Economic theory's 'laws of scarcity' proffers that with less abundance a greater value is attached. If applying this theory to 'dating' terms, it means that the more highly valued individual would be the one who is less available. Therefore, this might lead us to the conclusion that 'playing hard to get' works. But, before we all rush out and say 'I'm busy' when the first person that we actually fancy asks us out, we must first ask the question 'Can the laws of economic theory be equally applicable in matters of the heart'?
Is it always true that 'we want what we can't have' and 'absence makes the heart grow fonder' and other such useful (insert cynicism here) adages?
While these types of sayings might be fun and easy to throw around, their validity must be questioned. It is accepted, that as humans, we like to be liked. And, more importantly, we like people who like us. When choosing between someone who has given us little to no attention and someone who has given us their singular attention by making us feel understood, special, and unique, I think it's pretty fair to say that we will choose the latter rather than the former. So, why is this 'playing hard to get' notion, repeatedly championed as the premiere plan of action?
Some evolutionary psychologists propose that the purpose of playing hard to get is to signal to potential mates that we are not ‘easy’, and so we become more desirable as a result. Besides the fact that evolutionary psychology is a load of rubbish, studies by psychologists have shown this is not necessarily the case.
In a study by Walster (1973), college men were asked to each call five female participants and ask them out on a date. Those women who were deemed ‘easy to get’ and responded positively to the date were rated more favourably than those deemed ‘hard to get’ who responded with reluctance and acted as if they had other dates. Walster concluded that the most rewarding scenario is where the date is easy for us to get, but difficult for everyone else to get.
Going back to the law of economic scarcity and its relation to dating scarcity, I guess this means that while you might pay exorbitant amounts for honey collected by monks on the mountain tops of Tibet, it doesn't necessarily mean that you want your 'honey' to be just as scarce.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm not sure you have correctly interpreted the economic concept of scarcity in the context of mating.
I would suggest an alternate interpretation would be more like 'the less individuals are available, the more value each individual has as a mate'.
Also, I'm not sure what your arguments are against evolutionary psychology, but I think it can make some substantial contributions to understanding complex behaviours such as choosing mates.
And it's important to remember that evolutionary psychology rarely if ever suggests there is but one optimal strategy in any particular situation. There are often multiple strategies, each with different odds of yielding a return and different risks.
I suggest you read up on some economic game theory - it has some fascinating, and in my opinion, highly illuminating, insights into things like mating.
Hello Tim,
Thank you for your interesting comments! And, while I see how your take on economic scarcity in the context of mating might also be a valuable version, I stand by my interpretation, that if someone is scarce than his/her value increases. (Not that I necessarily agree with this theory)
Secondly, my beef with evolutionary psychology is much deeper than what can be addressed in a short blog. However, coming from a social anthropological perspective, evolutionary psychology's tendency to link everything with the way our predecessors did things, which is namely linked to biology and 'survival of the fittest' etc, without leaving room for the 'evolving' bit (i.e the effects of an ever changing society), is the main gripe on my list.
I think I will address this in my next blog.
I look forward to taking a closer look at your blog, especially where you question what is 'natural'?
Jean, this article is brillant! Congratulations
Post a Comment