I'm a 29-year-old straight woman, and I recently started dating this guy I really like. The only issue is he seems a bit controlling. For example, he always wants to pick the restaurant and which TV show we watch. While I'm generally pretty go with the flow, it seems like I never choose what we're doing. It's one thing to pick the restaurant, but I worry that he might be like this with bigger things (like if we got a place together or got married). Should I be worried?

--Unsure

It's important to have a boyfriend who shows interest in your point of view, ideally beyond, "Are your arm restraints a little tight?"

But before we start measuring you for your "Handmaid's Tale" bonnet, consider whether there's a non-creepy, non-control freakish reason the guy wants to choose the dining establishment and the entertainment. Is he some extreme foodie who pores over restaurant reviews and follows chefs like other guys follow baseball players, while you're simply a chick who likes to eat out?

By the way, I've personally horrified some waitresses who've overheard me asking my boyfriend to tell me what I should order. I do this not because I am some shell of a person and have no opinions but because I got tired of having food envy when our dinners came. I realized my boyfriend is some sort of culinary sniffer dog, using mere words on a menu to divine the tastiest, most exciting entree, much like tracking dogs use an old sweatshirt to sniff their way to a buried dead body.

However, save for the few areas one's partner has special expertise, there are things in a relationship that can be outsourced, and your decision-making should not be one of them. You create who you are through your choices, and if you make no choices, there's no "you."

The elimination by a partner of the need for you to have an opinion could be the beginnings of "coercive control." This is a term by sociologist Evan Stark for an insidious form of subjugation in a relationship that an abuser uses to dominate and control their partner. It's a gradual psychological hostage-taking, breaking down a person's independent self, their concept of reality, and their ability to make decisions for themselves.

Victims of coercive control suffer "perspecticide," which Stark describes as a loss of the ability to "know what you know." This comes through their gradual isolation from friends and family and losing touch with their opinions, desires, and values, including their ability to discern what is right and wrong. Their abuser (who research finds can be male or female) often resorts to intimate partner violence when coercive control of their victim fails, like if he or she shows a flash of independent thought.

In a healthy relationship, a person does not get erased, their perspective never taken into account. Healthy relationships are interdependent. Though one partner might not agree with the other's every belief and idea, they generally respect each other's thinking and are open to their suggestions. Marriage researcher John Gottman describes this as partners accepting each other's "influence."

This mutual influencing seems to make for more satisfying romantic partnerships with more staying power, explains Gottman: "Men who allow their wives to influence them have happier marriages and are less likely to divorce than men who resist their wives' influence. Statistically speaking, when a man is not willing to share power with his partner, there is an 81 percent chance his marriage will self-destruct."

Women tend to be higher in a "pleaser" personality trait, "agreeableness," which, on a positive note, manifests in being warm, kind, generous, and motivated to have positive interactions with others. On a darker note, it can make a woman with a dominant partner more likely to do as she's told. That said, your feelings are not the boss of you, and you can simply decide to override them and assert yourself: Have opinions, make decisions, and stand up for yourself.

Accordingly, your interactions with this man should be driven by the understanding that you are his equal in the relationship, not his subordinate. To see whether he's up for an equal partnership -- a girlfriend rather than a female serf -- tell him you don't think it's healthy for you or the relationship for him to make all the decisions. Going forward, you want shared responsibility for decision-making. For your part in this, you need to take responsibility: Assert yourself by asserting your opinions and desires when there are decisions to be made. This is how you create a healthy relationship instead of a two-person totalitarian state -- complete with a "Gulag Sweet Home" needlepoint and where mundane questions like, "How was your day?" kick off your Soviet show trial.

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 29-year-old straight woman. I recently came to the odd conclusion that I have no idea what I want in a man. Over the past few years, I've been dating a variety of guys and hoping they'll be right for me, and it's not working. Some turn out to be nice guys, but some turn out to be jerks. One turned out to be a truly terrible person, but in hindsight, all were obviously wrong for me. In each case, the underlying problems were always there, but I didn't identify them until things blew up months into the relationship or even a year in. How can I get clear on what I want?

--Lost

Looking for a boyfriend without knowing what you want in a man is like trying to order a meal without knowing what you like to eat: whether you live to put bacon on your bacon or you're a vegan who stifles a sob whenever your mom cracks an egg for your dad's omelet.

Standards are our tool for narrowing down what we want, from lunch to love. In love, it's important to shrink down your potential partner pool, but without setting such high standards (per your own mate value and the current mate "market") that the only boyfriend or girlfriend you'll ever have is the imaginary kind. Though we tend to view having more options -- "Sky's the limit!" "The more, the merrier!" -- as better than having just two or a handful to choose from, research actually finds that having numerous options is often the stuff human misery is made of.

Perhaps because the psychology currently driving us evolved in environments where situations rarely offered more than a few choices -- "Bison breast or drumstick?" "Eat this bug or starve?" -- research on decision-making has found we are unprepared for huge sets of options. We tend to suffer "choice overload": We get overwhelmed, choose poorly, and regret our choice afterward. However, there's a caveat. More choice can be better, explains psychologist Benjamin Scheibehenne and his colleagues, when, prior to making a choice, a person has "well-defined preferences."

That's where standards come in. Our standards for what we want in another person come in large part out of our values, though personality and genetics also play a role. Values are the principles we care most about: the standards we use to guide our behavior. Though most of us probably think of ourselves as good people with good values, the truth is, if asked to quickly name our values, we'd struggle to do it. Being unable to immediately call up our guiding principles means when we need to act quickly, we're often clueless about what we should do, and we're prone to act in ways we end up regretting.

Spelling out your top eight or 10 values will give you a behavioral map: guiding principles for how you'll act and, ultimately, who you are. To write your list, you might look up "lists of values" online. Here are a few of mine (not in any order): 1. Courage. 2. Wisdom. 3. Kindness. 4. Integrity. ... 10. Seizing life (instead of blinking like a cow while it rushes by).

The person you want to be shapes the sort of person you should be with. For example, per my list of values, integrity is vitally important to me. So, when I came up with my standards for romantic partners -- my "must-haves" for any man in my life -- integrity was baked in: "Tall, evolved man of character who thinks for a living and cares about making a difference in the world."

Likewise spelling out your standards for a romantic partner and vowing to stick to them should help you extract yourself when you're magnetized by a Mr. Tall, Dark, and Manipulative: some hunky charismatic creep whose hotitude acts as a sort of sexual eclipse, blocking out what a terrible person he is. Assuming you include integrity in some form on your list, turning to your "must-haves" on a date forces you to look for evidence of good character, and when that's missing, you'll nix the guy and move on.

Of course, being clear on your values and narrowing down what you want in a man won't always be enough. There are some clever sociopaths out there who are pros at hiding who they really are. Coming up with standards for character might not allow you to identify all dignity-crushing exploiters immediately. However, you should be able to do it much faster than with a more "open-minded," hope-driven approach: "Sorry, but I really have to draw the line at dating a man with a tail!"

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.

Quarantine's been weighing on me, and I've been making a lot of unnecessary purchases. I know I need to stop wasting money, but I just keep ordering thing after thing. How can I get that satisfaction from buying something without actually buying it?

--Going Broke

We humans are ever-failing self-disciplinarians, two-legged weasels talking ourselves into things we know we shouldn't do. For example, there's that saying, "Everything happens for a reason." No, the fact that those $800 shoes are now $465 does not count as a reason.

Unfortunately, the more you behave badly, the more disposed you are to keep behaving badly -- that is, to develop a habit of behaving badly. Habits are born on a microscopic level, through what might be called a conspiracy of brain cells. Typically, any action you take requires the triggering of thousands of these tiny cells, called neurons. They fire off electric signals to other neurons, ultimately messaging your body to get it to act.

Because even lifting your finger to pick your nose requires a massive army of neurons, the brain is an energy hog, guzzling more energy than any other organ. Evolution, on the other hand, is big on thrift, so it's implemented energy efficiency measures that sometimes lead you to behave in counterproductive ways.

Whenever you repeat a behavior, retriggering the same army of brain cells, chemical changes occur that effectively wire these cellular troops together into a sort of collective action pack. This puts you on automatic, so, for example, on day two in the Airbnb, you don't have to search for the light switch or figure out how the dimmer works; you just unthinkingly hit the switch and crank the dimmer. The more you repeat a behavior, the more automatic it becomes. You basically go into robozombie habit mode -- mental autopilot -- with nary a consult with your Department of Reasoning, which, in fact, gets shut out entirely from the process.

Obviously, there are good autobehaviors and bad autobehaviors, but behavior you robotically repeat despite adverse consequences (such as becoming a tent-dweller with fabulous shoes) is "compulsive." Neuropsychiatry researcher Judy Luigjes and her colleagues define compulsivity as repeatedly feeling compelled to perform an act (and being unable to stop oneself) while at the same time "being aware" that the act conflicts with one's "overall goals."

Compulsive shopping is often motivated by a longing to escape uncomfortable emotions, for example, anxiety or stress. It has similarities with addiction disorders, observes behavioral economist Shahram Heshmat, such as a "buyer's high," a rush of excitement when purchasing an item. However, the relief from emotional discomfort is quickly replaced by guilt and remorse for the irresponsible spending, which can fuel a "vicious cycle": the need for "another 'fix,' purchasing something else."

To break the cycle, you need to "protect long-term goals from short-term consumption decisions," Heshmat explains. This starts with recognizing your triggers: uncomfortable "negative" emotions like feeling hungry, angry, lonely, or anxious, which make you more likely to fling the future out the window to get that quick-fix buyer's high.

Remind yourself regularly that uncomfortable feelings will not kill you. They're also temporary. Make a pact with yourself that when you feel the urge to shop, you'll instead acknowledge the underlying feelings you're escaping, tell yourself you can handle a bit of feel-bad, and then do what you can to feel better, like calling up a friend. In case you get their voicemail, come up with other healthy diversions like taking a walk or streaming a trashy action flick.

Of course, what you can't see or click on, you can't buy. Stay off shopping websites, and wipe them from your computer by clearing your cache, cookies, and history. You might also prepare to padlock your phone in a box and set a timer for a day, or at least several hours.

To arm yourself with positive motivations to counter negative feelings, prepare to reset your emotional clock from the uncomfortable "now" to the exciting possible future. Stock up mental pictures of the benefits of behaving in financially responsible ways, like a snapshot of you and your friends enjoying drinks at a beautiful condo you buy with your savings.

In time, as you stop responding to bad feelings by click-shopping your way to bankruptcy, the neural tentacles of your habit will weaken, as will the clutches of your compulsion. You might also work up a little compassion for yourself for having it in the first place. Technology has made our lives vastly easier, but it's also given us countless new ways to mess them up. Back in 1347, people were freaked about the bubonic plague, just like we are at the 'rona, but they simply didn't have the option of getting drunk at 2 a.m. and sending off a carrier pigeon with an ill-advised order for obscenely pricey shoes.

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 woman who recently stopped talking with a guy I'd been seeing because, frankly, I didn't find him intelligent enough. He is a good guy, but just a little dim for me. When I told my friends this was the reason I ended things, they said it was a bit snobbish. Does this make me an intellectual snob? I get that he has other good qualities, but I just don't feel like they're enough.

--Nerd Seeking Nerd

Love sometimes requires one to make sacrifices, but these shouldn't include avoiding any words with more than two syllables.

You aren't alone in wanting a partner with smarts. In 1989, evolutionary psychologist David Buss and his colleagues did a massive study exploring mate preferences, including the desire for an intelligent partner, across 37 cultures ("on six continents and five islands"). Their participant group included Gujarati Indians, Estonians, mainland Chinese, Santa Catarina Brazilians, and South African Zulus.

Using such a broad cross-cultural group (rather than just surveying the latest crop of American college undergrads) helps parse which traits might be evolved "human universals," inherited by humans around the globe, irrespective of culture. Universal human traits -- for example, communicating with language and fear of snakes -- evolved to solve recurring problems faced by ancestral humans across continents and over generations, improving our chances of surviving, mating, and, most importantly, passing on our genes.

Buss found that for some mate preferences, "cultures varied tremendously." For example, the Dutch had a "whatevs!" attitude toward whether a partner is a virgin, while people in mainland China, India, and Iran placed a lot of importance on "chastity or virginity" in a partner. There were also strong sex differences in certain mate preferences -- even across cultures -- for example, with men (on average) "always ... valuing virginity more than women." This might help a man avoid a hookup-erella and the evolutionary fail of unwittingly investing in a kid who'll pass on some other dude's genes. Of course, no woman has to worry her kid isn't hers (especially not after 26 hours of screaming labor to push it out).

There were also some universal mate preferences -- across cultures and in both sexes. Buss and his team found that intelligence (as well as kindness and health) were chart-toppers, traits desired by men and women across cultures from Z to Z: from the Zulus to the Croatians in Zagreb.

Granted, Buss did this research 30 years ago. Do his findings hold up? They do -- according to a survey of 14,000 people in 45 countries published in March of 2020 by evolutionary psychologist Daniel Conroy-Beam and his grad student Kathryn V. Walter, in concert with a huge international team of researchers. They write, "Consistent with Buss (1989), our results showed that health, kindness, and intelligence were highly valued by both men and women" around the world.

Why might intelligence in a mate have evolved to be such a strong, culturally universal preference? In research exploring the role of men's intelligence in heterosexual women's mate choices, psychologist Mark D. Prokosch and his colleagues explain that "greater intelligence is generally associated with success in a wide variety of circumstances," most notably, workplace success, leading to higher income. "Selecting a more intelligent mate often provides women with better access to resources and parental investment for offspring." Additionally, smart-man genes are likely to lead to smarter children, making intelligence attractive as an "overall heritable ... quality."

There's a widely held myth that romantic partners need to be near doppelgangers -- have matching traits and interests -- to make it as a couple. This sells memberships to those dating sites promising to ferret out "points of compatibility." However, research by psychologist Manon van Scheppingen finds that varying, complementing personality traits (such as outgoingness or conscientiousness) in partners often lead to to greater relationship satisfaction. That said, it's reasonable to want a partner with a level of smarts that's a pretty good match with yours, because, well, a meeting of the minds is a little hard when one mind is tuned into Cold War documentaries while the other is all up in reruns of "Scooby-Doo."

Chances are the notion that you're a "snob" for wanting an intellectually well-matched partner is driven in part by others' fear that they'll be nixed by potential partners for traits beyond their control. There's this lovely fiction that "what's inside is all that matters." A person's heart and character are deeply important, but you can't just decide to have the hots for some Mr. Libido Repellent because he feeds orphaned baby birds with an eyedropper while taking calls for a suicide hotline. Likewise, you can believe all people have innate value and treat them with respect and dignity and still not feel you're compatible with a partner whose intelligence test results lead to a participation trophy.

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's enabling of his failure-to-launch 26-year-old son is seeming like a deal breaker. Though his son's very likable, he's been fired from every job he's had, including a well-paying delivery job I recently got him, after they perceived liability from his reckless, race-driving ways. His dad lent him a truck, pays the insurance, pays his cellphone bill, and keeps rescuing him on his rent. He spends his days video gaming, getting stoned, and online dating. I was looking forward to getting married, but I don't want my house at risk when his son calls for a bailout. I'm also not sure I want a man who doesn't advance his kids to independence.

--Distressed

Childhood goes so fast. It's only a matter of time before Cody is 85 and expected to post his own bail.

Your boyfriend is acting out of empathy for his son. Empathy is taken for granted as a beautiful thing, but it has a dark side. It comes from the German word, "einfuhlung," meaning "in-feeling" or "feeling into." Obviously, we can't actually tap into another person's feelings, but psychologist Lynn O'Connor explains that when we witness another person's suffering, our "empathy system is alerted, almost as if we were suffering ourselves."

Our initial flare of empathy, this "feeling into" another's suffering, happens automatically. Once we experience it, explain neuroscientists Olga Klimecki and Tania Singer, our empathy can go one of two ways: into unhealthy "empathic distress" or healthy "empathic concern."

Empathic distress is empathy that quickly turns "me-focused." We start feeling really bad about how bad we feel in the wake of our friend's empathy-triggering suffering -- to the point that we're prone to duck our uncomfortable feelings by avoiding our suffering friend. (Nice, huh?) Empathic concern, on the other hand, motivates us to channel our empathy into action. We ask ourselves, "What can I do to alleviate this person's suffering?" and then get to it.

However, even healthy empathic concern has a dark side. You can alleviate somebody's immediate suffering but ultimately hurt them long-term, like when you show them that Daddy's always there to mop up after their irresponsible behavior with a big wad of dollars.

Possibly saving your relationship starts with understanding the complicated mix here. Though Dad is taking action on his son's behalf (as per empathic concern), he's probably driven by empathic distress: a longing to immediately alleviate the pain he feels from his son being in trouble. This is pathological empathy: empathy that ultimately harms both the person it's intended to help and the person doing the helping. For example, in addition to the negative effect on your relationship, you noted (in an email replying to questions I'd asked you) that endlessly picking up his reckless, lazeballs son's tab has tanked your boyfriend's own finances.

Of course, actual helping is judicious helping, like a tough-love refusal to make the consequences of Slacker Boy's actions magically disappear. Forcing this 20-something brat to get socked with the costs is probably the only way he'll get on the path to becoming an independent, fully functioning adult.

You get this, and you told me you've brought it up to your boyfriend "like once a month," framing it in "constructive terms." That isn't working, in large part because Dad has a habit that seems to serve him (at least on the immediate level): Son crashes and burns; Dad swoops in to sweep up the wreckage, and he gets that quick hit of "feel better."

So, though your boyfriend appears to be listening when you talk, he isn't really hearing you; that is, really taking it in and then opening his mind to the possibility that you're right. Only if he really hears you will you see whether he can look critically at his enabling and accept the immediate emotional pain it takes to do what's best for his son and your relationship long-term.

Since you've been unable to get through to him, you might seek out a mediator. A mediator specializes in helping parties truly hear and understand each other. (Find one with a relationship focus at mediate.com, or Google to find free or sliding-scale services locally.) There's also a DIY option from psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden. Spend 12 hours together in a hotel room: no books, TV, smartphones, naps, or walks outside. Except for bathroom breaks, you remain together at all times. Branden told me that when all "avenues of escape are closed off," couples experience real breakthroughs in communication.

If you try either or both of these techniques, and your boyfriend still won't come around, you'll at least know you've done all you could to try to save your relationship. Ideally, the "bonds" of marriage aren't the sort that involve you risking your house if Slacky Sluffoffsky is too stoned to show up for his court hearing.

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.