Sexual Selection is a Game of Economics

[legolas]

This is an interesting thread to discuss the different types of value. I see two kinds of value:

1. Value as it relates to a benefit you get
This is the most common type of value and it relates fully to the economics of sexual selection and social dynamics as discussed by RedPill

For example a girl might think: Guy A has big muscles and looks good so he has value in giving me status. Guy B has a fat wallet so he gives me security and buying power. Guy C has a Harley so he gives me excitement, etc.

2. Intrinsic/Internal value
This is the type of value most commonly associated with self-improvement and internal validation. It is also the kind of value that you get when you help others by donating your time or money.

If we assume that humans are essentially selfish, as Adam Smith and traditional economic theory suggests, than it is fairly easy to see that the first type of value is going to be the dominating one.

Going further, in order to become "attractive" you have to become more valuable (i.e. provide more value) To do this, first figure out the things that most girls find valuable (looks, money, emotional stimulation) provide them in an indirect way and voila....you have game theory.

99% of what game theory is, is based out of the value = benefits model. It's only a matter of finding out what the particular group of girls you're dealing with needs or finds valuable, and providing that. In this aspect, all the economic laws of supply and demand apply fully.

If you buy into this model, you can easily explain out all the various problems and issues most guys have or don't have in relating to women.

But where does intrinsic value come in to play? Well, if you're stuck on the value = benefits model, for one, you're at the whims of a constantly changing marketplace and you have no center. Since human needs are constantly fluctuating, you'll find yourself like an stock trader constantly adapting to the needs of the market. There is nothing inherently wrong in this approach, as long as you know exaclty what you're getting yourself into.

The role of your intrinsic values is crucial when you find a partner that clicks with those values. This is at the core of the old saying "Be Yourself" When you're aware of those values and you believe in them, finding and keeping someone interested becomes a matter of you literally being yourself!!

I'm still struggling with some questions though. Is this all there is to it? Are we essentially exchanging value in any and all situations?

The only answer that makes sense to me at this moment is: If 80% of all attraction and social interaction can be reduced to this simplistic model of economics, then I am happy to play the game

 

[RedPill]

I'm still struggling with some questions though. Is this all there is to it? Are we essentially exchanging value in any and all situations?

The only answer that makes sense to me at this moment is: If 80% of all attraction and social interaction can be reduced to this simplistic model of economics, then I am happy to play the game

Those are really good questions, and your conclusion is very practical.

When we were discussing this last Sunday evening in the chat room, one thing that was brought up was 'the human experience.' As in, is sexual selection really this cold and rational exchange of value propositions?

My answer to that is... sort of. We as emotional human beings put an extaordinary weight on creating cultures and customs which allow us to believe that we're purely altruistic, and aren't motivated at a fundamental level by our own self-interests. Even in a 'pay it forward' scenario, such as volunteering or helping little old ladies cross the street, there is still a self-interest motivating us to act. Life would not be very colorful if everybody operated with a cold-blooded Vulcan logic and acted purely rational.

LovelyLady asked me what constitutes a 'win' in the game, and I replied that it's when both parties needs are met most efficiently. When both parties get their needs met, there is less stress, conflict, and unmet expectations. If you're only looking to add more plates to the bullpen and she's only looking for a guy she can casually date who will reflect well on her at weddings and parties, then everyone's needs are met. Conversely, if she's looking for a husband and you're looking for a fukk buddy who lives close by, that's not an efficient scenario or outcome. That will result in ongoing conflict, especially if neither party has the confidence to be the rejecter.

Instrinsic value becomes the more important commodity when seeking the outcome of a monogamous relationship. I'm beginning to believe that it's primarily a lack of accountability in people which causes the misalignment of goals, and misinterpretation of which types of value are more important to demonstrate to the marketplace. That is, most people (men and women) lack the capacity to be upfront with themselves or others about what their self-interests are, and also can't make critical, realistic valuations of either their intrinsic or 'direct benefit' values. Similarly, people who are less accountable will have trouble making reaching realistic conclusions about the value that's delivered to them by the other party.

Legolas, to answer your initial question most directly: Yes. At the end of the day we are in a constant state of seeking to exchange value. We're all rent seekers. That said, it's beneficial and more efficient for the achievement of longer-term goals (e.g. raising successful children, having a reliable/faithful partner) to develop relationships where there is an equilibrium in intrinsic values. For instance, if you get in an LTR with an attractive young chick who has 'thin genes', but smokes, never exercises, and doesn't carry the intrinsic value of self-improvement, chances are good that down the road she is going to look like a beat-up catcher's mitt, with the voice of a tow-truck driver. If physical attractiveness is important to you, and self improvement is important to you, there would not be an equilibrium in instrinsic value with a woman like this.

Again, I'll restate my assertion that awareness of these concepts increases one's capacity to create more desirable outcomes for their self. (Perhaps though, it's time for someone to start a thread about accountability. Any takers?)

 

[legolas]

I think guys who are "naturals" have an innate understanding of this type of economics and use it to their advantage without being aware of it. AFCs on the other hand, myself included for a while, will question this model because they believe in something more idealistic. We are all brainwashed about "the one" and fairy tales.

The main reason I struggled with this question last night is because I somehow believed there must be more to it than the simple balance of having most of your needs met. This was until last night when I read your post and wrote my reply. My new approach now is that I'm going to fully embrace this model and reap its benefits while I can.

Now to address your point on accountability, I think that the majority of people have no idea what their needs are HOWEVER when they get in a situation where there's a possibility of that need being fulfilled they are IMMEDIATELY drawn to it subconsciously.

This makes up the majority of people. Maybe it is a lack of accountability or even laziness, because figuring out your own needs is a matter of analyzing one's behavior and not just thinking about what you "might" want and that is not an easy or pleasant task.

People who realize this, like marketers, stand to make themselves very wealthy in the process, which is exactly what you state:

Again, I'll restate my assertion that awareness of these concepts increases one's capacity to create more desirable outcomes for their self.

 

[SouthernGal]

BLUF: Good enough is never good enough.

 

[StevenR]

I think guys who are "naturals" have an innate understanding of this type of economics and use it to their advantage without being aware of it. AFCs on the other hand, myself included for a while, will question this model because they believe in something more idealistic. We are all brainwashed about "the one" and fairy tales.

I disagree with this statement, I understand the idea of relative value and I am an AFC or worse. I just realize that I have very low value and little to offer a woman of high value. I think on some level AFC's who get hitched too soon or easily perceive their value as not very high, and that the woman they are with may be the best they will ever get.
Saying that he found his "soulmate" or "the one" is just another way of saying "I am a low value male so I better take the chance while I have it, otherwise I will spend the next 10 years being just another one of those pathetic guys standing in line at the nightclub trying to get a chance to talk to a woman, or perhaps be one of those hundreds of losers clogging a woman's inbox on myspace or match.com trying to get a date with her, or even worse I will end up some creepy, lonely old guy who masturbates to porn every night or something like that". I think that is what really goes on in their head, even it if is subconscious.

 

[legolas]

I realize that what you're saying makes sense to me now. I have fully embraced the value/economic model. What I was saying is that, for myself it was a little hard to believe that it was all just perceived value. I had a mental block against it which had something to do with "true love" or any of that romantic BS that we are sold everyday since we were kids.

I now understand that all the surface level stuff, romanticism etc, is only a very elaborate explanation to hide the real reasons and to add an aura of mysticism around a very simple process and so you don't appear to be less human. At the core of everything is the value model and everything else is just the cherry on top, just filler stuff.

In fact even self improvement can be seen as getting more intrinsic value and more ammo for internal validation.

Thanks for disagreeing with me, it made me think

 

[Yahooey]

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 beg to differ with the motive given for these poor value decisions. I believe the example you give,

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.

supports alternative motives. To stick with the economic theme of this thread, I suggest looking at the Prospect Theory which suggests that loss aversion is the reason for irrational value choices. People have a much stronger preference for avoiding a loss than making gains and this leads to risk aversion. Applying this to your example, the man would rather have the certainty of the effortless ass than the risk of not getting any. In other words, much like Prospect Theory is used to explain anomalies in the Efficient Market Hypothesis, loss aversion can be used to explain sexual selection choices that do not result in a value equilibrium.

 

[Yahooey]

(continuation of previous post)
The prisoner's dilemma from game theory is also a good example of risk avoidance. In this case, the prisoners will both agree to cooperate and accept a reduced sentence rather than take the risk that they are the only one refusing to cooperate and getting the maximum sentence. This is in spite of the fact that if both prisoners refuse to cooperate they could both walk away. Merging back to your application of the theory, stepping back and looking at the facts will allow you to choose the option with the best outcome.

 

[thedeparted]

You sound like a guy who just discovered Ec101. There is an opportunity cost if I take a sh-it b/c I might miss the phone ringing. So what? Where's your conclusion?

All this to say, "Play the game. Don't cave." Social value theory is 50 years old. This is like a random page out of a sociology paper you can buy on the internet for ten bucks.