I'd rather see some evidence, personally. Evolutionary explanations for how people behave in relationships are usually just-so stories--you can make one up for almost any thesis you wanted to push.

I don't mean an explanation of the form "men have been hunters for 1000s of years, therefore they communicate love in five different ways". I mean an explanation why this trait is more probable to be passed on into further generations, and why they provide an evolutionary stable equilibrium.

I hate those pseudo evolutionary reasons you read in women's magazines as well.

Even if you provide evidence, it would still be interesting to discover a reason for the things being like they are. At least I think so.

Have you read Jared Diamond "Why is sex fun" or "The Third Chimpanzee"? I didn't have the impression that what he said about the competitions of the sexes were just-so stories, although in some cases there were several different theories.

I would be interested in examples of what you mean by "just-so-stories", too.

"I mean an explanation why this trait is more probable to be passed on into further generations, and why they provide an evolutionary stable equilibrium."

My point is that there's no real sign that any pattern of human behavior adheres to any kind of adaptive genetic trait at all. Less than 1% of hominid evolution has occurred in civilizations, and there's no sign evolution has caught up to the environments we're living in now. The sexual behaviors of urbanized book-reading humans today probably have something to do with evolution, but they aren't necessarily adaptive to our place and time and are dictated so much by environment, including but not limited to culture, that asking for an evolutionary explanation gets you almost no understanding of the process at all.

I disagree completely. Evolution is not something that has happened a couple of thousand years ago. It is an ongoing process. There certainly are behaviors in relationships that are a result of modern living conditions. I'd argue these are also results of evolution.

Maybe I should clarify: evolution is not limited to genetic traits. It also applies to behaviors, strategies, designs, everything. Perhaps it would be clearer if I asked for the economic reason (why is it economical for partners to behave like x in a relationship).

Okay, I'm not really sure what you're asking for, then. If your plausibility test for a model of human behavior revolves around whether it's rationally self-interested, you're probably set up for a disappointment, and I still think it's more fruitful to look for direct evidence for a pattern of behavior than to look for a plausible story to tell about how that pattern of behavior is adaptive.

I didn't say rationally self-interested. It just has to have a probability to survive. It's not a given that self-interest is the best survival trait, groups working together might improve their chances. No point in giving a crash course on evolution theory here, though.

Also, of course gathering data and evidence would be useful, too.

Any of the styles are compatible provided each partner understands that the other may have different style(s) and commits to using their "language(s)." It's not about compatibility but understanding a root source of miscommunication.