I'm a single woman in my mid-30s with an older half brother I haven't seen in 20 years. He started calling me several years ago, and we speak sporadically (always instigated by him). He's married and refers to me as the aunt to his four children (whom I've never met). Recently, he asked whether they could all stay with me for a while. On the next call, he asked to borrow money. I have yet to give him answers. I can't help but suspect he just intended to use me all along. Is there a way to figure out whether that was the case? If so, I really don't want anything to do with him.

--Wary

If you have to give a 40-year-old kid a home in your basement, the kid should at least be yours.

Unfortunately, a lack of money is sometimes the root of newfound family. When your half brother first called, it probably seemed like a nice thing. But now that he's hitting you up for money and housing, it's natural you're wondering whether he was just priming you for financial seduction.

There are two clashing evolutionary motives in play here: our motivation to sacrifice in order to help our relatives and our motivation to avoid being scammed.

It's in our genetic self-interest to sock away our money and other resources for any children we might have, who'll carry approximately 50% of our genes (plus 50% of their other parent's). However, evolutionary psychology research consistently finds we're prone to set aside our own interests when people in need are related to us, well beyond whatever generosity we'd show to friends or even needy strangers.

This makes genetic sense. Half siblings like you and your brother have about 25% of the same genes, on average. That's not the 50% you'd share with a full sibling (on average), but it's not nothing. Half bro's children might share a smattering of your genes (maybe 12.5% or thereabouts). So, by helping half bro, you potentially help at least some of your genes show up in coming generations. That said, our level of relatedness factors into how willing we are to incur costs, though these calculations are done subconsciously. In other words, if this guy were your full brother, you might be more inclined (or a little less disinclined!) to fork over money and bedrooms.

We likewise evolved to be on the lookout for scammers. In a harsh ancestral environment, getting conned out of our share of bison McNuggets might be a life-or-death issue. Evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby find that the human mind has a specialized mechanism for detecting "cheaters," meaning people who intentionally try to take a benefit they aren't entitled to.

An example of this would be someone scooping up the benefits of being family when his real motivation was just milking you. Granted, you and half bro are family; however, had he not asked for money along with a place to stay, you might not feel so set up. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely's research finds that outside of business situations, the mere mention of money sours relationships, "introducing market norms" into interactions with friends, family, nice neighbors, and romantic partners.

"Market norms" are "give to get" business norms. The supermarket gives us a loaf of bread, and we give them $3 to get out the door without getting arrested for shoplifting. "Social norms" are the love- and liking-driven standards that guide our giving to friends, family, neighbors, and romantic partners. We don't expect instant payback (or, sometimes, any payback), and we don't keep an accounting ledger: "I helped you move your couch. You need to come over and spend a half-hour mopping my floor."

Elements of social norms do emerge in market situations (like if the butcher is fond of you), and when friends or romantic partners are "all take," we eventually give them the boot. However, muddying the two norms -- like if a guy has sex with his girlfriend and leaves a wad of cash on the nightstand afterward -- can be disastrous. As Ariely puts it, once market norms spill into social norm-driven situations, "recovering a social relationship is difficult."

Because of the pandemic, many are struggling and suddenly desperate, so it's possible your half brother's intentions were warm and familial rather than cold and calculating. It'll probably take time (with continuing contact) to suss out where he's coming from. Saying no to him (at least initially) might also do the job -- leading him to blow up and disappear if he's just there to milk and bilk. Of course, if he's a scheming sociopath, he might take the long view, deciding Auntie ATM just needs more "grooming" before he can pull off the middle-class version of the vagrant who tells you you're beautiful so he can ask you for a dollar.

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 in my early 20s. My friends say I have "daddy issues," because I tend to date men in their 30s. (I do have a decent relationship with my dad). I find men in their 20s generally immature, slobby, and inconsiderate, with limited communication skills (and no desire to improve them). I can't see how being frustrated with that means there's something wrong with me, but I hear "daddy issues" so much I'm starting to wonder.

--Annoyed

Live with a 20-something manchild and you get the idea that guppies are on to something in how they sometimes eat their young -- long before their gupp-ettes start spending their days smoking weed, playing Mortal Kombat 11, and waiting for the trash to grow legs, waddle out back, and throw itself in the dumpster.

Your friends join countless people with zero background in the therapy game who are quick to "diagnose" others with various insulting psychological issues. Luckily, few have the medical hubris to give your forehead a squint across the hors d'oeuvres and announce, "Excuse me, but I think you have a small tumor named Max pressing on your frontal lobe."

Clinical psychologist Darren Fowler and his student, Sara Skentelbery, investigated the rather common belief that a woman who dates older men (by 10 or more years) has "daddy issues": an unhealthy relationship with her father. Comparing elder-dating women with women dating more age-matched men, they found no support for the notion that they were using these men as psychological grout, a la, "I love how you fill the void from my pops never coming to my violin recitals."

Evolutionary psychology research on female mate preferences suggests you might not be drawn to older men, per se, but men who are more mature, more willing to commit, and more able to support any children you might have together. In a few years, as guys closer to your age meet these benchmarks better, you might start dating men just slightly older (as research finds women tend to do). This only changes when women hit their 70s, when many become willing to give (somewhat younger) young bucks a shot. At this point, their friends in assisted living probably tell them they have "cradle issues," but probably just because they're jealous from eavesdropping on them through the walls: "Shout dirty to me, Chad!"

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 30-year-old woman. My ex is an extremely wealthy and successful Wall Streeter I found to be a charming sociopath: lying, manipulative, and willing to do anything to win. I was curious about the woman he was with before me, so I Googled her. Like him, she's in her 40s and very good-looking. She's really accomplished: an Ivy grad and founder and CEO of a successful company. I was surprised to see she's dating a guy who's a construction manager. With all she has going for her, why would she move from my ex to this man?

--Curious

Dating a sociopath lets you experience what it's like to go temporarily insane. You scratch their back; they'll stab yours and then somehow get you apologizing for how rude you were to leave those big blood stains all over their rug.

It's not surprising that you and this other woman were drawn to Darth Trader. Research finds that women (from the Amazon to the, uh, Amazon.com) are driven to try to land high-status, high-earning men. But evolutionary psychologist Norman Li observed that, in some studies, this priority sometimes ranked surprisingly low on research participants' wish lists. Li attributed this to how a good deal of mating research gave participants "sky's the limit" options that don't reflect the real-world constraints on people's choices; for example, the "trade-offs normally made when people select mates, whose traits come in bundles." ("Good earner" is packaged with "looks vaguely Neanderthal.") Context also matters, like whether a person's own mate value, on a scale from 1 to 10, is "Little Engine That Could"-ing its way to 6.

Research by sociologist Yue Qian, among others, does find that high-earning, highly educated women tend to go for higher-earning, more highly educated men. However, it's possible that, for this woman, feeling burned by a "great on paper" guy who treats others as vending machines for his needs provided powerful "context," motivating her subsequent choice of boyfriend. I see that women in their 30s and 40s who previously snubbed men who weren't power brokers often start putting more weight on finding a loving man with good character. For this particular woman, a manly-man urban cowboy on a bucking earth mover might be just the change she needs -- even temporarily -- from a selfish, sociopathic Wall Street pretty boy. Ideally, if a woman describes the man she's with as "amazing," it shouldn't be because he's living proof that a human being can survive for decades without a heart.

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.

Bright red lipstick is my trademark. It makes me feel attractive and confident: ready to take on the world. A female friend criticizes me at parties about my leaving a lipstick mark on my glass, even when it's a plastic cup. She says it's disgusting, often when guys are listening. Is this her problem or bad etiquette I need to change?

--Girl Unpowered

According to annoyed caterers ranting online, lipstick on glass has staying power second only to nuclear garbage and nightmare party guests ("But there was no checkout time on the invitation!"). So, it's possible this woman is a well-meaning etiquette activist acting on behalf of beleaguered dishwashing staff everywhere. Except -- wait, she also bashes you when you're drinking out of a plastic cup, and I'm guessing the garbagemen don't get miffy when there's a lipsticked Dixie cup next to the corpse in the dumpster they're emptying.

Your experience reminded me of a meangirling a friend got when she was 11. A cute French boy sat next to her during the school assembly. She was basking in crushy happiness when the girl in front of her turned and gave her the dagger-eye. "You're ugly," she announced and turned back around. Luckily, French Boy was kind of awesome, and as my friend sat there speechless -- feeling head-to-toe soggy-diapered in shame -- he pointed at the mean girl and made the hand-twirly "she's nuts" sign.

Girls and women are rarely so direct -- so openly and transparently aggressive. Though men compete openly and even proudly for mates, jobs, and social status, psychologist Anne Campbell finds that female competition is usually "covert" (meaning hidden or camouflaged and easily denied or explained away). Basically, it's like poison gas. You only learn you're under attack when you're writhing on the floor seeing the tunnel at the end of the light.

Campbell believes this strategy -- avoiding direct confrontation that could lead to physical retaliation -- evolved to protect women's reproductive machinery and keep them alive to feed and care for children. Women's indirect aggression plays out in sneaky sabotage tactics like using malicious gossip to get another woman ostracized and noxious criticism like you're experiencing (often dressed up as "I just want to help!") to shame hot women in sexy little outfits into going around in more tarplike attire.

As for how you get a meangirl to stop meangirling on you, there's a bit of a problem. Psychologist Joyce Benenson explains that "women honestly do not believe they compete with one another." This belief helps them compete far better -- with more social and psychological leeway to do rotten things -- than if they were aware of their competitive nature. Benenson observes, "Nothing works better than self-deception" to give a woman the upper hand in conflicts of interest with other women while helping her avoid retaliation.

While from boyhood war games on, to be male is to be openly competitive, Benenson finds that girls and women get outraged when they see another being unapologetically ambitious. Sure, there are social alpha girls, girls who have more power -- like to choose which new girl in school will be the group's kickball for the year -- but girls long to be seen as "nice," and nice girls don't stand out above the others. Girls who dare show superiority or boast set themselves up as targets of girl-group punishment.

Looking at your situation through the lens of female competition suggests an approach: pulling her aside and being assertive one-on-one. If you instead do this publicly, it gives her an audience to play to, allowing her to act all wounded that you're so "mean" to her when she's, yes, just trying to help! Supposed public meanness on your part might also energize her to seek revenge, like with post-event whispers about your attention-seeking with the "trashy" lipstick that reels in all the boys.

Assertiveness is at its most powerful when it's brief, firm, and unapologetic. A helpful guiding principle is security expert Gavin de Becker's line, "No is a complete sentence." So, for example, you could say: "Stop making comments about my appearance. My lipstick or whatever. Now. No more." Expect her to make excuses, but don't engage with her. Just say: "We don't need to talk about it. Just stop." This shows her you won't be a compliant victim.

Ideally, this experience will serve as a template for dealing with ugly "helpfulness" from women. Despite women's reputation as the kinder, gentler sex, we just come off that way because female aggression goes around in a disguise. If the Miss America pageant really wanted to showcase women's special abilities, they'd have a talent competition with each contestant using sneaky psychological warfare to destroy her social and romantic rivals -- like by suggesting a competitor heal the world with some comfort-eating. ("Give pizza a chance!")

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 in my late 20s in a happy, committed relationship. I had the idea of going to a therapist with my boyfriend so we can learn to communicate better, etc. Friends I've told about this see it as a sign of "trouble in paradise." Is it possible I'm in denial and there's something wrong between my boyfriend and me?

--Unsettled

Be glad your friends are not in charge of airplane maintenance. It's annoying when a nonstop flight makes an unscheduled stop -- especially when it involves going down in flames in a cornfield.

We're given training in how to read, write, and drive, and if you go on YouTube, somebody will teach you how to do magic tricks with your blender. Only in our romantic relationships are we expected to be untrained geniuses. Unfortunately, this expectation pairs poorly with therapist Albert Ellis' realism on what it means to be a person (in language he suggested to a client): "I'm a human, fallible being who screwed up and may screw up in the future because (of) my fallibility."

So, though there's a tendency to see therapy (for individuals or couples) as something you do only when you're broken, it shouldn't be that way. It can be a tuneup to help a good relationship be even better. For example, when I do relationship mediations for couples, I help them see each other's sometimes conflicting wants -- he wants this/she wants that -- not as threats but as mere facts to manage (with love and respect). You can find your partner's request unreasonable or even crazy, but if it's not a big deal for you to come through, maybe you do it simply because you love them and want them to feel good. (If it is a big deal, you can at least tell them lovingly why you wish you could but you can't.)

A relationships researcher I respect, psychologist John Gottman, gives weekend workshops for couples that can be attended online (gottman.com). Couples on a budget could just get Gottman's book, "The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work," out of the library and read and discuss a section a week. Gottman's workshop or book would also be a great wedding present. We find wedding vows romantic, but we tend not to consider that "till death do us part!" would have been a great T-shirt slogan for enemy soldiers trying to off each other in the Hundred Years' War.

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 live in California, where there's outdoor dining. My husband and I disagree about bringing our dog to restaurants. Our pooch has to sit under the table, and I think it's really dirty and unkind to put him there. My husband thinks we should bring him. What do you think?

--Concerned

Dogs long to please us, which is why they always give us such wonderful little presents: "Wow, Toto, headless dead bird? Oh, good, because a diamond tennis bracelet would be super boring."

By human cleanliness standards, dogs are seriously disgusting. The "Merry Corpsemas!" gifts on the duvet and the love some breeds have for rolling around in the mud (immediately after you spend $75 at the groomer) aren't the half of it. Dogs live to sniff poo; they'll snub their water bowl to drink out of the toilet; and they have the lovely habit of using your Persian rug for toilet paper -- especially when you've got company over for a chi-chi cocktail party.

In other words, any minor foot dirt under a restaurant table is unlikely to be a problem for your dog. All that's likely to be "really dirty" are the looks you might get from patrons with allergies or dog-in-dinery issues. From your dog's perspective, it'll be simply awesome to be at your feet.

Anthrozoologist John W.S. Bradshaw explains that dogs co-evolved with humans, starting between 15,000 to 25,000 years ago, per archeological estimates. Over all those doggie-human generations ever since, dogs have been bred to find human contact extremely rewarding. Bradshaw and his colleagues discovered that some dogs -- Labs and border collies, for example -- suffer intense "separation distress" when they're apart from their human. "They find it difficult to cope without us," writes Bradshaw. "Since we humans have programmed this vulnerability, it's our responsibility to ensure that our dogs do not suffer as a result."

As I see it, we're cruel to exclude dogs from so many areas of our lives. Take airline travel. Airlines require dogs over 20 pounds -- no matter how well-behaved -- to be put in a cage and stowed with the luggage in the hold of the plane. The airlines could easily adopt a more compassionate policy: Instead, give the cage space to that baby who's sure to scream all the way from Dallas to St. Louis, trashing the mental health of everybody from 1A to 32E.

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.