The Guardian: "Are we hard-wired for infidelity?"

[Pluvious]

I have often wondered how many traits of the human behavior is derived from our evolutionary origins.

Survival of the species would certainly benefit from having a mix of traits, from being bellicose to passive.
Ranging from our farmers, gatherers, hunters and fighters - the mix made us collectively stronger and more resilient.

Intuitively, it would seem our humble origins would benefit from multiple impregnation pairings, and weakened by "mate guarding."

Monogamy may be held up as an ideal, but evolution has other ideas

As an evolutionary biologist who studies sex and relationships, I’m fascinated by these two truths. We humans make romantic commitments to each other – and some also break those commitments by cheating.

This might sound like a modern problem, but for me, it raises questions stretching far back in evolutionary time. Why did we evolve both a tendency to stay and a tendency to stray? If some among us will inevitably cheat, does that mean humans are hardwired for infidelity?

...

Yet some of us seek novelty more than others. In 2010, my research colleagues and I made a shocking discovery when we found that some people’s genetic makeup does indeed create a predisposition to engage in infidelity. We conducted behavioural surveys and collected DNA from a sample of young adults. We then compared the subjects’ reported behaviours against their genetic variations. Specifically, we looked at genes that influence the function of dopamine receptor cells in the brain.

In the brain, dopamine creates feelings of excitement and anticipation, and past research had shown that people who had the “long” version of specific dopamine genes, rather than the “short” version, tended toward thrill-seeking and risk-taking behaviour. This includes associations with alcohol abuse and gambling. In our study, we found that people who have the “long” version of the dopamine D4 receptor gene were 50% more likely to report having engaged in infidelity, and they were more likely to have done so multiple times.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/feb/15/are-we-hard-wired-for-infidelity

[stopdiggin]

1. there are also variations on how it is possible to LOOK at the question

What is the construct - and how are the various components there viewed?

I.e., is 'staying', 'pairing' - the same thing as (or always the equivalent of) fidelity and sexual monogamy?
Is a 'thrill seeker' essentially the same thing (or motivated by the same factors - or more pointedly DNA?) - as a person that leaves a 10 year marriage, due to boredom, incompatibility, or rediscovered emotion/love in another 'partner'? Is 'pairing' or fidelity the same thing, or even similar, in the two cases?

Then too - how much of 'pairing'/sexual monogamy is really more social construct, pressure and expectation - as compared to 'hard wired' behavior? Where does polygamy and partner plurality fit into a construct of 'pairing' and 'staying' .. ?

Biology is one thing ... How we view (interpret and judge) our behaviors ... Is kind of in a different corner of the room.

[msongs]

2. it was far different when people lived in small tribal social circles. learned behavior

is different when ya got 8 billion in your tribe

[LudwigPastorius]

3. "I can't help it, baby. It's in my genes!"

"If you'd kept it in your genes, I wouldn't be leaving you."

[Skittles]

4. maybe we're just not hard-wired for marriage

[OldBaldy1701E]

5. Well, that is a human construct.

And a religious one at that.

Maybe it is time to reconsider that concept as a 'given' in our society?