Sexual Selection is a Game of Economics

[RedPill]

Do you remember Econ 101?

Economics is the science of efficiency. Some of the basic concepts of economics revolve around social behavior and the management and exchange of resources according to the laws of supply and demand.

One facet of economic study is game theory. The crux of game theory is the study of strategic alternatives, given one’s own conditions and the behavior possibilities of others in the game.

So what does this have to do "the game” that’s discussed on this forum – the game of sexual selection? As with all other environments involving finite resources and multiple actors – the laws of supply and demand regulate the markets for mate selection. All the discussions here regarding social behavior, sexual value, and challenges in the process which arise from inequities in power can be distilled down to the fact that one’s value to the marketplace dictates their capacity to command outcomes in the game of sexual selection.

In English, please…

Before reading further, understand that this thread isn’t intended as a masturbatory exercise in idealism. Rather, there is a very real practical application of this material, if one is able to look beyond the lack of visual stimuli which would make this subject matter ‘come alive’. Perhaps this and this will help liven things up.

Winners win on the margin

In economics - as in sport, as in life – winners win on the margin. It doesn’t matter how many points you score, it matters that you score one more than your competition. In the game of sexual selection, that competition isn’t a person; it’s opportunity costs. We’re all opportunists, whether we’ll admit to it or not. The better players among us are congruent with their self-interest and don’t try to dismiss the marketplace as inherently unfair.

In the game of sexual selection, men and women will work to secure options which they find valuable, and work to minimize the influence of options which they feel aren’t worth the costs of time or energy to maintain. The recognition of one’s own intrinsic value is what frames the power dynamic within relationships. There have been many threads as of late debating what constitutes sexual value, and I think what gets lost in the discussion is the relativity of value in a particular environment. The value one brings to the table in meeting a new potential mate is relative to the opportunities available to that prospect.

Poor decisions carry a tax

Look at the poor decisions men have made for the ideal of effortless ass – monogamy, cohabitation, and even marriage to women with which there is no equilibrium in value. These poor decisions carry the tax of lost vitality and decreased choices because typically the relationship has been structured so that the woman has far greater control over the frame. Many men will fault women, a feminized society, or their particular woman for this power imbalance, but the reality is that their reactive approach toward recognizing and increasing their value (both intrinsically and through sourcing new opportunities) is what led to their incurring the tax of their bad choice in the first place.

This is all very fascinating, but who cares? How does internalization of these concepts improve my life?

I’m convinced that most relationships (both short-term and long-term) are fundamentally flawed, which results in very poor allocations of one's time and energies. They are flawed in the sense there is no consideration given to the disparity in perceived value and the goals of each party. This runs parallel with the discussion of Social Matching Theory. Significant inequity in market value between a man and a woman makes for a difficult long-term arrangement, and too often people are willing to set aside consideration of this inequity because of their strong fear of rejection. Most people are so afraid of rejection that they're hesitant to be the rejecter, even when they are in a clear power position to capitalize on far better opportunities.

If one can set aside their emotions, zoom out, and consider the economic dynamics in play with a given woman – both parties' opportunities, her outlook, and your perceived value in the local marketplace – then one becomes a much better player in the game of sexual selection. Understanding your options and their associated outcomes allows you to make better strategic choices. With increased awareness comes an increased ability to recognize and capitalize on new opportunities, and a better sense of when to discard relationships which create undue taxes. In the context of a longer-term relationship, one may benefit through considering if there is equilibrium in value, and how long that equilibrium is likely to last. Nobody has a crystal ball, but certainly behavior patterns and trends can make one’s personal fortunes manageable.

For those of you who think these concepts are absolute wankery, I would encourage you to take inventory of how many people you know who consistently lack the ability to produce desirable outcomes in their lives. Economic forces don’t just apply to the marketplace of sexual selection – they apply to all arenas where the exchange of resources takes place. Some of you may think this material is as exciting as listening to paint dry, but if you internalize it, it will make you more effective at commanding outcomes you desire with women.

 

[swifTy]

well written.

go for girls in your league.

 

[swifTy]

well written.

summed up, it sounsd like; go for girls in your league.

problem tho, leagues like the economy are always changing. pretty hard to read it on the fly.

 

[Colossus]

While Ive never taken Econ, this is analogous to what I call "social relativity". (I like to put things in scientific context )

Social relativity is, as you said, recognizing that value (in terms of sexual selection) is relative to the people being considered, the local environment, and the congruency of their motives.

This ties in to the whole "prize" mentality, which frankly I find annoying. The whole thing gets grossly misinterpreted. The intention is to get guys to come from a position of confidence and qualification rather than the reverse. But simply ASSUMING or IMAGINING your are "the prize" is no different than being a PUA. You just become a showman who must manipulate to overcome a disparity.

While there is definitely merit to being cognizant of your own value, the mentality that is so often pimped here presupposes that the individual's value is of universal beneficience to ALL women; and it isnt. Im not talking about anyone in particular, but some chums need to get a grip on reality. Value is relative. That doesnt mean you cant extend the reach of your value or improve your market appeal, but oil and water will never mix.

 

[Maxtro]

well written.

summed up, it sounsd like; go for girls in your league.

problem tho, leagues like the economy are always changing. pretty hard to read it on the fly.

Go for girls in your league? I'm not sure about that. That basically means don't settle for girls that are below your standards. But it also means don't go for girls that you think are out of your league. Of course that last thought is irrelevant if you believe that no girls are out of your league.

When I first saw the title I thought the thread was going to be about Supply and Demand. How the supply of beautiful women is nowhere near the demand for them or something like that.

Rereading the OP again I think he's trying to say, don't settle for girls below you for long term relationships.

 

[LovelyLady]

Interesting read and theory.

Please clarify:

1.
In the game of sexual selection, that competition isn’t a person; it’s opportunity costs. Will you please talk about "opportunity costs" and what you mean by that with some specific examples? Do you believe they are the same for men as they are for women?


2.
Regarding this: [The recognition of one’s own intrinsic value is what frames the power dynamic within relationships.... They are flawed in the sense there is no consideration given to the disparity in perceived value ...... and If one can set aside their emotions...your perceived value in the local marketplace "


What do you mean by "power": do you mean inner strength to operate from, or power over the other person, or the abibilty to produce the desired outcome, or something else entilrely?

Can you help me identify where you actually think the true source of "power and value lies" - is it in the self-knowledge of one's instrinsic value - or is it defined by the perceived value of the marketplace? And is there no consideration of actual marketplace value (do you think perceived and actual are the same? Also I am assuming you are talking about other's perception of you in the marketplace - but does this apply to one's own perception of one's "value in the marketplace"?


3. What constitutes a "win" of the "game"?

 

[slaog]

While Ive never taken Econ, this is analogous to what I call "social relativity". (I like to put things in scientific context )

Social relativity is, as you said, recognizing that value (in terms of sexual selection) is relative to the people being considered, the local environment, and the congruency of their motives.

This ties in to the whole "prize" mentality, which frankly I find annoying. The whole thing gets grossly misinterpreted. The intention is to get guys to come from a position of confidence and qualification rather than the reverse. But simply ASSUMING or IMAGINING your are "the prize" is no different than being a PUA. You just become a showman who must manipulate to overcome a disparity.

No it's not about being a showman. It's about loving yourself and not the canned material like PUA's use.

Are you saying that some people are out of other people's leagues?

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Red Pill,
I have a great deal of trouble appreciating where you are coming from,it seems to me one of the great unwashed that you would reduce the mystique of relationships to a one size fits all crock of Techno babble....Sorry I won't buy it...What do you mean by Sexual Selection anyway?(Pulling A Lady?)...Are you saying you can use the same jargon to demystify the Dating Game,that you might use to select stocks on the Dow Jones?To say that reduces everything to the level of a Persian Bazaar.If we agree with your coldly rationalist view point,why not go to a knocking Shop and be done with?it is certainly efficient,probably far cheaper,more convenient and less risky.But for the same reasons that most of us prefer the option of owning a car than the more economic alternative of taxis and public transport,so we will enjoy interfacing with all sorts its a lot more fun and instructive too..

 

[RedPill]

Will you please talk about "opportunity costs" and what you mean by that with some specific examples? Do you believe they are the same for men as they are for women?

An opportunity cost is that which you forego when you make a choice. In the context of this discussion, here are some examples:

- choosing monogamy --> An opportunity cost is the freedom to see other people.

- choosing to play the field --> An opportunity cost is the reliability/convenience of a monogamous partner.

- For him - choosing to date a woman who is very attractive, but irresponsible as her looks have allowed her to get away with worse behavior --> An opportunity cost is energy that could be saved by dating more stable women or working on different priorities altogether.

- For her - choosing to seek monogamy with a "high value" man --> An opportunity cost is the heigtened commitment required to maintain/improve her own feminine value in order to keep the relationship in a state of equilibrium.

At the end of the day, opportunity costs are time and effort. There are trade-offs for every choice we make, and with the partners we seek it's no different. Men and women have different parameters in what they value, but the concept of competing opportunity costs applies equally to both. We're all opportunists; we're all rent seekers.

What do you mean by "power": do you mean inner strength to operate from, or power over the other person, or the abibilty to produce the desired outcome, or something else entilrely?

Can you help me identify where you actually think the true source of "power and value lies" - is it in the self-knowledge of one's instrinsic value - or is it defined by the perceived value of the marketplace? And is there no consideration of actual marketplace value (do you think perceived and actual are the same? Also I am assuming you are talking about other's perception of you in the marketplace - but does this apply to one's own perception of one's "value in the marketplace"?

Power as used here means ability to influence the outcome or direction of a given relationship (through having greater choices and less opportunity cost in pursuing other choices). Each party's awareness (or lack of) of their value factors into the dynamics of power in a relationship. In business relationships this would be called buyer's power or seller's power. I'm not sure what the term is for sexual relationships.

The "true source" of power/value lies in the supply one carries relative to the market demand. For example, where I live, if you aren't overweight and have straight teeth, people think you're a good looking individual. In a larger city, the standards of attractiveness are much higher. Taken to a more extreme example, if I'm the last man on Earth, my power goes way up relative to what it is under ordinary circumstances.

As for instrinsic value, this is an intangible, but could be described as a 'composite of desirable traits.' In the markets for mate selection, these would be the masculine or feminine characteristics which are in demand to the opposite sex. Having greater awareness of one's intrinsic value in turn increases one's opportunities in the marketplace (provided one is capable of capitalizing on these opportunities). The perception of greater opportunities by the marketplace drives valuation, whether through genuine recognition of value or through an artificial inflation of value. Perceived value and actual value are often not the same. I started a different thread a while back about this.

3. What constitutes a "win" of the "game"?

A win is simply a more efficient outcome. Getting more or having to give up less. In the context of sexual selection, I would say desirable outcomes mean finding relationships (short or long, with one or many) where both parties' needs are met most efficiently.

 

[RedPill]

Dear Red Pill,
I have a great deal of trouble appreciating where you are coming from,it seems to me one of the great unwashed that you would reduce the mystique of relationships to a one size fits all crock of Techno babble....Sorry I won't buy it...What do you mean by Sexual Selection anyway?(Pulling A Lady?)...Are you saying you can use the same jargon to demystify the Dating Game,that you might use to select stocks on the Dow Jones?To say that reduces everything to the level of a Persian Bazaar.If we agree with your coldly rationalist view point,why not go to a knocking Shop and be done with?it is certainly efficient,probably far cheaper,more convenient and less risky.But for the same reasons that most of us prefer the option of owning a car than the more economic alternative of taxis and public transport,so we will enjoy interfacing with all sorts its a lot more fun and instructive too..

Ha, there are a million and one jokes about marriage being the most expensive form of prostitution, I'm sure you've heard most of them. It looks like you answered your own question - we all have our own irrational, emotional motivations for making the choices we do. That's what's so unique about the human experience.

All I'm suggesting here is that by better understanding the marketplace, your value to it, and most importantly how people behave in seeking out relations with the opposite sex (the game of sexual selection which has taken place for millions of years), one can create more desirable outcomes for their self.

 

[ketostix]

As with all other environments involving finite resources and multiple actors – the laws of supply and demand regulate the markets for mate selection. All the discussions here regarding social behavior, sexual value, and challenges in the process which arise from inequities in power can be distilled down to the fact that one’s value to the marketplace dictates their capacity to command outcomes in the game of sexual selection.

I totally agree. I would state it another way-how attractive you are to women dictates your capacity to command outcomes in the game of sexual selection. It always comes back to how specifically can a male raise his attraction level.

There have been many threads as of late debating what constitutes sexual value, and I think what gets lost in the discussion is the relativity of value in a particular environment. The value one brings to the table in meeting a new potential mate is relative to the opportunities available to that prospect.

I think your perceived value is what's really of most importance. You can find a lot of guys who have high intrinsic value yet are for whatever reason percievd by women to have a lower peceived value than a guy with lower intrinsic value. It always coimes back to the question of just how can a guy have a high level of perceived value (attractiveness).

Poor decisions carry a tax

Look at the poor decisions men have made for the ideal of effortless ass – monogamy, cohabitation, and even marriage to women with which there is no equilibrium in value. These poor decisions carry the tax of lost vitality and decreased choices because typically the relationship has been structured so that the woman has far greater control over the frame. Many men will fault women, a feminized society, or their particular woman for this power imbalance, but the reality is that their reactive approach toward recognizing and increasing their value (both intrinsically and through sourcing new opportunities) is what led to their incurring the tax of their bad choice in the first place

This is where I disagree with your analysis. To put it in simple terms the mating game is a biased game in favor of women (women don't generally have to do much worrying about their value to win). You can look for new opportunities but that's a lot like switching card tables in a casino. You're still playing the same game. Another thing is increasing your value can be a tax and maybe a bad decision depending on what the women value. Sometimes it is the woman. Maybe she values an "afc" with money.

This is all very fascinating, but who cares? How does internalization of these concepts improve my life?

I’m convinced that most relationships (both short-term and long-term) are fundamentally flawed, which results in very poor allocations of one's time and energies. They are flawed in the sense there is no consideration given to the disparity in perceived value and the goals of each party. This runs parallel with the discussion of Social Matching Theory. Significant inequity in market value between a man and a woman makes for a difficult long-term arrangement, and too often people are willing to set aside consideration of this inequity because of their strong fear of rejection. Most people are so afraid of rejection that they're hesitant to be the rejecter, even when they are in a clear power position to capitalize on far better opportunities.

I think most guys' problem is they just don't have enough perceived value more than they're involving themselves with a woman of unequal higher/lower value.

If one can set aside their emotions, zoom out, and consider the economic dynamics in play with a given woman – both parties' opportunities, her outlook, and your perceived value in the local marketplace – then one becomes a much better player in the game of sexual selection. Understanding your options and their associated outcomes allows you to make better strategic choices. With increased awareness comes an increased ability to recognize and capitalize on new opportunities, and a better sense of when to discard relationships which create undue taxes. In the context of a longer-term relationship, one may benefit through considering if there is equilibrium in value, and how long that equilibrium is likely to last. Nobody has a crystal ball, but certainly behavior patterns and trends can make one’s personal fortunes manageable.

I think it comes down to either you have a girl your attracted to and happy with or you do not. There's no calculation necessary, you know it right away. It's impossible to caculate opportunity costs for something like this anyway.

For those of you who think these concepts are absolute wankery, I would encourage you to take inventory of how many people you know who consistently lack the ability to produce desirable outcomes in their lives. Economic forces don’t just apply to the marketplace of sexual selection – they apply to all arenas where the exchange of resources takes place. Some of you may think this material is as exciting as listening to paint dry, but if you internalize it, it will make you more effective at commanding outcomes you desire with women.

I think economics does apply to sexual selection. But the problem is you don't have to know or think about them. They are forces they are at play and not really within a person's total control.

 

[RedPill]

We're discussing this over in the chat room right now, and The Bat has brough this scene to my attention, which I should have included in the initial post.

From A Beautiful Mind

This scene is a great illustration of game theory as it relates to sexual selection.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

In that scene, they assume a couple of things:

1) if they all go for the blond, they will all get rejected.
2) it is important for ALL dudes to get laid.

I don't think either of those assumptions are valid in the game of sexual selection, from an evolutionary standpoint.

I think in the model of sexual selection, the rank of females according to desireability is pretty much agreed upon, then the men compete to match up according to their own desirability, as determined by the females, as compared to the rest of her choices.

The woman WILL choose somebody, and the men WILL compete with one another. Thats pretty much the whole driving force for evolutionary change. Get the best chick you can, or start where you are at and move up the ladder as high as you can.

So maybe a strategy would be whenever you go someplace, find the best player in the joint, then just be a little bit better. (or whatever level you wish to be operating at)

 

[Stavrogin]

The bottom line is, if you're not good-looking, you have to make up for it by having money or status, and if you don't have money or status, you have to make up for it by being good-looking - period. Otherwise, having all the DJ skills in the world won't save you. If you're a janitor, the DJ skills will only get you so far with an attractive woman - about up to the point where she asks you what you do for a living. This is just simple common sense. An attractive woman will not go out with such a guy when she has 10 guys to choose from.

 

[iqqi]

The bottom line is, if you're not good-looking, you have to make up for it by having money or status, and if you don't have money or status, you have to make up for it by being good-looking - period. Otherwise, having all the DJ skills in the world won't save you. If you're a janitor, the DJ skills will only get you so far with an attractive woman - about up to the point where she asks you what you do for a living. This is just simple common sense. An attractive woman will not go out with such a guy when she has 10 guys to choose from.

I always have to disagree with this type of thinking, and usually I can't really put my finger on why exactly, I just know so many attractive women with men who aren't that great looking, or making a lot of money, or "powerful".

But I have figured it out! You guys aren't considering that some women are lazy (they go for what is easy and handed to them on a "silver platter"), and you are not considering -and this is MOST IMPORTANT- that many women are SENTIMENTAL. This will get Larry the cableguy IN for the long run while Prince Charming with the strong chin and the castle won't even be able to compete. I want to leave that thought vague with the hopes that some of you will think more about it on your own.

 

[slaog]

I always have to disagree with this type of thinking, and usually I can't really put my finger on why exactly, I just know so many attractive women with men who aren't that great looking, or making a lot of money, or "powerful".

But they make the women feel good!

 

[StevenR]

But if the man is of much lower value on the market than the woman, would it not be beneficial for the man to marry the woman who is higher value than he is if he can snag her in the first place?

That is why i disagree with the prevailing opinion on here that men always get the short end of the stick in a marriage. If a guy gets with a high value female whom he knows is normally out of his league, why not jump at the chance to keep her knowing that in all probability, he will never find someone as good as her again?

I think in this case he is benefiting from a monogamous relationship, and the only thing he is giving up in his case is sex with "lower value" women, or rosy palm, who are not as desirable as the woman he is having monogamous sex with. He is essentially giving up nothing to be with her.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Are you saying that some people are out of other people's leagues?

Stop and think about it for a second... are you out of the league of a crack-wh0re?

So... yes, some people are out of other people's leagues.

 

[Colossus]

Are you saying that some people are out of other people's leagues?

Yes, I am.

On a humanistic level, no one is fundamentally better than anyone else...but there are absolutely 'leagues' as we refer to them.

 

[Stavrogin]

The problem with my "league" is that the only women in it are fat and ugly!

Yes, I am.

On a humanistic level, no one is fundamentally better than anyone else...but there are absolutely 'leagues' as we refer to them.