around the dark triad, and at least for first impressions and for short-term mating encounters, men who are high in these traits do seem to do better than average.

So why is this? What is it about violent men in particular that women find appealing? I spent a good deal of time over the last—well, let’s see. I read Richard Wrangham’s book The Goodness Paradox. Richard Wrangham is an evolutionary biologist at Harvard. I read Frans de Waal, who just passed away, I think earlier last year. He was a primatologist who wrote endless streams of papers and a lot of interesting books—both of them are well worth looking into if you’re interested in human behavior and psychology, evolutionary psychology in general. I’d also read Dian Fossey and Sarah Hrdy. I could name all these people.

If you look at chimpanzee troops and gorilla harems—our nearest evolutionary relatives—there’s a lot of infanticide. For gorillas in particular, a gorilla female is more likely than not to lose at least one infant to an infanticidal attack, typically by a gorilla male. What happens often in these cases is that a male will come in—this goes for chimpanzees as well—and if a male murders the infant of a female, she will frequently experience arousal and then immediately start to pair bond with that new male. If you read the accounts of primatologists and evolutionary scientists, they suggest that our nearest evolutionary relatives—chimpanzees and orangutans and gorillas—their mating systems were much more similar to our prehuman ancestors rather than modern human mating systems.

It’s possible that for very early humans and prehumans, that was basically how things were set up as well, where there was a lot of infanticide going on and females would attach to violent males. Why is this the case? Why would females respond in that way? Why would they immediately experience some sort of arousal or this longing to mate with this male who just murdered their infant? The suggestion here is that the reason for this is if they were to mate with this violent male, the likelihood of their infant being killed is dramatically reduced, because he’s violent and he’s especially going to be likely to be violent against any other infant that isn’t his. But if it’s his infant, if it’s his genetic offspring, he’s going to be less likely to murder it. Evolution would select for females who would mate with violent males. Those genes get selected for, they pass on.

My suggestion here is that there’s probably something similar going on with some human females as well. There’s this intrigue, this appeal when women see violent males, and this may be an evolutionary misfiring in the modern world, where you see women sending letters to serial killers. In that essay, I talk about how when The Sopranos was still on the air, there was this ongoing discussion of how it was possible that James Gandolfini was considered a sex symbol, even though he was bald, he was overweight, he wasn’t conventionally handsome by any means. If he were just a nonviolent, law-abiding patio-furniture salesman, women would not have responded to him in the same way. But the fact that he is a mafia boss, and you see him in the show capable of extreme acts of violence and brutality, that was, for a lot of women, perplexing and confusingly attractive. They were mystified by their own attraction to this man. Even within that show, they depict that confusion in Dr. Melfi—Tony’s psychiatrist. She herself expresses her own confusion at her interest in Tony Soprano, despite how he looks and how he behaves. There are things that we want and things we want to want, and those two things don’t always coincide.

James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano.

Obviously, most women do want men who are nice, who are kind, who treat them well, and so on, and that’s what women want to want as well. But sometimes there are things that we are intrigued by or we want that we know isn’t necessarily good for us. For a lot of women, they respond to violent men in this way. I think Luigi Mangione was basically an example of this. It’s not as straightforward as the Tony Soprano case, because he’s already physically good-looking. I made those stipulations: yes, he’s good-looking, but even above and beyond that, there’s something about what he did that was extra interesting. This is one evolutionary explanation for why men are more violent on average than women—more aggressive, more impulsive, more risk-taking—and so on. It’s because throughout our evolutionary history, those traits were often sexually selected for.

Erik Torenberg: Is it accurate to say that if men are doing something that is high status to other men, it’s also likely to be high status to women too?

Dr. Rob Henderson: The answer seems to be yes. Especially if you look at small-scale hunter-gatherer societies, a lot of men in these communities will organize sporting contests or games in which young men, in particular, can display their physical prowess. The men who perform the best in these kinds of contests and sporting games tend to have more sexual partners, more numbers of children, and so on. There’s a great book called Manhood in the Making by the anthropologist David Gilmore, and he writes about the Mehinaku—an indigenous tribe in a remote part of Brazil. This community, the Mehinaku, regard themselves as a nonviolent society because they don’t actually go into conflict with other neighboring tribes. They go out of their way to be peaceful, but within this community, despite the fact that they don’t go to war with other communities, they organize wrestling matches among the young men. If you refuse to participate as a young man in these wrestling matches, everyone else makes fun of you. They mock you, they tease you. During the matches, often the participants who are the most vocal and enthusiastic—people who are cheering it on the most—are young women. They enjoy watching these matches, because it’s a way to assess physical ability. From that whole evolutionary perspective, it’s a way to assess genetic quality. How physically capable are you? Are you tough? How are your reflexes? How smart are you? How clever are you? Are you able to defeat someone who’s larger than you?

This is also the case in the modern world too. If you look at sporting events, I was just at a Knicks game this past weekend, and it’s funny: you study enough evolutionary psychology, then you see these star athletes who, objectively, you strip away all the bells and whistles, and these are just guys throwing a ball around. But you see they have cheerleaders there who are cheering them on. In the audience, you see groupies. You see women who are intrigued by these guys. We’ve set up in our large, modern, industrial society the same kinds of games and contests, not just in sports of course, but in work and occupations and all these other kinds of things. If you look at rates of marriage, men in the top socioeconomic brackets are far more likely to get married, far more likely to have children compared to men who are lower down the ladder. Women seem to like men who are admired and respected by other men.

Erik Torenberg: In terms of women liking men who are more violent, what is the takeaway for men? Of course, listeners aren’t going to be violent as a way to pick up women, but I want to segue this to a broader topic, which is a backdrop I’ll set. In the late 2000s, there was this book called The Game, which chronicled the rise of pickup artists—these nerds who studied evolutionary psychology and other topics, trying to take insights along with their own independent research and create a community around getting better at picking up women, either for short-term or long-term relationships. I haven’t really heard about that community in over a decade. Maybe 10 or 15 years out, was that community successful, or were those tools successful in the ways that they wanted? Because there was always a question of, did that attract the type of person—and we could segue later to your post about how to pick the right partner—did that attract an insecure person, or did that attract the type of person that they want in a wife, in a partner? There are a few questions there, but I’m curious if you could riff on some of these topics.

Dr. Rob Henderson: I read The Game, the Neil Strauss book. I thought it was interesting. I think by the time I got to it, it was probably a little out of date. I think I read it in 2011 or 2012. My understanding was that around that time a lot of those tricks or whatever became too mainstream. But I felt like the idea underlying it was actually a hopeful message of self-improvement. If you’re a socially awkward, unsuccessful guy with women, you can transform yourself physically and mentally and become a more attractive person.

I talked to my friend Richard Hanania about this, and he suggested that was actually a more hopeful era. Now you see this black-pill stuff and incel stuff, where it used to be like, “Okay, you’re kind of a loser and not getting any girls, but if you work really hard and get over your fear of rejection and talk to women, eventually someone will like you.” Now it seems to be this very bleak, “No matter what you do, you’re never going to be attractive, so just give up.” That’s a very defeatist message. The fact that PUA was even necessary in the first place probably speaks to something—a potential issue in our culture—that young guys had to seek out these weird underground communities just to get a girlfriend.

What may have happened too is a selection effect. Most guys aren’t interested in being a pickup artist. I think most guys just want a girlfriend. So they try out these PUA tricks, follow the advice, and so on. They meet someone who likes them, they get into a relationship, and then they exit out of that whole scene.

Who’s left after multiple iterations of that? You have guys who are sociopathic, who love the chase and love racking up numbers. Then you have another group that was never able to get a girlfriend. They approached a bunch of women, and something was off about them, or they didn’t self-improve enough or in the right way. Then they transition into being some black-pilled incel or something. They say, “Well, I approached 100 women, and none of them liked me, so none of this stuff actually works.” Then the sociopathic types approach 100 women and sleep with 15 or 20 of them, and they’re like, “This is great.” Everyone else just self-selects out and exits out of that whole scene.

In addition to that, there’s the whole dating app phenomenon, where I don’t think it’s that common anymore to meet people in the way that Neil Strauss describes in that book—going out to nightclubs or bars and doing cold-approach openers. Now it’s more and more about the apps. Although there’s this whole idea of dating app fatigue, and I think a lot of people are getting burned out on those too.

Erik Torenberg: It’s really interesting. I remember there was this dialogue either in the book or some adjacent text where someone is asking Neil, or one of the coaches, “When can I stop using game and just be myself?” He’s like, “This is your new self now.” I say that to ask a question of when you learn about evolutionary psychology, but you also want to be a good person and kind and nice and sweet—or maybe that’s who you are naturally—how do you reconcile that? How do you not get black-pilled? How should evolutionary psychology inform one’s perspective?

Dr. Rob Henderson: You go through this cycle where initially you’re naive. You generally act nice because that’s how you’re trained and socially conditioned, to be a good, nice person. Then you learn a little evolutionary psychology, or the warped, caricatured version of it you see in social media, and then you maybe become bitter. But if you read the actual research, if you study it long enough, and you’re not looking to have your own priors confirmed—if you read what it actually says, the good and the bad, you realize we’re all just human beings. The only reason you’re here is because of thousands of generations of trust and cooperation and pair bonding and romance and trust and all those things too. You can approach human nature from both perspectives, but I think a lot of young guys are over eager to look into the darkness. They would do well to look at the other side of it as well.

Erik Torenberg: Let’s segue into picking a romantic partner and partner selection in general. What have been some of your most interesting findings, or what theories have you developed there?

Dr. Rob Henderson: I wrote this long piece called “How to Choose a Romantic Partner” for my Substack. It was specifically aimed at straight guys—which I think is mostly my audience on Substack—mostly youngish, straight guys who are interested in this topic. But a lot of it is applicable to relationships in general.

One of the things I point out is that there are two ideas as a first pass for seeking a romantic partner. One common adage is opposites attract, and the other is birds of a feather flock together. Which one is most likely to be true? If you look at the psychology of assortative mating, it’s actually the case that people who are similar to one another are more likely to enter relationships and are more likely to get married.

What’s interesting, though, is that the specific attributes people are similar on aren’t always what you’d expect. For example, if you look at physical traits like height and weight, there is a modest correlation. If you have a tall man, he’s likely to be with a woman who’s a bit taller than average, and similarly with weight—fit people tend to favor fit people, less fit people favor less fit people—but these correlations are very small. The same goes for the Big Five personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Couples are only modestly similar there.

The big ones are education, intelligence, political beliefs, and religion. People tend to mate with those who are roughly similar to them in education and intelligence. Part of that may be environmental—if you go to college, you’re around others who went to college and were selected for standardized tests, GPA, academic interests, and so on. It’s unsurprising you’d marry someone with a similar background. That isn’t as interesting to me as the other attributes: political orientation and religiosity. In that instance, people are really seeking shared values, the same priorities and ethical principles, the same aspirations and expectations for family and the future.

This can pose a problem because there’s been a gender divergence in political views, with men tending slightly to the right and women veering dramatically to the left, depending on which survey you look at. Women are far more likely than men to say they’re completely uninterested in dating someone with different political views.

Erik Torenberg: When people think about evolutionary psychology applied to dating, they might focus on the idea that women like the “bad guy,” Fifty Shades of Grey, etc. Then men who struggle to pick up women might think, “I should be more of a bad guy.” But perhaps they should just get a better career and be a better person.

Dr. Rob Henderson: It’s hard to give general advice that applies to everyone. If you’re a naturally timid guy who’s afraid to talk to women, someone might say, “Be more dark triad, more bold and unafraid.” That might actually be good advice—not going all the way into psychopathy, but becoming bolder in how you carry yourself. But if you deliver that message to someone who’s already high on the dark triad—high in narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism—you might inadvertently encourage them to do dangerous things or hurt people. Advice has to be tailored to people based on their attributes and temperament.

Speaking of assortative mating and birds of a feather flock together, this is true for dark triad personality traits as well. People high in those traits tend to mate with others who are similarly high, regularly engaging in deception or manipulation. Narcissists tend to be drawn to other narcissists, whereas people who aren’t high in those traits avoid them, at least for long-term relationships. The average person might be intrigued by them for a one-night stand or something casual, but for committed relationships, people usually avoid them.

Erik Torenberg: If men are asking, “What’s the best way to improve my mating value?” there’s career, fashion, physical shape, and personality angles. It’s hard to give blanket advice, but what do you find is the highest-leverage thing men can do?

Dr. Rob Henderson: It’s obvious but true: physically, men should take care of themselves. A lot of guys aren’t well-groomed or in shape. After lockdown, even things like deodorant seem to have been forgotten. So, first pass: basic grooming, hygiene, get a haircut, buy clothes that fit. Going to the gym helps. There’s a big difference between being overweight versus a normal weight. Being in good shape also boosts your confidence.

The same advice holds for women—look as good as your genetic potential allows. All of us have different ceilings, but you want to get as close as possible to that ceiling. Beyond that, get as educated as your ability allows. Don’t neglect your credentials, especially if you’re young. You may know a handful of people who dropped out of college and found success, but most aren’t in that position. So education and career success help. Get promoted, try to be professionally successful.

Also, get your living situation in order. It’s surprising how little effort it takes to impress women—especially younger women—just by having a clean, well-kept place with a nice bed frame and basic essentials like soap and a spare toothbrush. They’ll feel comfortable and want to come back. Looks, money, status—those more superficial attributes—do help. But I’d also say focus on internal confidence, which comes with success, time, improving physically, and improving professionally.

Erik Torenberg: There’s this funny thing that happens to men: when they’re younger, it’s harder to date, and they feel nobody likes them. Then they get success, and people start to like them, which makes them wonder, “Do they only like me because of my success?” For men who do reflect on that, it can feel like a Catch-22.

Dr. Rob Henderson: Going back to the pickup artist era: I read Tucker Max’s books in the early 2010s, around the time I read The Game. Back then, the default cultural setting was to be nice. Then these PUA ideas spread, and the thinking was, “Be a jerk—that’s what women want.” Those ideas have so permeated the culture that women almost expect guys to be unkind or uncommitted or flighty. Weirdly, if you want to stand out now, just be a normal, genuinely nice guy. Don’t lie or fake who you are, but have some chivalry, compassion, and empathy. That intrigues women today because it’s becoming increasingly rare.

Your earlier point about success is interesting. You could say the same for women: a very beautiful woman might think, “Do they like me, or do they like my beauty?” But those things are intertwined. For a man, your success or money might open the door, but for someone to stay, they have to see something beyond that first impression. The same is true in reverse with men drawn to beautiful women. You can talk to someone who’s gorgeous and then realize you don’t like them at all. Women can talk to a guy who has money or fame and then realize he’s awful and back away. It’s like an audition: you can pass the first step, but you still have to be someone they’re interested in.

Erik Torenberg: What does the science say about age-gap relationships?

Dr. Rob Henderson: This is pretty consistent cross-culturally: women tend to prefer men who are a little older, anywhere from two to eight years older. In Western countries, it’s steady around four or five years. Interestingly, when you look at the likelihood of relationships dissolving—divorces, for example—if the man is older than the woman, they’re more likely than average to divorce [NB: I actually misspoke here—the actual data indicates that when the woman is older than the man, then they are more likely than average to breakup]. He’s also more likely to cheat if he marries someone older than himself. Yes, there are relationships where the expected age gap is reversed, but those relationships tend to be rockier and less stable.

Dianne Tice and Roy Baumeister pointed this out in The Social Dimension of Sex. Generally, romantic relationships are 50/50. You both contribute equally in deciding what to do, who makes the final call, etc. But one of their spicier observations is that in most heterosexual relationships, the man earns a bit more money. Women tend to like men who earn more, who are older, who are taller, and at least as professionally successful, if not more so. Their suggestion is that these preferences inadvertently promote gender inequality: men tend to earn more because women tend to select for men who have those attributes.

Another point they make is that in most relationships, one person holds a bit more final decision-making influence, and that’s usually the man. They note that if you imagine you have a same-sex friend—if you’re a man, it’s a male friend; if you’re a woman, it’s a female friend. Imagine this friend of yours is a little bit shorter than you, earns a little bit less money than you, is a little bit less professionally successful, and so on. Generally speaking, with this friend, it’s probably a 50/50 relationship—you’re on an equal plane. But whenever someone has to make a final decision or that final call of what to do, it would probably be unsurprising if it were you rather than the friend, simply because you’re a little higher on those attributes of education, income, success, and so on. That was an interesting point they made, and when I read this passage to a few different women, privately they were like, “Yeah, that does make sense.”

Erik Torenberg: It’s really interesting. You were talking about how the pickup artist community morphed into this black-pill incel community. It’s also worth mentioning that #MeToo happened, which changed norms a bit. That black-pill move—well, it’s easy to say they’re not really serving their own interests unless their goal is camaraderie among other struggling men. Maybe—and I’m not familiar enough with the community—they hope that by grasping at this victim status, they can achieve the sort of protected status other marginalized groups have. But that’s not happening for them.

Dr. Rob Henderson: As a male, you’re not really going to get that kind of sympathy. Women look at it with disgust. That’s the classic observation: if someone sees a woman in distress, they want to help her. If someone sees a man in distress, they get the “ick.” Men can’t exploit their own sadness as an instrument to get what you want. You just have to suck it up.

I think some of those communities maybe started out with good intentions. I can imagine them beginning as support groups. But over time, like many online spaces, they devolve and the most extreme views take over. Maybe it began as sad guys saying, “This is tough, and it’s nice to hear other guys are struggling too,” but then it devolves into “Women are evil, life is never going to get better, let’s all cry together.”

Overall, the internet has been a mixed bag for social community—good and bad. In this particular way, it’s been bad because these guys can cluster together. What used to happen, especially if you were a young teenage boy who couldn’t get girls, you’d be isolated and alone. Maybe you were embarrassed to talk about it, but eventually you’d just grow out of it, get a job, become an adult. That was the rite of passage for being an awkward teenage boy. Now you can prolong that aggravation by going online, where you’re socially validated for complaining about your lack of success. The whole status game on these incel message boards is about who has the saddest story. Those posts get the most likes, so there’s a perverse competition to be the biggest loser possible.

Erik Torenberg: There was a funny Twitter interaction where someone described this guy as the LeBron James of incels. Apparently, he hooked up with someone and was celebrating that. Other incels were taking him to task, saying, “How could you do that to us?” He tweeted something like, “We’re incels, not Jedi. This isn’t a code. We should be trying to get out of this, not stay in it.”

You mentioned this in another podcast: this is the last area of life that you can’t solve by tapping a button on your phone. You can’t just press a button and find a romantic partner. It’s hard. There’s risk, uncertainty, false starts. It can be more demoralizing than anything else because it’s the most real analysis of who you are as a person, right? What does the opposite sex think of you? It’s the most raw version of that.

Dr. Rob Henderson: It’s almost like a confrontation with Mother Nature. Are you worthy? I think two areas in particular—friendship and romance—scare people because you can’t fully control what others think of you. Every other aspect of modern life has been made convenient: you’re warm, sheltered, fed, entertained. But with romance, even with dating apps, we haven’t improved it much. We might have made it worse. People aren’t used to having to suffer, struggle, and change themselves to get what they want.

I think it used to be common knowledge: you have to work at it. In my Substack piece on how to choose a romantic partner, I point out how much advice exists for young people about which college to attend, which major to choose, how to ace a job interview—but not how to navigate romance. There’s a weird stigma around a young person who wants honest, authentic advice on how to find someone compatible and build a relationship. If someone buys DVDs on getting promoted, that’s fine. But if you buy DVDs on how to pick up girls, that’s embarrassing. Both your career and romance are equally important, so it’s funny we mock people who try to improve the latter.

Erik Torenberg: That advice often feels tactical, geared toward short-term stuff rather than long-term confidence, character, or capacity—truly attractive qualities. It’s interesting to think about who the most influential men have been in the last decade for advice. Jordan Peterson is one. I find him uplifting, and I’m surprised people think he’s a menace, especially compared to Andrew Tate a few years later. They have different aesthetics, different flavors. There might be some overlap about confidence and taking matters into your own hands, but I wonder if future influencers will make Tate look tame or if he’s an exception. Maybe we’ll see more Jordan Peterson–like figures who talk about character, integrity, being a good person, but also being realistic about how the world works.

Dr. Rob Henderson: That’s a good question. Another area men can work on, going back to what we said about self-improvement, is friendship. Many guys struggle socially, not just romantically. In that conversation with Richard, I pointed out that a lot of young guys want to know how to talk to girls, but what they really need is to learn how to talk to people. If you have no friends, it’s way harder to get a girlfriend. Make a friend before you try to get a girlfriend. Have one or two friends you hang out with, who keep you socially aware and let you practice. I don’t mean gaming online—I mean in person, meeting for meals, playing sports, going to the gym, taking walks, interacting face-to-face so you get the rhythm of social interaction.

I’m describing the worst-case scenario: a guy with no social life at all. But even if you have a modest social life, keep it going. Women respond to that. Women are much more adept: if they’re dating a new guy, they introduce him to their friends. Later, in another interaction, they’ll ask, “What did you think of him?” and get a character evaluation. Men often don’t do that until they’re older, when they have more social awareness and perspective. It’s useful to have friends who can advise you on a romantic partner. Build your social circle.

Regarding Jordan Peterson, as you know, I’m a big admirer of his. I’m still perplexed by Andrew Tate. Obviously, he’s done a lot of bad things, but at first I thought he was a character, like a rapper who’s saying provocative stuff to get attention from teenage boys while outraging suburban moms. He’d say things with a grain of truth in a provocative, exaggerated way. Now, I’m less sure. I don’t follow him closely, but that core message—take your life into your own hands, hit the gym, stop feeling sorry for yourself—has some merit. Hopefully, we won’t see anything more extreme on the horizon. He had a large following, his moment, but I think he’s peaked.

Erik Torenberg: He’s a mix of the internet hustler type and Jordan Peterson, giving men advice, plus an Alex Jones flavor of conspiracy talk. He’s anti-elite, very populist, a content machine, an entertainer.

Dr. Rob Henderson: Right. He’s built for TikTok—flashy, quick, provocative, inflammatory. Fifteen-second sound bites with a grain of truth, said in a cartoonishly exaggerated way.

Erik Torenberg: What are your thoughts on how men should think about vulnerability when it comes to being attractive to women?

Dr. Rob Henderson: It’s hard to offer blanket advice. Many guys worry about appearing weak or timid. There’s a signaling and counter-signaling aspect. I heard Bill Burr on Joe Rogan’s podcast a couple of years ago. Burr said he refuses to cry, and Rogan said, “There’s nothing wrong with crying, man, expressing your feelings.” Burr joked, “Joe, when you cry, people like it because you’re a ball of muscle and you’re the UFC guy. It reminds people you’re human. When I cry, people think I’m weak.”

There’s something to that. If you’re already perceived as soft, maybe you don’t want to give people even more reason to see you that way. But if you’re successful, your life is together, you can expose a bit of vulnerability if it’s authentic, coming from the right place. I talk about this in my own book: when my life was actually hard, financially and emotionally, I never let anyone know. It probably would have been a mistake at the time to talk about it or dwell on it. Once I left that part of my life, things improved, and then I could step back, reflect, and share more openly. It depends on context. It’s good to be authentic overall, but I wouldn’t broadcast vulnerability if people might exploit it.

Erik Torenberg: Is there anything else we haven’t touched on that’s top of mind, or any questions you’re eager to research or think more about?

Dr. Rob Henderson: Nothing comes immediately to mind. I’m hoping that as the conversation shifts—because we’re seeing more coverage in places like The Atlantic about the “sex recession” and the struggles young people face—more people realize there’s a lack of guidance around dating and relationships. With careers, no one expects you to figure it all out alone. But with romance, it’s the wild west. Part of it is that older people have no sense of the current state of things, so they can’t advise well. Still, if you’re older, married, and successful in your relationship, you might have wisdom. That’s valuable because a lot of younger people are confused.

I’m shocked at how many early-20-somethings say they’ve had multiple sexual partners but never had a boyfriend or girlfriend. They reach 23 and have never had a real relationship. That’s not unusual now, but a lot of them want it. It’s strange—it’s almost embarrassing to say, “I want a happy marriage” or “I want a caring girlfriend.” I hope these conversations help people get past that.

Erik Torenberg: That’s a great place to end. I’ll leave one final thought: I did a small dating app experiment for around 200 people—friends or friends of friends. I could see all the back-end data, and I thought it would be a typical power law, but I was surprised at how much range there was. Everyone on the app got someone interested in them. People really do have different tastes. You only need one person to like you. The market is not efficient; there are more possibilities out there. Rob, thanks for coming on the podcast. This has been a wide-ranging discussion.

Dr. Rob Henderson: Thanks, Erik.