It is a theory proposed by evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller in The Mating Mind. He cites that there seems to be a universal pattern to male/female short-term courtship; as well as long-term commitment. He proposes that humans employ the "scheherazade strategy" for long-term commitment, which typically extends for 7-10 years before running its course. The scheherazade strategy is the idea that females have evolved a more verbal proclivity to men because they need to keep a man engaged and interested in more long-term sexual scenarios. This is in line with a lot of psychological research that demonstrates that females start and carry most conversations in long-term relationships; whereas men shoulder this burden during courtship. Furthermore, I also think this theory is logically consistent. It would make sense that there is an evolved strategy that lasts 7-10 years. Evolution is never wasteful and 7-10 years is probably the minimum amount of time necessary to raise a human child at rates successful enough to effect natural selection (and hence favour the selection of pairbonds that can remain stable for 7-10 years). After that, what does evolution care about your pairbond? Energy won't be put towards the stabilization of the bond when it is non-functional. That is why I think the only actually happy long-term exclusive pairbonds are between people who would be really good friends regardless of sex.
I,like thenewgreen, share the same skepticism about that kind of analyses ( I dont know if it has a name, I'd call it "psychological analyses by evolution " or "evolution behaviorism")
Dont get me wrong it's very fun, and entertaining to read. And I'm grateful for your post. But there's no actual fact behind such analyses. It look like some coherent (that's why I like them so much) fiction. Let's take a common human phenomenon,ie : men liking to drive faster, while women dont care that much about speed (I make this up,I have no idea it it's a real phenomenon). I think we can find an evolutionary explanation for that. Like , depending so much on speed for hunting, men get more incentive to go fast as hunter, while women as gatherer dont care that much.
It's a plausible explanation. But masquerading it as science, is a bit far fetched in my book. Evolution may be a good explanation for some human behavior, but like Freudian psychoanalyze can be. It hold together very well, it just lack any proof.
And even if one or the other is true, it's probably not a significant explanation. Economical, traditional weight, aging and changing, and other parameter may have far more role in some behavior (like the 7 year itch) than evolution. (sorry for my poor english)
Throughout my entire post I provide a lot of behavioural evidence to support my assertions. You would have to bring up a specific point I make in the post, so that I can respond to this criticism that I believe is unwarranted. I am not just telling an adaptive story. THIS is ridiculous. There is no evidence for it, and so I have never said it; and would never say it. Now you're going too far. Biology is the base of our behaviour. Evolution is the process by which our biology exists in the way that it does. Culture emerged (and evolved with) our biology. Evolutionary theory is the best way to get at our fundamental behaviour, and there is a ton of evidence to support it.But there's no actual fact behind such analyses. It look like some coherent (that's why I like them so much) fiction.
I think we can find an evolutionary explanation for that. Like , depending so much on speed for hunting, men get more incentive to go fast as hunter, while women as gatherer dont care that much. It's a plausible explanation. But masquerading it as science, is a bit far fetched in my book.
Evolution may be a good explanation for some human behavior, but like Freudian psychoanalyze can be. It hold together very well, it just lack any proof.