Fisher uses a 'journalistic account of scientific findings' to talk to the average person. She speaks in plain terms, that most people can understand.

I think Fisher is trying to show parallels between not only humans from separate cultures, but also animals. Through showing this she can show how humans may in fact have a style of love that evolved.

Fisher does a very good job of showing different examples of how humans interact the same way throughout the stages of courting. A lot of her examples are not exactly scientific, but most people that have been to a zoo know that a gorilla will stand tall and push his chest out. Using these types of general knowledge supports her thesis very well because the reader can apply their first hand knowledge at the same time.

Fisher adds in a quote from J.B.S. Haldane about how God must love beetles because of the sheer variety of them. Using this quote as a spring board, Fisher introduces the complexity of the 'human mating game' and how God must also love it for how complex it was made.

Fisher quotes statistics from a UK divorce rate study, and the findings support what she is trying to get across. Her section on love at first sight, however, has no real informational grounding. It sounds plausible, but as she says, "I think it does."

A lot of the scientific findings that Fisher uses are not portrayed as fact. She understands that her conclusion is not proven, nor is she really trying to prove it. She is trying to show that it seems that these things are etched into the human psyche. This does not hurt her validity at all, she is not trying to convince us of anything other than this may be a possibility.