Cuatro áreas de estudio, cada una con sus límites.
Estudiamos cómo se desarrollan las decisiones, las emociones, las relaciones y la atención. De cada área y de cada marco publicamos qué estudiamos, en qué evidencia nos apoyamos y qué no afirmamos.
Qué estudiamos y hasta dónde llegamos.
Comportamiento y decisiones
Cómo se combinan las tendencias biológicas, las señales del entorno y los hábitos aprendidos cuando decidimos.
Se apoya en la psicología evolutiva, la economía del comportamiento y la neurociencia.
Describimos tendencias: la conducta humana tiene patrones reconocibles y aun así no se puede predecir del todo. Afirmar más sería ir más lejos que la evidencia.
Regulación emocional
Cómo aprendemos a entender, modular e integrar las emociones, con métodos adaptados de la TCC, la DBT y la ACT como entrenamiento preventivo.
Se apoya en la investigación terapéutica y en prácticas contemplativas, usadas como se usa el ejercicio para la salud: cualquiera puede entrenar estas habilidades sin un diagnóstico.
Es entrenamiento preventivo. No reemplaza la psicoterapia ni la atención psiquiátrica; si alguien necesita a un profesional clínico, se lo decimos y lo derivamos.
Relaciones de pareja
Qué hace que una pareja dure, esté sana y sea buena para los dos, y cómo un adulto puede elegirla con intención.
Se apoya en la investigación del Gottman Institute, la teoría del apego, el trabajo de Eli Finkel (entre otros, su modelo de la asfixia del matrimonio) y estudios que siguen a parejas durante décadas.
No emparejamos personas, ni por genética ni de ninguna otra forma, no damos consejos reproductivos y no opinamos sobre políticas reproductivas. La decisión es siempre de cada persona.
Habilidades cognitivas
Cómo se fortalecen la atención, la percepción, el juicio y la metacognición con práctica estructurada. Aquí trabaja MindWorkIn, nuestro programa piloto.
Se apoya en la psicología cognitiva y las ciencias del aprendizaje, y mide con pruebas de calibración y tareas cognitivas.
No prometemos una mente sin límites. El piloto medirá cuatro resultados declarados: claridad al decidir, regulación de la atención, precisión metacognitiva y bienestar.
Tres marcos, con sus límites por escrito.
Perceptual Practice Framework
Un método para percibir con más exactitud y menos reactividad lo que piensas, lo que te rodea y lo que vives.
Observar · Rastrear el origen de lo que crees · Calibrar
Se apoya en el razonamiento bayesiano, la tradición estoica y la ciencia cognitiva.
No pretende ser una filosofía completa de la mente, no sostiene que la percepción sea lo único que importa y no sustituye a la terapia.
Emotional Architecture Framework
Trata la vida emocional como un terreno de habilidades: las emociones son señales que se leen, patrones que se entienden y capacidades que se desarrollan.
Reconocer · Regular · Indagar · Integrar
Se apoya en la TCC, la DBT, la ACT, la terapia centrada en las emociones y la neurociencia afectiva.
No sostiene que las emociones se puedan controlar del todo, no sustituye la atención clínica en salud mental y no tiene programa político.
Intentional Partnering Framework
Un marco basado en investigación para adultos que piensan en una pareja de largo plazo: aclarar lo que valoran, conocerse y decidir con intención.
Tus valores · Conocerte · Compatibilidad · Comunicación · Decidir con intención
Se apoya en la investigación de Gottman, la teoría del apego y la ciencia de la decisión.
No empareja por genética, no es un programa reproductivo ni una agencia de citas, y no pretende eliminar el romance ni reducir la pareja a una lista de requisitos.
Las reglas que seguirá cada estudio.
Revisión ética independiente
Cada estudio se hará con la supervisión del comité de ética institucional (IRB) de una universidad, y nuestro Comité de Ética Independiente revisará cada protocolo antes y después de empezar.
Métodos registrados de antemano
Registraremos los métodos en público antes de tener resultados, para que nadie, ni siquiera nosotros, cambie las reglas a mitad de camino.
También publicaremos los resultados negativos
Publicaremos lo que encontremos, incluidos los resultados que no nos favorezcan.
Serie de whitepapers del IHE
Cinco documentos fundacionales sobre cómo IHE aborda la atracción, el vínculo y la pérdida: qué muestra la evidencia, dónde es discutida y qué se desconoce todavía. Cada documento define sus términos, gradúa su evidencia, declara sus límites y lista sus referencias. Los documentos están en inglés.
Estos whitepapers sintetizan y evalúan investigación ya publicada y no presentan datos originales. No han pasado por revisión externa por pares. Se publican abiertamente para que investigadores y profesionales puedan examinarlos, citarlos y cuestionarlos; las correcciones son bienvenidas en hello@ihe.institute.
IHE-WP-01 · Publicado octubre de 2026 · Versión 1.0
Foundations of Seduction Science
A Multilevel Framework for Attraction, Bonding, and Relationship Loss
Leer el resumen (abstract)
This paper sets out the conceptual foundations of the IHE whitepaper series on seduction, defined here as consensual, communicative behavior by which one person seeks to elicit or increase another person's romantic or sexual interest. Its purpose is to replace a set of confident popular claims (that attraction is predictable, that courtship cues are universal, that attachment style is fixed in childhood, and that heartbreak is the same as drug withdrawal) with a framework that can be tested. The approach is a structured narrative review organized around four levels of analysis: biological, psychological, dyadic and sociocultural, with explicit propositions about how the levels interact. Each major thesis is presented with its best supporting evidence, its strongest objection and a graded verdict. The main position is that attraction and bonding are patterned but only weakly predictable for particular individuals and pairs; that courtship signals are real but noisy, context-dependent and culturally shaped; that adult attachment orientations are moderately stable and open to change; and that romantic loss engages reward-related brain systems that overlap with, but are not identical to, those implicated in addiction. Most people recover from relationship loss without professional help, although some need clinical care. The paper defines its core terms operationally, states what it does not claim, summarizes the evidence in a single table, and proposes a pre-registrable research agenda. Its limits are those of the underlying literatures: small neuroimaging samples, heavy reliance on self-report, and samples drawn mostly from Western, heterosexual university populations.
Palabras clave: attraction; courtship signaling; attachment; pair-bonding; relationship dissolution; multilevel framework; research ethics
Cita sugerida: Institute for Human Evolution. (2026). Foundations of Seduction Science: A Multilevel Framework for Attraction, Bonding, and Relationship Loss (IHE Whitepaper No. 1). Institute for Human Evolution. https://ihe.institute/research#whitepapers
28 páginas · 8.200 palabras · 60 referencias · inglés
Descargar PDF · 420 KB (IHE-WP-01)Descargar Word (.docx) · 57 KB (IHE-WP-01)IHE-WP-02 · Publicado octubre de 2026 · Versión 1.0
The Neurochemistry of Heartbreak
Evidence, Mechanisms, and Limits of the Withdrawal Hypothesis
Leer el resumen (abstract)
Purpose. Popular and secondary accounts often describe heartbreak as drug withdrawal: deprived of a partner who had become its "supply" of dopamine and oxytocin, the brain enters a neurochemical crash. This paper evaluates that account as a hypothesis. Approach. It reviews neuroimaging of romantic love and rejection, the oxytocin, vasopressin, serotonin and opioid literatures, stress physiology after separation, stress (takotsubo) cardiomyopathy, the debate over whether social and physical pain share neural representations, and longitudinal research on recovery, grading each central claim on a five-level evidence scale. Position. Reward-related brain regions respond to images of a rejecting partner, separation can disrupt stress physiology, and partner bereavement is followed by a short-term rise in cardiovascular risk. These findings support a weak version of the withdrawal hypothesis, in which romantic loss recruits motivational and learning systems that also figure in addiction. They do not support a strong version in which heartbreak is withdrawal, specific neurotransmitters are depleted, or chemical states cause the experience. Human evidence rests on small samples, peripheral hormone measures of doubtful validity, and inference from regional activation to mental states. Most people recover without intervention, and self-concept clarity, rumination and continued monitoring of the former partner are better studied correlates of recovery than any neurochemical marker. Limits. Samples are mostly young, Western and heterosexual, and causal human evidence is scarce. The paper closes with implications for preventive education, guidance on when to seek clinical care, ethical considerations, and a research agenda.
Palabras clave: romantic rejection; attachment; dopamine; oxytocin; stress physiology; recovery
Cita sugerida: Institute for Human Evolution. (2026). The Neurochemistry of Heartbreak: Evidence, Mechanisms, and Limits of the Withdrawal Hypothesis (IHE Whitepaper No. 2). Institute for Human Evolution. https://ihe.institute/research#whitepapers
27 páginas · 7.900 palabras · 60 referencias · inglés
Descargar PDF · 366 KB (IHE-WP-02)Descargar Word (.docx) · 55 KB (IHE-WP-02)IHE-WP-03 · Publicado octubre de 2026 · Versión 1.0
Evolutionary Imperatives in Human Seduction
Mating Strategy, Signaling, and the Limits of Adaptationist Inference
Leer el resumen (abstract)
This paper evaluates what evolutionary theory can and cannot contribute to the scientific study of consensual courtship, which the IHE whitepaper series calls seduction. It examines a common popular account that presents seduction as a fixed adaptive system governed by unchanging evolved mechanisms and divided into distinct male and female strategies. The approach is a structured review of the primary literatures on sexual selection and parental investment, sexual strategies and strategic pluralism, cross-cultural mate preferences, stated versus revealed preferences, signaling theory, facial attractiveness, jealousy, pair-bonding, ovulatory-cycle effects, and same-sex attraction. Each thesis is presented with its best supporting evidence, its strongest objection, and a graded verdict. The main position is that evolutionary theory is a productive source of hypotheses about human courtship, and that some findings are robust, notably cross-cultural sex differences in stated preferences for partner age, attractiveness and resources. Many popular claims, however, are weaker than usually presented: stated preferences predict in-person attraction poorly, sex differences are mostly moderate and overlapping, several signature findings (ovulatory preference shifts, symmetry effects, forced-choice jealousy differences) have shrunk or failed under stronger methods, and human mating systems vary with ecology and culture. The paper sets out the methodological limits of adaptationist inference, including untestable ancestral scenarios, unrepresentative samples, and the naturalistic fallacy, and closes with ethical considerations and a pre-registrable research agenda. It describes tendencies, not laws, and offers no reproductive or relationship prescriptions.
Palabras clave: sexual selection; parental investment; mate preferences; signaling theory; pair-bonding; adaptationism; evolutionary mismatch
Cita sugerida: Institute for Human Evolution. (2026). Evolutionary Imperatives in Human Seduction: Mating Strategy, Signaling, and the Limits of Adaptationist Inference (IHE Whitepaper No. 3). Institute for Human Evolution. https://ihe.institute/research#whitepapers
26 páginas · 7.900 palabras · 60 referencias · inglés
Descargar PDF · 373 KB (IHE-WP-03)Descargar Word (.docx) · 55 KB (IHE-WP-03)IHE-WP-04 · Publicado octubre de 2026 · Versión 1.0
Human Chemosignals and Olfactory Cues in Attraction
What Is Known, and Not Known, About "Pheromones" in Humans
Leer el resumen (abstract)
This paper evaluates the scientific evidence on chemical communication in human attraction and close relationships. Popular and commercial accounts often assert that human pheromones exist, that they operate below awareness to steer desire and partner choice, and that they can be bought, amplified, or managed. The paper separates three questions that such accounts tend to merge: whether human body odor carries socially relevant information, whether that information influences perception and behavior, and whether any specific molecule meets the criteria that define a pheromone in other animals. It reviews the definitional history of the pheromone concept, the anatomy of human chemosensation (including the vomeronasal organ), the androstene and estratetraenol literature, odor preferences linked to the major histocompatibility complex, menstrual synchrony, emotional chemosignals, partner odor and stress, olfactory memory, and the evidence offered for commercial "pheromone" products. Each claim is graded on a five-level evidence scale. The central position is that human body odor demonstrably carries information about identity, sex, health, and emotional state, and can modestly shift social perception, but that no human pheromone has been conclusively identified, the best-known candidate steroids have not survived rigorous testing, and claims about genetic compatibility, cycle synchrony, and product efficacy are contested or unsupported. The literature is limited by small samples, heterogeneous odor-collection methods, supraphysiological doses, predominantly heterosexual and WEIRD samples, and publication bias. The paper closes with ethical considerations and a pre-registrable research agenda.
Palabras clave: chemosignals; putative human pheromones; body odor; olfaction; vomeronasal organ; major histocompatibility complex; attraction; emotion
Cita sugerida: Institute for Human Evolution. (2026). Human Chemosignals and Olfactory Cues in Attraction: What Is Known, and Not Known, About "Pheromones" in Humans (IHE Whitepaper No. 4). Institute for Human Evolution. https://ihe.institute/research#whitepapers
26 páginas · 8.000 palabras · 60 referencias · inglés
Descargar PDF · 364 KB (IHE-WP-04)Descargar Word (.docx) · 54 KB (IHE-WP-04)IHE-WP-05 · Publicado octubre de 2026 · Versión 1.0
Seductics: Toward a Probabilistic Framework for Romantic Outcomes
Assumptions, Model Classes, and Validation Requirements
Leer el resumen (abstract)
Purpose. This paper sets out Seductics, the Institute's term for the probabilistic study of romantic outcomes, as a modeling framework whose assumptions can be tested rather than as a predictor. Approach. The paper reviews prior formal models of romantic dynamics, the record of statistical prediction in psychology, and the empirical literature on predicting initial attraction, relationship quality and dissolution. It then analyzes a naive baseline that treats interactions as independent trials, along with composite scoring indices and discrete trajectory typologies, and sets out alternative model classes: discrete-time Markov chains with absorbing states, hidden Markov models, discrete-time hazard models, Beta-Binomial updating, and the social relations model for dyadic data. Worked examples, computed in code with illustrative (not empirical) parameters, show how uncertainty should be reported. Position. The baseline P = 1 − (1 − p)ⁿ assumes independent, identically distributed trials and fails for repeated interaction within a dyad; with heterogeneous or declining per-interaction probabilities it overstates cumulative probability, in one example by roughly a factor of two. Published evidence indicates that relationship-specific initial desire is difficult to predict before two people meet, and that change in relationship quality is largely unpredictable from self-report. Limits. The framework is suited to population-level description, simulation, power analysis and study design. IHE offers no individual-level predictions and no consumer tool. The paper closes with a staged validation roadmap that specifies the results under which the framework, or parts of it, should be abandoned.
Palabras clave: probabilistic modeling; romantic attraction; relationship dissolution; Markov chains; survival analysis; Bayesian inference; social relations model; prediction; validation
Cita sugerida: Institute for Human Evolution. (2026). Seductics: Toward a Probabilistic Framework for Romantic Outcomes: Assumptions, Model Classes, and Validation Requirements (IHE Whitepaper No. 5). Institute for Human Evolution. https://ihe.institute/research#whitepapers
26 páginas · 7.900 palabras · 59 referencias · inglés
Descargar PDF · 432 KB (IHE-WP-05)Descargar Word (.docx) · 57 KB (IHE-WP-05)
Mira los programas que salen de esta investigación.
Los informes de investigación se publicarán aquí cuando terminen los primeros estudios. Para recibirlos por correo, suscríbete al boletín al pie de la página.