> Generally I don’t like how the author acts like everything is rooted in science and everyone is forced to act out their biology.
The naturalistic fallacy is a pretty easy one to commit, and it seems to be running especially rampant in the genre of "scientific"/"rational" dating/relationship advice.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that evolutionary biology has tons of interesting discoveries that can help humanity understand itself better, and I find it extremely interesting myself.
But the fallacy happens when looking at what there is, in terms of the biological/genetic basis (and frankly, the evidence and science is often not nearly as clear as these books present it), and taking that as a guideline or even commandments as for what there ought to be.
Harari has a nice way of putting this idea in "Sapiens": If there is a defining nature to Homo sapiens, it is that we have a quite strong and persistent capability of not being bound to our biology's defining nature (hope I'm paraphrasing somewhat accurately here).
Of course biology (as the hardware that's running our software) has an incredibly strong influence on our experience, and denying that has caused a lot of needless suffering (and still does), but just explaining away the significant impact of culture and our minds on our biological reality seems overly reductionist.
Or to go with a computational analogy: Our minds are turing-complete, so they can run any software there can possibly exist – some paths do have extremely good hardware acceleration, but efficiency isn't everything in (human) life :)