I'm a woman who's fiercely competitive in the business world. I've been rewarded for pursuing deals as relentlessly as highly successful men do. Yet, taking this approach in my dating life -- energetically pursuing men and confidently asking them out -- has been a bust. The men I go after seem to find my openness, excitement, and confidence off-putting. I keep hearing that I need to chill out and let men pursue me. This seems crazy. I shouldn't have to act like a debutante, waiting for a man to ask me out.

--Irritated

In seduction, more is not more. You'll be most attractive if you simply let who you are sparkle -- a term that has more in common with "twinkle" than "immobilize men with the alien death ray of your personality."

As a heterosexual woman, pursuing romantic partners as ferociously as you'd pursue a business deal is especially counterproductive. Though we're living in modern times, we're stuck with an antique psychological operating system, calibrated to solve ancestral mating and survival problems. This means the psychology driving us is sometimes seriously mismatched with our modern world.

For example, we now have reliable birth control, and even if that fails, children won't die of starvation or be eaten by feral goats because the dude who fathered them "hit it 'n' quit it." Yet, we've still got our evolutionary legacy running the show. In vetting potential sex partners, women evolved to be more quality-conscious -- choosier, more "hard to get" -- while men evolved to take a more, shall we say, quantity-driven approach: "The more the merrier! Hey, next time, invite your sisters!"

These differences in sexual choosiness emerge from what evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers explains as men's and women's differing levels of "parental investment." The members of a species with the greatest possible costs from having sex -- like pregnancy and a screaming kid to feed -- evolved to be more selective in mate choice.

Women's emotions are their parental investment watchdogs, pushing them to make sure a man's willing and able to stick around and provide resources. Though some women can take an emotionally Teflon approach to casual sex, anthropologist John Marshall Townsend finds that for many, hooking up comes with some emotional reflux -- even when a woman knows a one-nighter is all she wants from a guy. She'll boot some himbo out of bed only to get all angsty afterward, worrying that the guy she wants nothing more from doesn't want anything more from her.

These differences in male and female mating selectivity showed up in a big way in a recent study looking at heterosexual Tinder users. Belgian econ doctoral candidate Brecht Neyt calculated the percentage of profiles men and women gave "super likes" to -- a function on Tinder as of 2015.

For those uninitiated in Tinder-ese, swiping right "likes" another user, but they will be none the wiser unless they, too, swipe right on you. Swiping up, however, is a "super like," which triggers an automatic notification to the super-liked person. (Annoyingly, the researchers didn't mention or take into account that super likes are generally seen as super uncool -- a sign of desperation -- leading many Tinderers to note in their profile, "If I super like you, I did it by accident.")

Neyt and his colleagues found that men super liked 61.9% of women's profiles, while women super liked only 4.5% of the men's. Their finding is a pretty dramatic reflection of men's evolved quantity-over-quality default. In short: Stripperliciousness is nice, especially when packaged with kindness, intelligence, and killer cooking skills, but "Same species! Not in jail! Has internet access!" works, too.

So, if you're reasonably attractive and in a man's age range, there's a good chance he'll go out with you simply because you ask -- though he may not be interested beyond a hookup. But let's say he's somebody who would be interested in you. Because men co-evolved with women, men expect women to be choosy, and they tend to devalue women who just tumble out of the sky into their lap.

The best test for whether a man has real interest in you is seeing whether he'll lay his ego on the line to ask you out. You aren't without control in this approach; you can flirt with a guy you're interested in to signal that you're open to being pursued by him.

Should things be different? Well, sure, in a more perfect mating universe. But if you want to be successful in this one, you should do what works -- which is driven by men's evolved psychology. Though men will eventually take a selective approach when considering a woman as a long-term partner, many will have sex with anything this side of a pound of liver in the refrigerator (and sometimes that will just have to do).

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

I discovered that the guy I'm dating has a girlfriend he's cheating on. In fact, she confronted us, which was awful. I've had a history of guys cheating on me, and I want to end the pattern. Unfortunately, I'm not attracted to a lot of guys I go out with, and I'm really attracted to this guy.

--Chemistry

Being really attracted to somebody is the go-to excuse for shrugging off a potential partner's shady behavior -- pretty much anything this side of "Well, sure, several of his neighbors are wintering in Ziploc in his basement freezer."

It helps that attraction seems like some mysterious and magical force. It's actually not. Who we're attracted to -- which people, with which features -- is prearranged by our biological robot overlord, aka evolution, via genetic code written into each of us. It's part of evolution's scheme for building better babies -- giving our genes the best shot at being passed on to future generations.

We see this in research by neuropsychologist Bruno Laeng that suggests we are attracted to potential partners who look like us -- though not too much like us. Laeng found that people were most attracted to individuals who share about 22% of their facial features (as opposed to 11% or 33%, the other percentages tested). Other research by social-personality psychologists R. Chris Fraley and Michael J. Marks likewise hit the 22% mark.

Laeng explains that this balancing of "similarity and dissimilarity" (which we do subconsciously) helps us avoid "inbreeding with close relatives," like siblings or first cousins. Inbreeding increases the chances that both partners would have the same nasty recessive genes for a disorder or disease. "Recessive" genes are true to label when they are paired with a dominant gene: They recede...slumping into the background, unemployed, inactive. But when two recessive genes for a condition are paired (like when close relatives with the same recessive gene make a baby), these genes become active -- and so does the disorder or the disease.

As for you, the features you happen to be attracted to come in the package of a guy who cheats on his girlfriend. This reflects bad character. Assuming you didn't go out into Datingland all, "I've just gotta find a sexy sociopath," reflecting on the evolutionary nuts and bolts of attraction might help you stop using it as an excuse and give the shove to Mr. Morally At Leisure.

To avoid again letting the hots for some himbo blind you to his undesirable qualities, make a short checklist -- what I call "man minimums," the qualities you can't do without in a man -- and put character at the top of your list. When a man shows you he comes up short on your "must haves," cut off contact and move on. Ideally, if you're screaming in bed, it isn't because the girlfriend of the guy you're with just burst through the door brandishing a missile launcher.

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

I'm a 20-something gay man dating someone who makes much more money than I do. He picks up the tab on most dates, and while he seems okay with this, it makes me uncomfortable. I pay here and there, but I can't afford much beyond lunch or lattes. Does our financial inequality mean a relationship between us is doomed?

Chances are the guy doesn't think you're hoofing it up to the Coinstar clutching a baggie of change because you feel the nickels and dimes between your couch cushions could do with a little sun.

What matters is how fair a relationship feels. Fair doesn't mean everything's exactly 50-50, as in, he puts in 50 cents; you put in 50 cents. It means you each seem equally invested -- equally motivated to make sacrifices to benefit the other -- as opposed to one of you pulling the cashwagon, plow-style, while the other just hops on, puts his feet up, and enjoys the ride.

When there are imbalances -- when one partner puts in a lot and gets comparatively little in return -- it isn't just the more giving person who gets socked with the feelbad. Social psychologist Elaine Hatfield finds that partners who are "over-benefited" -- who fail to put in their fair share of the relationship effort -- "may experience pity, guilt, and shame," while those who feel "under-benefited" for their contributions can experience "anger, sadness, and resentment."

The way to avoid either of these emotional crap carnivals is to voice your concerns. This should start a conversation that sets you two on track to be loving, equally contributing partners in the way you're each most able -- taking into account that your best bet for making a lot of money in the near future is probably counterfeiting hundred-dollar bills on your inkjet printer.

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

My roommate has this need to tell me all about his day when he gets home. Making matters worse, his main form of communication is complaining. I need quiet time when I come home, not a second job as an unlicensed therapist. I've hinted at this, but he isn't catching on.

Your hopes and dreams change as you go through life -- like when you get a roommate who won't shut up and you regularly fantasize that masked violent orthodontists are holding him down in an alley while they wire his jaws together.

The thing is, you can live this dream -- minus the gangland orthodontists. Retiring from your nightly gig as your roommate's emotional garbage can just takes asserting yourself -- asking for what you want instead of merely hinting at it. Assertiveness is the healthy alternative to being passive -- silently sucking up another person's upsetting and/or unfair behavior -- or going aggressive: eventually blowing up at them after you repeatedly say nothing and they, in turn, change nothing.

The foundation of assertiveness is self-respect -- believing you've got a right to have and express desires and preferences that conflict with others' desires and preferences. Sure, you might sometimes put somebody else's needs first -- but if you're assertive, you're generous by choice, not because you just automatically go all Wimpy McWimpleton.

In contrast, clinical psychologist Randy J. Paterson explains, "When you behave passively, control of your life is in the hands of people around you." He also notes that not asserting yourself leads to stress, the "bodily reaction to the perception that we are under threat." When that stress is chronic -- happening on the regular -- it's poisonous and damaging. It's associated with, for example, decreased immune function and an increased risk for heart attacks, strokes, and other fun ways to get to the morgue ahead of schedule.

Assertiveness is best exercised as soon as you realize you want somebody to change their behavior. When you don't let your annoyance fester, you're more likely to have the composure to open with a little positivity, like saying to your roommate, "Hey, I really admire your openness about your life..." Yes, that's the sound of the truth being sacrificed on the altar out back, but it's for a good cause -- making him feel appreciated rather than attacked. This sets him up to be more amenable to your request that follows: "When I come home, I need an hour or so without conversation so I can decompress." For best results, keep the next part of that silent: "Also so I can refrain from the temptation to bludgeon you with a potato and cut your vocal cords out with a butter knife."

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

Are there any psychological hacks for getting people to like you?

In social interaction, there's a balance between keeping it real and keeping it strategic. Going mad-enthusiastic over somebody you've just met is cute -- if you're a labradoodle. (That also makes it more forgivable when, in your excitement, you pee on the person's shoe.)

There are two essential pieces of advice for getting people to like you: 1. Cool pursuit instead of hot pursuit. 2. Shut up and listen.

1. Cool pursuit: A popularity contest is the one competition where it pays not to try -- or, rather, to seem like you aren't trying. You do this, for example, by making some A-lister wait to talk with you -- "Gimme a sec while I nab that appetizer..." -- even though it's probably killing you inside.

Erring on the side of seeming undereager is important, per psychologist Robert Cialdini's "scarcity principle": The less available something appears to be, the more valuable it seems and the more we want it. Accordingly, my rule: Try to seem more hard to get than hard to get rid of.

2. Shut up and listen: People think they can talk somebody into liking them, but really, you're most likely to listen somebody into doing that. Listening doesn't just mean hearing. It takes effort. It means paying close attention to what somebody's saying and drawing on your emotions to connect with it. That sort of listening is a form of emotional generosity. It ultimately sends the message "I'm talking to you because I'm interested in you and what you're saying," not "...because I haven't had sex since there were dinosaurs grazing where the 7-Eleven now stands."

Listening is also important because it helps you see whether the person you're interested in is actually worthy of your interest. Ideally, you aren't chasing somebody simply because you've been chasing them, and, clever you, you've seen through the liberties they've taken in staging their own death. You, shoving aside a medical examiner and yanking open a bit of the zipper: "Pro tip...the actual coroner does not offer body bags by Louis Vuitton!"

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

I'm a straight woman, and at my recent birthday party, several people remarked about this other woman, also straight, "Whoa, is she infatuated with you, or what?" Straight women getting intense girl crushes on me has actually been a pattern in my life. Weird. A friend says I have "charisma" but couldn't really explain what that is.

--Mysteriously Popular

Charisma is human magnetism. If you're a mugger with charisma, you don't even have to hold people up at gunpoint. They just come over and offer you their wallet.

Charisma can seem mysterious and magical -- like psychological catnip for humans -- but organizational psychologist Ronald Riggio explains that it comes out of a "constellation of ... social and emotional skills" that allow a person to "inspire others at a deep emotional level."

This charisma skill set includes being gifted at talking, listening, connecting, and reading the room. When charismatic people talk, they grab others' attention and emotions by being "real" -- spontaneous and genuine. They're usually great listeners, making people feel heard and understood. And they tend to be powerful public speakers, converting masses of people into followers with their voice, words, and presence.

Take Martin Luther King Jr., booming out -- almost singing -- "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." That idea gets its mojo sucked out if it's delivered by some nervous little pastor, mumbling, "Uh...I hope my kids can someday live in a country where people understand that skin color isn't what's really important."

Though people with charisma are psychologically captivating, a person doesn't have to be physically attractive to have it. Among world leaders considered charismatic, Mahatma Gandhi had a little round head hijacked by a giant mustachioed schnoz, and Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel, looked like she killed a small animal with matted fur and wore it as a hairdo.

Charisma might seem like the personality version of latte foam -- nice but unnecessary for human functioning. However, research by evolutionary psychologist Allen Grabo suggests that we evolved to have "psychological mechanisms which enable an individual -- the potential follower -- to make automatic, rapid and reasonably accurate assessments" of others' leadership potential. Getting behind an effective leader would've allowed ancestral humans "to coordinate effectively and efficiently" for hunting, warfare, and other "recurrent" challenges so they could survive and pass on their genes.

Even people without much charisma can benefit by borrowing from the skill set of the charismatic. (Who among us couldn't do with being a more attentive listener?) But lucky you; you have a social superpower -- the power to charm the masses into following your lead. Hopefully, you'll use it to do good, like by being a Pied Piper for kindness, as opposed to, say, starting a high-end travel business-slash-death cult: "Cyanide-tinis on the Lido Deck at 5!"

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

My boyfriend of nine years often doesn't reply to my texts and emails. He says that we talk daily, and whatever's in my message could be discussed then. Well, it hurts my feelings to get zero response. Not even an emoji.

--Increasingly Angry

Communicating with a man should not compare unfavorably with yelling into a manhole. (Shout "Hello?" into the sewer and you'll at least get the courtesy of a faint "hellooo" or two back.)

An email to your boyfriend is not just an email. It's what marriage researchers John Gottman and Janice Driver call a "bid for connection" -- one of many small attempts people in relationships make to get their partner's attention, affection, or emotional support. In response, their partner could ignore the bid ("turn away"), express irritation ("turn against"), or reply lovingly ("turn toward") -- even just with a smile, a nod, or a hug.

In Gottman and Driver's research, newlywed couples who had "turned toward" each other 86% of the time, on average, were still married six years later. The couples who ended up divorced had a 33% turn-toward rate. On a bleak note, Gottman writes, "I think that you can sometimes actually see people crumple physically when their partner has turned away from their bid for connection."

Explain the "bid for connection" thing to your boyfriend. Tell him you're just looking for some tiny loving reply to your texts and emails -- even an emoji or two. He's human, so he might sometimes let a message slip by unanswered. But if he mostly responds, you'll mostly feel loved instead of "increasingly angry" that messaging him feels like grabbing a handful of words and hurling them into the void. (Of course, in space, no one can hear you scream, but here on Earth, the neighbors tend to call the cops 10 minutes into a blowout.)

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.