My girlfriend of three years recently took a trip home for a weekend wedding. Before she left, I asked her, "Can you set my expectations as to how often I'll hear from you?" She said she'd call every day. She called each of the three days but never stayed on the phone very long, always giving some excuse: She was in a bar, the hosts were sleeping, etc. In three days, she spent a total of 43 minutes speaking and reconnecting with me. I told her I felt really hurt by how little time she allocated. She responded that there were things planned, that she was sometimes at the behest of others driving her places, etc. I am sure that's all true. Though I'm not insecure, I've felt insecure about my relationship with her. So...what do you think? Do I have a valid reason to feel neglected and invisible?

--Ignored

Where there's smoke -- like, say, puffs of it coming out of a first-floor window -- there's sometimes a stick of incense burning; no reason to run for the garden hose and turn the living room into a stylishly furnished wading pool.

If your girlfriend imagined what you'd be doing in her absence, it probably wasn't standing over the phone for 72 hours straight, willing it to ring. Chances are, she isn't entirely tuned in to how insecure you are about her commitment to you. Also, wedding weekends these days tend to be packed with activities from breakfast to nightcap. So...there's an initial idea of how much alone time one would have, and then there's the actual free time between sleep, showering, and "Our ride's here! You can take your rollers out on the way to the church!"

As for the het-up state you found yourself in, what I often call our "guard dog emotions" can be a little overprotective -- and that's actually an evolved feature, not a flaw. It's sometimes in our best interest to see unclearly. In fact, human perception evolved to be inaccurate at times -- protectively inaccurate, explain evolutionary psychologists Martie Haselton and David Buss, in favor of helping us survive and pass on our genes.

This makes us prone to be oversensitive to signs of infidelity -- which is to say, our suspicion is easily triggered, even by harmless, innocent behavior. This oversensitivity is evolutionarily sensible -- protective of our interests. For example, it's typically much more costly for a man to be undersensitive -- all "Naw, I'm sure everything's fine!" -- when he's about to be deceived into paying for college, grad school, and rehab for a kid with some other dude's genes.

The problem is, an infidelity alarm system that defaults to DEFCON "HOW DARE YOU, YOU HUSSY!" can also take a toll, even on a partner who really loves you. The jealousy, possessiveness, and badgering for reassurance that ensue can make the cost of the relationship start to outweigh the benefits. This isn't to say you can't ask for reassurance; you just need to do it in a way that doesn't make your partner long to put you out on the curb like an old couch.

First figure out whether there's anything to those alarm bells going off in you -- whether you have any reason to believe your girlfriend is cheating or is unhappy in the relationship. If not, chances are, your compulsion to turn her iPhone into her wireless leash stems from what the late psychologist Albert Ellis called "catastrophizing" -- telling yourself it would be HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE and you would just DIE EVERY DAY FOREVER if your relationship ended. (Drama queen!) (P.S. We've all had our turn wearing the dingy tiara of gloom.)

The reality is, a breakup could lead to a stretch of mope-apalooza -- weeks or months snot-sobbing into a pillow, along with the occasional sobfest in the frozen foods aisle. Obviously, you'd rather not go through this. HOWEVER!...if you did, you'd eventually recover, get back out there, and maybe even get into a relationship that's better for you.

Reflect regularly (like, daily) on this rational corrective to your irrational thinking; accept that your relationship could end and admit that you could deal if it did. Once you calm down a little, ask your girlfriend for clarification and reassurance about her feelings for you. In time, when she's away, you could be obsessing over those highly enjoyable activities we women call "weird gross guy stuff": Eat black bean taquitos and try to break your previous records for fart volume and velocity. Play "Minecraft" for 46 hours straight, wearing only a pair of superhero underwear. And finally, seize the opportunity to create timeless art -- which is to say, draw a face on your penis and shoot remakes of classic films: "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope!"

My friend just joined a dating site for elite creative professionals. Unfortunately, it grabs your age from Facebook, so you can't shave off years. At 50, she's outside of most men's search parameters -- even older men's. What gives?

--Concerned

Aging is especially unkind to straight women on dating sites. At a certain point (usually age 46 on), women find their options narrowed to men who wear jewelry -- the kind that sends the message, "I've fallen, and I can't get up!"

A study by psychologist Jan Antfolk and his colleagues looked at sex differences in the preferred age of romantic partners. They found -- as have other researchers -- that "women are interested in same-aged to somewhat older men" throughout their lives. Men, on the other hand, "show a tendency to be sexually interested in women in their mid-twenties," a preference that emerges in their teen years and (sorry, ladies!) remains consistent as men age. And age. And age.

Men's continuing attraction to 20-something women makes evolutionary sense, as, the researchers note, "the highest fertility" in women "has been estimated to occur in the mid-twenties." However, when older men are asked to think practically -- when asked not which women are running naked through their mind at the checkout stand but whom they'd have a relationship with -- women more similar in age have a shot. For example, research led by evolutionary social psychologist Abraham Buunk found that "men of 60 years old would marry a woman of 55."

Unfortunately, the online dating world -- with the seemingly endless stream of hot 20-something women -- is not exactly fertile ground for practicality and realism. It isn't that men on dating sites who are aging into the grandpa zone could necessarily get the 20-something chickies. But I suspect that these women's mere presence -- hordes and hordes of them -- has what's called an "anchoring effect."

This is a term from research on decision-making by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. They found that a person's "initial exposure" (to a particular price, for example) "serves as a reference point and influences subsequent judgments about value." Accordingly, in online dating, I suspect there's a reference point that gets set -- and it is 22 and bombshellicious and has yet to have a whole lot of meaningful contact with gravity.

Putting this in a less depressing way, in seeking male partners, context matters. Your friend will have more interest from men when she's in a room -- in real life -- where the female competition is limited in number and is around her age. She might have better luck in online dating at a site specifically for older people. Sites that aren't for the over-50 crowd only are likely to be a continuing disappointment -- along the lines of "Hmm...could it be that I accidentally set my preferences to 'wants to die alone in an avalanche of her own cats'?!"

I'm a single chick in my early 30s, and I'm having financial difficulties. I got laid off, and depressingly, it's really hard to find work. Though I want to talk to my friends about it, I'm afraid they'd think I was trying to borrow money, so I've been keeping to myself.

--Unemployed

When you've been unemployed for a while, it becomes awkward to propose get-togethers: "Hey, wanna go out on Friday night for a glass of air?"

However, avoiding your friends is probably making things worse -- or at least keeping you from feeling better -- because social relationships seem to buffer stress, including stress from one's currently grim "socioeconomic status." This term, explains social psychologist Emily D. Hooker, refers to "an individual's relative rank in society based on their income, education, and employment." Hooker notes that lower socioeconomic status -- whether measured by such things as income and occupational prestige or mere perception of one's own status -- is associated with higher mortality and poorer health. (Great, huh? You're not only short on cash; you're being rushed into an urn.)

But there's good news from Hooker's research. When participants were exposed to social stress in a lab situation, those who perceived themselves to have lower socioeconomic status but felt they had social support from others in their lives had lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol (as compared with those with a more "Eek! I'm all alone!" orientation).

As for you, guess what: People who care about you want to know what's going on with you. Ask your friends to join you in activities that don't cost money, like gallery openings, and they'll get that you're just looking for company, not moocher-tunities. You really can have both the support and fun of friendship and a bank account that resembles one of those shells of a building in the Old West with a few tumbleweeds blowing through it.

I went out with a feminist who was all into women's empowerment, but when the bill came, she made no effort to chip in. Please explain this type of feminism. Is it somehow possible that she didn't notice the check?

--Incredulous

It is possible that she didn't notice the check. It's also possible that she likes to take time off from complaining about paternalistic behaviors to sample the ones that work best for her.

While this appears to be a glaring example of self-serving selective feminism, research suggests there's sometimes a more charitable explanation for absurdly contradictory beliefs and behavior. Though most people believe that there's a single consistent you (or me) with stable beliefs and preferences, this actually seems to be an illusion. In fact, if there's one thing that's consistent about humans, it's how inconsistent we all tend to be (and -- it gets better -- how consistent we are in vigorously denying that).

Cognitive scientist Colin Martindale theorized back in 1980 that we have a number of "subselves" -- sub-personalities with varying beliefs and priorities -- that go active or sink into the background depending on the context at hand. In other words, whichever goal is front and center in your mind -- like "Fight patriarchal oppression!" or "Take this totally adorbs patriarchal oppressor home to bed!" -- drives how you think and behave.

Research by neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga suggests Martindale was right. Gazzaniga's findings also led him to the conclusion that our mind has a janitor of sorts -- a psychological one he calls "The Interpreter" -- that tidies up in the wake of our inconsistencies by creating justifications for them. These, in turn, allow us to view ourselves as consistent and rational -- instead of laughably hypocritical, like a feminist who, when the check comes, stares skyward, all "Wow! That is one of the most well-preserved examples of the early-'90s popcorn ceiling!"

However, again, more charitably, everybody these days is confused about who's supposed to pay on dates (and when and what it all means). For example, a woman will chip in on the first date because she earns a living, too! -- or because the prospect of sex with the dude is akin to "Would madam enjoy her Caesar salad with a light dusting of E. coli?"

To suss out where this woman is coming from, you need more information, and to get that, you'll need further interaction -- on the phone or, even better, in person. (Action reveals character.) Sure, she could be a hypocrite riding the patriarchal free dinner train -- or maybe she finds it icky to split the check and figured she'd get the next one. It's also possible she'll reciprocate with a home-cooked meal -- because you picked a place where the water alone costs $11 and she's busy completing a dog walking internship while moonlighting as a freelance field hand.

This girl I've been dating for two months is soon going to Brazil for three months! We aren't officially committed, so it seems unfair to ask her to be monogamous. We plan to stay in touch, but I don't want to hear about her with other dudes, and selfishly, I don't want to stay home, all celibate like some war bride.

--Realistic Or Cracked?

It's very considerate of you to suggest three months sexually off leash, as she is traveling to the ancestral homeland of male supermodels, where a chunk of the GNP is dependent on Carnival -- a weeklong drinking, samba, and sex fest.

The problem is jealousy, one of our guard dog emotions. Evolutionary psychologist David Buss explains that jealousy rises up automatically to help us fend off "potential mate poachers" and prevent a mate from "defecting." Because it's set on "auto," it can be hard to override.

That said, though you don't have a committed relationship with this woman -- let alone an "open" one -- you might be able to make use of a psychological tactic of people in sexually open relationships. It's called "compersion" -- taking pleasure in your partner's getting pleasure, even if it's from some other, uh, provider. Granted, this is probably about as realistic for most people as their Ubering to a party via unicorn. However, it dovetails nicely with my fave quote about love, from sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein: "Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own."

Float the idea of planned cooperative ignorance, and ask her to think on it for a few days. (People often have more reasoned responses to hot-button issues when they aren't expected to reply pronto.) Also, it doesn't hurt that she's the one wintering where stone-sober women are tempted to stop men on the street with "Excuse me, but would you mind if I licked black beans off your ridiculously chiseled abs?"

I'm the female author of a funny memoir about sex addiction and relationships. Unfortunately, I now have male readers asking me on dates via email, even if they don't live in this country! To put it politely, few are men I'd ever be interested in. Also, it feels creepy to be asked out because somebody read all about my sex life. How do I kindly turn them down?

--Disturbed

Some will say you should be flattered that these men are showing interest. These people don't quite get that men hitting on you because they read your sex addiction memoir are appealing on the level of a barista who hits on you by drawing a penis and a question mark in your latte.

As for your observation that most of these guys are attempting to date out of their league, men actually seem to have evolved to try to do that -- to be all "As I see it, those Victoria's Secret Angels just haven't met the right chronically unemployed, creatively hygienic neckbeard who still lives with his mother."

This seemingly delusional overconfidence in men on the prowl aligns with how evolutionary psychologists Martie Haselton and David Buss observe that both men and women seem to have evolved to sometimes perceive the world inaccurately -- seeing our opportunities or potential danger in beneficially distorted ways. This sometimes involves over-perception -- erring on the side of seeing more than what's actually there -- and it sometimes involves under-perception, seeing less than what's actually there.

Because, for a woman, having sex can lead to nine months of soccer ball-like ankles and other pregnancy fun, plus (eventually) a child to feed, women seem to have evolved a protective bias toward underperceiving men's level of commitment. Men, on the other hand, have a chance to pass on their genes every time they have sex. So they tend to have a sexual-overperception bias -- seeing signs of mere friendliness or even utter apathy as "This babe wants me! Yepperoo. Hot for bridge troll!"

That's probably what's going on here -- men erring on the side of "ya never know!" Let them down with dignity. Treat them as if they have value as men and human beings, with something like "I wish I could, but I'm sorry to say, I have a firm policy that I never date readers." But perhaps a better first option would be to answer only the part of the email about the book, totally ignoring the part where they gracefully ask you out: "I really enjoyed your book, and now I'd like to enjoy you!"

Could you please educate me in the nuances of "I'm sorry"? My girlfriend sometimes says my apologies don't count because of the tone of voice I use when I say "I'm sorry." She said I sound "resentful instead of apologetic." Shouldn't she just accept the apology and not split hairs like this?

--Man In Apology Doghouse

Ideally, your tone of voice in apologizing simply communicates "I'm sorry" and not "I'm sorry you're such a total idiot about this."

Whenever you speak, the emotional packaging -- your tone and attitude -- is an integral part of the message. That's because, as evolutionary psychologist Laith Al-Shawaf and his colleagues explain, one function of human emotions is to act as signals, broadcasting our feelings, perceptions, and intentions. Accordingly, an apology in a snarly package -- words of regret delivered in a resentful tone -- reads not as an apology but as an evasion of responsibility in an apology suit.

For an apology to count for us psychologically -- allow us to let go of our hurt and anger and move on -- it needs to be backed with sincere remorse. This isn't to say you have to throw yourself weeping at a person's feet because you left the toothpaste cap-free for the 500 millionth time. Your tone just needs to translate to a sort of pledge to try to do better -- which suggests that you value the person and the relationship, which allows them to trust you going forward.

But let's say you're snarling "sorry!" because you feel whatever was expected of you (that you fell short of) was ultimately unfair. In that case, it's better to instead say, "I see you're feeling upset" or "hurt" -- "...and I think there's a misunderstanding here that we need to discuss." If things are too heated in the moment, you can ask to talk in a few minutes or an hour or whatever. This tack is sure to have a far better outcome than the classic unapologetic apology -- "I insincerely apologize for the thing you say I did" -- which tends to be met with "I'm so sorry you'll be taking this mildewy army blanket and going out and sleeping on the lawn chair...indefinitely."