However, for the purposes of discussing certain evolutionary concepts and to convey specific ideas in this episode, I will be referring to binary notions of gender—‘male’ and ‘female.’ This approach is purely for explanatory clarity and is not intended to diminish or exclude the spectrum of human experiences outside of this binary framework. My intention is to communicate these concepts effectively while maintaining my full respect and acknowledgment of the rich diversity that exists in our world.

In previous sections, I explained how the mind continuously tries to compensate for the imbalance caused by an expectation error. Whether this imbalance, or as I sometimes interchangeably refer to it as inequality or injustice, stems from an external factor like spilling coffee, a molecular imbalance due to excessive alcohol or substance use, or a belief like the promise of a “promised land,” in all cases, your mind feels the need to correct this imbalance. If you’re wondering why the brain must compensate, you might need to book an appointment with the system’s designer.

This drive for balance exists in the smallest scales, like atomic physics and chemistry, to the largest, like celestial bodies. However, along with this balance, there are always instabilities, which on a molecular level can lead to explosions, on a human level can lead to disease, and on a galactic scale can cause the formation of a supernova.

These concepts even play out in human relationships.

Imagine you’re a dashing young person looking to find a partner.

You live in a country with great cultural diversity, and you have the chance to meet people from various nationalities and cultural backgrounds. But you have no idea what you’re supposed to do during the first meeting. When you go to a restaurant for a date, should you pay the bill, split it, or let your partner take the initiative? Regardless, you decide to go ahead and set up the first date.

If your partner has grown up with beliefs instilled by family, society, and their belief system, and one of those beliefs is that, due to their gender, the bill should always be paid by the other person, then there is already an inherent imbalance in your relationship from the very first encounter. In other words, when you meet this person, you’re already in debt, and by paying the bill at that fancy French restaurant, you’re correcting an injustice imposed by your partner’s beliefs just to achieve equality. If you don’t, you’ve likely failed the first date and are no longer a suitable candidate for continuing the relationship.

Now, imagine the opposite scenario: your partner comes from a society that strongly promotes gender equality. There is no gender-specific dress code, and people are free to wear whatever they like without being judged by societal norms, and in such societies, individuals are often free to choose their gender identity as well, reflecting a broader respect for personal autonomy. Clearly, this partner isn’t coming to the first date with a pre-existing imbalance, and if you offer to pay, they might consider it a sign of disrespect or gender discrimination. In this situation, splitting the bill seems like a better idea.

Even if your partner is of the same gender and you are in a same-sex relationship, there can still be other dynamics at play, such as differences in physical traits, sexual preferences, or the roles each person prefers in the relationship. For example, one partner might naturally take on a more dominant role and enjoy being in control, while the other may prefer a more submissive or yielding position. These dynamics can shape expectations in similar ways to traditional gender roles, regardless of whether the relationship is same-sex or heterosexual. In such cases, even subtle actions like paying the bill could symbolize power dynamics or align with personal preferences within the relationship.

Are these the only viewpoints? Absolutely not. In this book, everything is examined on a spectrum. There could be hundreds of other perspectives between these two extremes. My goal in providing this example isn’t to dive into the psychology of relationships or gender analysis, but to explain the mental backgrounds that create these inherent inequalities.

This doesn’t end with the first date—it continues from the moment you meet your partner to, hopefully not, the moment one of you dies. At that point, your partner might expect you to fully cover the funeral expenses to ensure their legacy lives on, or that you burn them in a specific ritual to ensure a smoother reincarnation process. These mental frameworks, which were instilled in your partner during childhood, continue to play out unless they lose access to them due to Alzheimer’s, or they simply don’t remember you at all.

I was born into a time and society where men typically worked outside the home and paid for everything, while women were responsible for child-rearing and cooking (and, to be clear, LGBTQ+ marriages weren’t even on the radar 40 years ago, and discussing them in this society would have led to being stoned to death).

The image of a man on a white horse or a Barbie-like princess who will make you happy is just as hollow as the promise of the “promised land” because this imaginary figure who can make you happy simply doesn’t exist. Why? Because happiness is an illusion. Happiness, much like wisdom and health, is a conceptual phenomenon—it’s not a fixed point or an on-off switch. It’s a wave-like process that arises from balancing pleasure and pain. Since no human is capable of achieving this balance perfectly, no one can feel happy all the time. One day you may feel immense joy, and the next, you might be overwhelmed by despair. If you’ve experienced this, welcome to Earth. You’re just like the rest of us—human!

False promises lead to massive expectation errors. You start your life with your partner with high expectations, and at first, everything is great. But after a while, you realize you’re no longer feeling happy. What happened? You were told that if you found your dream partner and had a big, beautiful wedding, you’d feel happy—expectation error! Now, you’re seeking equality. Who else could be to blame for your lack of happiness but your partner? Not only do you blame your partner, but you also keep thinking that if only they didn’t have these flaws, everything would be fine. And of course, you don’t see these flaws in yourself; you look for them in your poor partner.

But my situation was far more complicated because my family didn’t hold such beliefs at all. Not only were both my parents working, but they had similar jobs. They had a joint bank account, and every month they pooled their money together to cover household expenses. They left the house together in the morning and returned together in the evening.

As a result, from childhood, I saw women as capable individuals who worked alongside men in society, and sometimes even outperformed them. Our perception of men and women, and consequently our ideal partner, is usually shaped by the reflections we get from the first society we encounter, which is typically our family. I say “usually” because there are always exceptions.

So, in this context, what do you think I felt on my first date when it came to paying the bill? Just like the example of helping someone in need from the “Values” episode, where I explained how you might not know whether to give money to someone asking for help on the street, I too found myself torn between two value systems.

Now, imagine that my partner grew up in a family nearby, in the same time period, but with the difference that her father worked and her mother stayed at home. Her father always paid for everything, and her mother, who spent all her time at home caring for the children, cooking, and cleaning, expected her husband to be the breadwinner. Meanwhile, the man believes that paying and providing is what defines his masculinity and gives him identity.

But in my mind, there was a different image. There’s no knight, no white horse, no princess. It’s two people who are supposed to build a life together, brick by brick, working side by side, dividing responsibilities. One brick from me, one brick from you. Or, no—two bricks from me, one from you. And when you’re tired, I’ll lay all the bricks until you’ve rested, and then we can swap.

You might feel your blood boiling right now and think, “Wait a minute! What about pregnancy? It’s not fair that I should endure nine months of hardship and everything else remains equal!”

Well, once again, that’s a question for the system designer. My point isn’t to say which perspective is right or wrong, but to show how beliefs shape our expectations and can affect our experiences in relationships.

For many, pregnancy is something that disrupts the entire cycle. In addition to pregnancy, the lesser physical capability of women in the past added to this issue. But as physical work has shifted to mental tasks, and jobs have become mechanized and digitized, this perspective has changed dramatically. The fact that women and men are equally capable in mental processes (and if you disagree, you can refer to the double-blind scientific studies listed at the end of this book) has allowed women to enter the workforce, from the smallest jobs to the most important and high-ranking ones, alongside men. Women have become employees, writers, programmers, doctors, teachers, managers, and even presidents—and philosophers and scientists too!

In this context, even pregnancy, made much simpler by modern methods, is no longer seen as the monumental challenge it once was. Additionally, as the desire to have children declines and the preference for adopting or fostering orphaned children rises, the landscape is changing.

Women with more egalitarian views now see pregnancy as a unique experience—an extraordinary opportunity in their life, rather than a hardship that disrupts equality. It’s clear that in such circumstances, their partner can provide a sense of security and equality in other ways during this time.

The belief that pregnancy and menstruation are burdens that must be compensated for by the partner, in contrast to the view that they are gifts that men will never experience, leads to two very different approaches. Neither of these perspectives is superior to the other, and my aim in discussing them isn’t to validate or invalidate any of them. Rather, becoming familiar with these different viewpoints allows you to put yourself in others’ shoes and understand them better.

Many opponents of gender equality, including some evolutionary psychologists, are completely against these ideas and dismiss them as modern nonsense designed to exploit women. From their perspective, there’s no such thing as gender equality, and they argue that even in the animal kingdom, the female, who endures months of pregnancy, naturally has more rights than the male. The male provides only a sperm, while the female does all the work. They point out that, in most species—including humans—the female can only have a limited number of pregnancies and therefore must be selective, choosing the strongest and healthiest males to mate with. On the other hand, the male, who can mate almost indefinitely and offer just one insignificant sperm, must try harder.

Conversely, staunch opponents of these ideas and supporters of patriarchy hold completely different views, which don’t need to be reiterated here, as we’ve experienced these absurdities firsthand for centuries. Even today, in some parts of the world, women are still not allowed to do many things, and in many advanced countries, women still earn less than men!

I’m not here to tell you whether these ideas are right or wrong, but if you look at them from outside the usual bubble, you’ll realize that these issues, even when they’re cloaked in science and evolution, are rooted in deep beliefs instilled in us from childhood—similar to the story of the stork. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous a narrative may be; what matters is that you believe it and that your peers validate it.

I don’t aim to introduce you to a new belief system or reject some beliefs while endorsing others. As I mentioned in the preface, this book offers you tools for reflection and thought, so you can use these tools to design and implement your own belief and value systems.

Issues like monogamy, polygamy, and abortion are highly controversial, and there’s no single formula for them. But if you’re curious about my opinion, I would say the very question, “Is humanity inherently monogamous or polygamous?” is flawed. It’s like asking, “Are humans inherently violent or peaceful?” or “Do humans naturally like sushi or not?” If you’ve been following along from the beginning of this book, you’ll understand that, from my philosophical perspective, this question is entirely misplaced.

Humans should be viewed on a spectrum, not within limited options. You can’t even say that one individual is entirely monogamous or entirely polygamous. Humans are neither inherently vegetarian nor carnivorous. This binary way of thinking, this zero-one logic, doesn’t even work in computer science anymore, let alone in the complex, multi-dimensional human mind. Unlike binary thinking, the human brain operates more like fuzzy logic. Not just humans, but artificial intelligence also works based on fuzzy logic.

{I’ll briefly explain fuzzy logic here. If you’re not interested, feel free to skip ahead, but it’s related to our discussion.}

In classical logic, a statement is either true (1) or false (0), but in fuzzy logic, a statement can be true to varying degrees between 0 and 1. To put it more simply:

• In classical logic: Something is either true or false.

• In fuzzy logic: Something can be somewhat true or somewhat false.

Thinking and decision-making in the human brain are usually fuzzy. Our brains rarely make decisions or conclusions with absolute certainty. In many cases, we deal with uncertainty and varying degrees of information, and we make decisions based on a spectrum of possibilities. For example:

1. Decision-making in ambiguous situations: The human brain naturally uses fuzzy reasoning when dealing with incomplete or ambiguous information. For instance, when we talk about “cool” weather, there is no precise temperature that defines “cool” universally. This sensation can differ from person to person and under different conditions. In such situations, our brain uses fuzzy logic to determine the degree of coolness.

2. Processing uncertain information: In daily life, we are rarely faced with entirely certain information. For instance, when predicting whether it will rain, our brain processes fuzzy data (such as cloud cover and humidity) and makes decisions based on a range of possibilities. That’s why our predictions are often accompanied by varying levels of confidence.

3. Sensory perception: Many of our sensory perceptions, like the feeling of warmth, cold, or even pain, are processed in a fuzzy manner. For example, when your hand touches a warm object, your brain processes the temperature as a spectrum (ranging from cold to warm to hot).

4. Natural language: Human language is full of expressions that are interpreted fuzzily. Words like “a lot,” “a little,” “almost,” and “relatively” all carry meanings that exist along a spectrum, which is why fuzzy logic plays a role in interpreting them. For instance, when the brain encounters an expression like “almost cold,” it uses fuzzy logic to understand the degree of coldness.

In the realm of artificial intelligence:

1. Fuzzy neural networks: In AI modeling, fuzzy neural networks attempt to simulate how the brain makes decisions and processes information. These models are particularly useful for solving problems that involve high levels of uncertainty.

2. Modeling complex behaviors: Behaviors in which the brain is faced with ambiguous or complex situations (such as facial recognition, social decision-making, or risk assessment) are well-modeled using fuzzy logic.

3. Fuzzy control in robotics: Many AI-driven robotic systems use fuzzy logic for decision-making. These robots, much like the human brain, can make decisions based on a spectrum of options when faced with uncertain situations.

Fuzzy logic, due to its ability to handle uncertainty and make decisions in ambiguous situations, closely mirrors how the human brain operates. Just as our brain rarely makes decisions with absolute certainty, fuzzy logic allows us to navigate through a range of possibilities and manage them.

From now on, in addition to everything I’ve already mentioned, I’ll add “fuzziness” as another dimension to the multi-dimensional and complex matrix of mental backgrounds.

Imagine a poultry farm, where one rooster is enough to fertilize all the hens. But is this a suitable evolutionary model for animals? The answer is obvious! Even a child knows that nature isn’t a poultry farm. If, let’s hope no, the rooster carries an incurable disease, the entire harem will become infected, and the future of that generation is doomed. Now imagine the opposite scenario: in a forest, there’s only one female monkey and hundreds of male monkeys. In this case, the reproduction rate would drop to its minimum because each pregnancy would take several months (assuming any male survives the fights over the queen).

If you prefer chickens to monkeys, just replace the monkeys in your mind with hens and roosters. In this scenario, one hen and a hundred roosters would fight over the poor hen to the point that most of them would be killed, or the hen would suffer severe trauma and become infertile.

Now, let’s imagine a balanced population of males and females, where all members are strictly monogamous, meaning each individual mates with only one partner throughout their life and produces just one offspring—which isn’t typical, but let’s assume it for the sake of calculation. In this situation, if we have 100 pairs and 10 pairs fall victim to disease or predators, the remaining 90 pairs will reproduce, resulting in 90 offspring.

What if these 100 pairs were in a polyamorous society instead? The answer depends entirely on the species and several factors, such as the duration of pregnancy, the number of offspring produced per pregnancy, and so on.

When focusing on humans, we won’t find a universal formula either. It entirely depends on culture, social conditions, individual backgrounds like genetics, the functioning of the nervous system, and hormones. In short, everything—including morality—is fuzzy, and anything can be somewhat right or somewhat wrong.

In many societies, even as recently as the last century or half-century, it was perfectly legal and even considered a sign of a man’s strength to have multiple wives (this still holds true in some societies). In some primitive tribes, the reverse is also true, where a woman having multiple husbands is natural and common. In these tribes, men share the responsibility of protecting the children, and everything is shared among the tribe members. In many societies, while monogamy is widely accepted, as I mentioned in the “Beliefs” section, violating these accepted values is quite common. Polygamous individuals who occasionally stray from their values and justify it can be found in abundance. The reasons behind these behaviors are complex, and they cannot be explained by a single evolutionary or psychological reason. But in one sentence, I can say that what we call beliefs, values, and culture—our mental backgrounds—shape our sexual behaviors and even our preferences, influencing our expectations and emotions.

Recently, I had a fascinating discussion at a family gathering with the teenage daughter of one of my Middle Eastern friends. She had just reached the legal age and was concerned about emotional relationships and finding a partner. She said to me, “Uncle, I don’t know why guys can’t understand such a simple thing—that they shouldn’t bring up sex right from the start. I’m really starting to get fed up with them. Every guy I talk to, after we meet a couple of times, immediately brings the conversation to sex. Like, what’s up with that?”

I respectfully assured her that her feelings were completely valid and that she had every right to feel that way. I offered to explain some of the biological differences between men and women, which have evolutionary roots, to help her understand the source of this misunderstanding. Then, we could discuss possible solutions. I also made it clear that my explanations had nothing to do with the modern human condition but rather the state of humans 10,000 years ago. This is because our biology, nervous system, and genes haven’t changed much in the past 10,000 years, even though our culture and lifestyle have transformed dramatically.

I asked her, “How many times can a woman get pregnant in her lifetime?” She replied, “Well, obviously, at most 9 or 10 times.” I said, “Exactly, under the best conditions. Now, how many times can a man impregnate and pass on his genes?” She laughed and said, “I guess as many as 10 times a day!” I said, “Exactly! Well, this seemingly simple difference can lead to many changes in biology, brain function, the nervous system, and hormones.” In nature, there’s no such thing as birth control, and biologically speaking, the human brain equates sex with pregnancy.

A woman, who not only can have a limited number of pregnancies but also has to care for her child for several years until they can stand on their own, naturally has to be selective. But the way this selectiveness is executed has varied across millennia, regions, and cultures. I asked her, “If you were a cavewoman, what criteria would you use to choose your partner?” She thought for a moment and said, “Probably none of the things that matter to me now would matter back then. So, I’d choose a man who was physically strong and muscular, someone who could hunt well, was kind, and took care of me. Oh, and someone who wouldn’t cheat!” I said, “Great. Why do you think it’s important to you that he doesn’t cheat?” She replied, “Because I hate cheating!” I said, “I completely understand. I hate it too. But why do you think you hate it?” She pondered for a while and then said, “If I were that cavewoman, I guess it’s because if he left me and our child, I wouldn’t be able to manage on my own.” Excited, I said, “Exactly! You’ve hit the nail on the head. One of the most important reasons is just that. What we call jealousy is one of the most important mechanisms that help protect us. Otherwise, if you didn’t experience jealousy, you wouldn’t care what your partner does, and that could work against you.”

Humans are deeply cultural beings, and culture has a profound influence on our behaviors, to the point where tribal life can completely overturn everything we’ve discussed so far. In a primitive Indonesian tribe, all the members collectively care for the children, meaning the burden of childcare doesn’t fall on just one person—it’s a shared responsibility. In such conditions, women’s views on pregnancy and even partner selection are entirely different. In some of these tribes, women have multiple husbands, and they believe that all the men contribute to fatherhood. In fact, some tribes believe that if a woman sleeps with several strong men, her child will inherit greater strength. It sounds ridiculous and funny to us, but like the story of the stork, it doesn’t matter how strange a belief is—what matters is that people believe it and those around them reinforce it.

Now, imagine this hypothetical scenario: what if a man could only have sex ten times in his entire life, and after those ten times, he lost the ability to engage in sexual activity? With this simple, imaginative assumption, the world would likely change drastically. If a man only had ten opportunities to pass on his genes, he would be much more selective than in the past. He wouldn’t mate with just anyone because each encounter would cost him one of his precious chances. Therefore, he’d be forced to choose partners based on health, fertility, and—if we’re applying modern considerations—values and lifestyle preferences that align with his own.

The young woman then asked me, “So, in those tribes, do women not get jealous of each other anymore?” I replied, “You’ll get your answer when you visit one of those tribes and observe their lives firsthand! I’m not here to give you all the answers.” I then recommended that she explore Shahrab Cheraghi’s work and suggested that she take an incredible trip to these tribes. I could see the excitement and curiosity in her eyes.

In previous sections, I discussed “operators” and ethics, comparing them to basic flavors that, when combined, create a variety of dishes. Jealousy, like altruism or anger, is a kind of operator that exists in all of us, but how it is activated, how intensely it functions, and the conditions that trigger it depend on numerous factors—our value systems, culture, customs, climate, environment, genetics, and even the hormonal workings of each individual. Thus, not only do these factors vary from culture to culture and person to person, but they can also change within the same individual depending on the situation. Even seasonal changes, stress levels, hormonal shifts, and economic conditions in society can influence how these operators function and alter their intensity.

Reflecting on these factors and recognizing similar patterns in your own life can once again bring you to the realization that free will is an illusion, and we are heavily influenced by countless variables.

She then asked, “What does all of this have to do with today’s world? We have birth control methods now, genetic testing to determine a child’s father, and polygamy has practically disappeared—it’s not even socially accepted anymore. So why is it that every time I go on a date, the guy can’t even wait a month before bringing up sex? Heck, sometimes they can’t wait a week, and some even suggest it before we’ve even had a proper conversation!”

We’ve reached the critical part of the discussion. The point is that the brain regions responsible for translating cultural and moral teachings into action—which I refer to as the “top-down mechanism” in this book—require extensive training, repetition, and exposure to numerous errors. We can never say with certainty that they will fully suppress physiological needs. Like the hunger strike example in the previous section, some individuals can suppress their hunger to a certain extent, while others can endure it to the point of death. If you’ve never been trained to suppress your hunger, you might never attempt a hunger strike. Similarly, in relationships, a man who hasn’t been taught to wait and not bring up sex during the first date, allowing the relationship to develop naturally, will act purely based on biology, letting his autopilot take over. Even if he has learned this, if he hasn’t practiced it enough or lacks social reinforcement, the results won’t be much different.

Cultural factors also play a significant role in this issue. In societies where birth control is widely available and women are more open to casual relationships, men can become confused, as women themselves have varying attitudes and expectations. What may not be acceptable to you in a relationship might be perfectly normal and accepted by another woman in your community or another part of the world.

So my answer to you is this: The matrix of mental backgrounds is far too complex to provide a simple, direct answer. Everyone has different mental backgrounds, and they act based on those.

In the past, I used to believe that men should always leave the initiation of a sexual relationship to their partner, never making the first move until their partner was ready. But later, I realized that this too is cultural. After talking to women from different cultural backgrounds, I found that many of them actually preferred the man to bring up the topic, and they weren’t bothered by a man’s persistence—in fact, some even found it attractive. This doesn’t mean they appreciated coercion, but persistence from a man was sometimes seen as a sign of their own attractiveness.

Therefore, to say what is right or what the solution is, again, oversimplifies the issue. Every person’s mental background is different, and they act accordingly.

She then asked, “But what about me? I really don’t like this kind of behavior. What should I do? Every guy I’ve dated here has been like this. Not a single one has waited a month for me. You won’t believe it, but I’ve even thought about becoming a lesbian!”

I replied, “I completely understand. First, choosing a partner is incredibly difficult—you have to take your time and be patient. Second, my personal advice is to have open, honest conversations about these topics, and sometimes, to find a partner who shares your lifestyle and beliefs, you might need to change your environment. Sometimes, that means moving to a different city or even country if this issue is really important to you—and it clearly is.”

She fell into deep thought, and silence enveloped us. One thing I forgot to mention to her was that we live in a world where everything is easily accessible, and fast-food-like content provides us with instant, effortless rewards. Everyone is chasing quick pleasures, which complicates the situation even more. The foundations of a relationship are built on the efforts both parties make in the beginning to discover and explore each other’s attractions, similarities, and differences. If we skip over this crucial phase, it’s like skipping the entire process of planting, harvesting, washing, and preparing vegetables and heading straight to a fast-food joint for a cheap, ready-made meal. Not only is this addictive, but it also leads us down the path to anhedonia or the inability to feel pleasure.

I briefly touched on the “expectation error” in an earlier section, where I explained that if I were to simplify the steps of pleasure—breaking down the millions of intricate components like in a symphony—the first step would be imagining the pleasurable act, the next would be striving toward it, followed by the climax, and finally, storing the memory of the experience in our minds to savor and appreciate it later. I also explained that after each experience of pleasure, we feel a certain pain, which, in fact, motivates us to seek out that pleasure again—something that, when taken to extremes, we call addiction.

So, it can be said that no pleasure exists without some degree of pain. Additionally, the pain that follows a pleasurable experience has an interesting relationship with the amount of pleasure, the time it takes to achieve it, the effort or “suffering” involved in obtaining it, and how accessible that pleasure is, which can even be formulated. In the following sections, I will dive deeper into this formula, analyzing it more precisely and providing various examples. But for now, let’s consider just three scenarios:

1. Someone who has invested a lot of time and effort into building a relationship, leading to a romantic and meaningful sexual encounter.

2. Someone who meets a partner easily through a dating app or social media and has a sexual encounter within the first or second meeting without much effort.

3. Someone who makes no effort at all and resorts to pornography and masturbation for immediate gratification.

In the first scenario, the partner is not easily accessible. The process is long, requires a lot of effort, the climax of pleasure comes gradually, and a great deal of satisfaction is experienced. In this case, not only is the pleasure deeper, but the likelihood of addiction is much lower due to the length of the process and the amount of effort required.

In the second scenario, the partner is highly accessible. The process is short, requires little effort, and the climax of pleasure comes relatively quickly. As a result, there is less satisfaction compared to the first scenario due to the lack of effort, but the short duration and easy access make it much more addictive.

In the third scenario, the process is very short, requires no effort, and the climax of pleasure is reached very quickly. Even though the pleasure is lower than in the previous two scenarios, due to the absence of a physical partner, the addiction potential is extremely high because of the easy access and speed of the process.

This simplified calculation using the symphony analogy shows just how important time and effort are in achieving true pleasure. It’s not only important physiologically but also psychologically. When something is always easily accessible, and pleasure comes without effort, we as humans tend to fall into a state of lethargy, depression, and anhedonia—an inability to feel pleasure.

Why would you want to invest time and effort in maintaining a relationship that was built effortlessly? Subconsciously, you know that something easily accessible is also easily replaceable. So, instead of working hard to maintain the relationship and learning communication and negotiation skills, you might prefer to exit and move on to a new one. And this cycle could repeat indefinitely.

Personally, I’ve adopted “transparency” as one of my core values, and I’m working to turn it into a habit. This value proves extremely useful in relationships too. For instance, if I want to be transparent from the very beginning of dating and move forward through clear communication and mutual understanding, I would ask my partner right from the first date what their views are on sharing responsibilities and costs. I would ask about their perspective on sexual relationships and how they prefer to approach them. I might even ask on that very first date what their stance is on marriage and having children, and I’d inquire about their life philosophy and values. I’m not suggesting that I turn a first dinner date into a philosophical debate, but asking thoughtful questions that reveal my partner’s outlook and clarify things from the outset is meaningful and valuable to me. This reduces the potential for expectation errors in the relationship. Instead of diving into a relationship with our own personal expectations and constantly being confronted with disappointment, we can reach a common understanding through transparency and mutual agreement.

It’s clear that your partner must also recognize these skills as values and practice them. Otherwise, transparency for many people may bring feelings of shame, embarrassment, or lead to the typical polite hesitations.

The balance of communication skills between partners is crucial from the very beginning of a relationship. Just like in a tennis match, where two players with uneven skill levels cannot play effectively unless the more skilled player patiently teaches their partner and enjoys the process, communication is a similar game. If one person continues to improve their skills while the other lacks the interest or motivation to practice, every rally will face challenges and obstacles. You can apply this analogy to any other skill in life too.

Now, let’s talk about another important value when choosing a partner: kindness. In the language of this book, the “care” operator, which I’ve previously explained, manifests itself as the value of kindness. If you grew up in a family where your parents were kind and encouraged kindness, you would come to believe that being kind is a good thing, and you would likely adopt that value. We discussed this topic in detail in the section on beliefs.

But what exactly does kindness mean? My definition of kindness and my expectations for kind behavior might be entirely different from yours. Sometimes, after discussing and clarifying our values, we realize that we were talking about two completely different things all along. It depends on how kindness was defined and reinforced in your family and society.

For example, if my partner’s idea of kindness is paying for everything, giving gifts, throwing lavish birthday parties, tipping generously at restaurants, and opening car doors for them, I probably won’t come across as a kind person to them, as I wouldn’t engage in any of these behaviors, which don’t align with my values.

Kindness for me is defined in a completely different way. So, if on the first date, my partner tells me that kindness and generosity are their most important values, I wouldn’t immediately think, “Great, we have similar values!” because their definition of kindness and generosity might be entirely different from mine.

We often anchor our values to various behaviors. If beauty is a value for you, your interpretation of beauty might be very different from mine. If having strength and capability is a value for you, you must think about how you interpret and define that value. For example, in one value system, strength might be anchored to financial capability, while in another, it could be tied to self-sufficiency, knowledge, or even physical fitness. The ability to pay for everything might mean nothing to you in terms of strength.

It’s also possible that, from another perspective, kindness is tied to something as arbitrary as your birth month, and before you even make a move, your partner is already judging you based on your birth month and categorizing you according to their value system. When your partner asks about your birth month on the first date, they might be using that information to place you in certain mental categories, avoiding the need for effort or conversation to truly get to know you.

Conversely, in my view, asking about someone’s birth month might lead to me categorizing the person asking the question. If, on a date, someone asked me private questions like my birth month, income level, or how many previous partners I’ve had, they definitely wouldn’t be a good match for me and would be immediately judged by my mind!

Here’s where things get even more interesting: we can sometimes anchor strength or beauty to values like kindness, wisdom, or health, all of which I’ve explained in previous sections on expectations. For me, personally, a wise person with a healthy lifestyle—based on my definitions of these two concepts—is far more attractive than any physical or financial factor.

If you’ve fully understood the “chocolate” analogy I’ve used several times, you’ll realize how two people can talk about the same value while having completely different interpretations, potentially putting them at odds.

Remember the example of paying the bill? From one partner’s perspective, paying is a duty they are expected to fulfill before even meeting, while for another person, this could be seen as offensive.

We can’t effectively talk about our values unless we define and clarify them. As I’ve tried to demonstrate throughout our discussions, I’ve explained my values, such as health, wisdom, and transparency, as clearly as I could.

One of the stories that my German partner often shared with me—and which led to the eventual end of her relationship with a guy from an East Asian family—was about the traditional behaviors of his family. She told me that when they visited his family in East Asia, they wouldn’t allow her to even lift a finger at the table, and they told her to leave all the physical tasks to the men. This upset her so much that it caused friction between them. Although she admitted several times that she understood this was a sign of respect in their culture, she couldn’t accept what she saw as gender-based traditional roles.

This attitude may seem strange to Asians or Middle Easterners, who might think, “Well, of course, they were right! When men are around, why should a guest—a woman—do any heavy lifting?” But from her perspective, it was a form of gender bias, and she couldn’t tolerate it. I’m not bringing up this example—or any of the others—to argue that one view is better or worse than the other. The point is that there’s no hierarchy here, only differences.

Sexual relationships are no exception to this. The culture you grew up in, the values you currently follow, and your personal perspectives shape your romantic and sexual interactions. In many European countries, exchanging a French kiss during the early stages of dating is seen as a way of expressing mutual interest and serves as a confirmation of starting a relationship. On the other hand, delaying a French kiss for months or not initiating a sexual relationship could signal uncertainty or lack of desire between the couple. In contrast, in a traditional Eastern or Middle Eastern culture, delaying any form of physical contact, or even reserving it for marriage, might be interpreted as a sign of respect and deep affection.

As I explained in the section on beliefs, humans are meaning-making creatures, constantly interpreting and assigning significance to their own and others’ behaviors. So what you expect from your partner, and what you value, may not be significant or meaningful to them—in fact, it might be the exact opposite.

Furthermore, we now live in a world where access to various media and the ease of intercontinental travel have blurred the lines between different cultures and value systems. We are witnessing the merging of cultures and values, which can sometimes create conflicts and contradictions.

Transitioning from tradition to modernity, and from Eastern to Western cultural norms, will not happen overnight. It requires time and comes at a cost.