Most of us already know that when you drink a soda, you can start a caffeine/sugar crash cycle. The sugar rush produces a temporary high, but when the stimulation wears off, we seek a never ending repetition of that buzz. This book is written on the theory that “self help” books produce a similar cycle. This book is for self help, but is intended to break that cycle. Most audiences can benefit from one area or another, but it is not intended as an ephemeral euphoria. Rather, the satisfaction of a balanced meal, prepared by someone else, who has already counted all the calories. As such, humor will be the salt that seasons the various chapters, but you are expected to eat your vegetables... it's not a Vegas Dessert Buffet.
Dick and Jane Teach Us What They Know: A Game Theory inspired commentary on Dating.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Chapter One: How to fish:
A young man was out in the wilderness, and starving. As he stumbled along he came upon an old man sitting by the lake, chewing on a leathery piece of jerky. The young man was famished, and asked the old man, “Are there fish in the lake?”
“Oh yes, lots of them.”
“Well, do you not know how to fish?”
“Oh yes, I certainly do!”
“ Well are we lacking a hook?”
“Oh no, I have bait and tackle, and all you could want over there in my cabin.”
“So why are you chewing on that leathery piece of jerky, when you could be feasting on fresh fish?” asked the young man.
“Well,” replied the old man, “There is a reason, if you really want to know.”
The young man assured him he was dying for some fish, and really wanted to know. “When I was a young man, I came upon a parchment, telling you how to fish. It specified exactly the hook to use, exactly the bait to use, exactly how heavy a line, and what color. Not only this, but it explained the best weather, the ideal time of day, and just where in the lake to put down a line. It told where the best logs were that the fish use for cover, and the best backwaters. It showed how to fillet the fish, and what kind of fire to cook it over. So I took the advice, and began to fish.”
“Well, did you catch anything?” came the query.
“Not only did I catch fish, I caught them all over the place. I caught 5 and 6 an hour. I had so many fish I didn’t know what to do with them all.”
“So you’re trying to tell me you’re sick of fish, is that it?”
“On the contrary, I love a good Striper, but with this parchment, all I ever caught were carp”
Moral:
If we don’t like the fish we are catching, should we
A: Learn to like the kind of fish we have been catching?
B: Learn to fish differently?
We want to understand that in the analysis, the opposite sex is the fish, and each of us as an individual is fishing for a lasting relationship.
Leaving aside that a really hungry person will simply get a net (and ladies, fishnet's WILL do it for a one night stand,) most of us are willing to play a numbers game to a degree, with the incentive of stability and happiness as our final destination.
“Oh yes, lots of them.”
“Well, do you not know how to fish?”
“Oh yes, I certainly do!”
“ Well are we lacking a hook?”
“Oh no, I have bait and tackle, and all you could want over there in my cabin.”
“So why are you chewing on that leathery piece of jerky, when you could be feasting on fresh fish?” asked the young man.
“Well,” replied the old man, “There is a reason, if you really want to know.”
The young man assured him he was dying for some fish, and really wanted to know. “When I was a young man, I came upon a parchment, telling you how to fish. It specified exactly the hook to use, exactly the bait to use, exactly how heavy a line, and what color. Not only this, but it explained the best weather, the ideal time of day, and just where in the lake to put down a line. It told where the best logs were that the fish use for cover, and the best backwaters. It showed how to fillet the fish, and what kind of fire to cook it over. So I took the advice, and began to fish.”
“Well, did you catch anything?” came the query.
“Not only did I catch fish, I caught them all over the place. I caught 5 and 6 an hour. I had so many fish I didn’t know what to do with them all.”
“So you’re trying to tell me you’re sick of fish, is that it?”
“On the contrary, I love a good Striper, but with this parchment, all I ever caught were carp”
Moral:
If we don’t like the fish we are catching, should we
A: Learn to like the kind of fish we have been catching?
B: Learn to fish differently?
We want to understand that in the analysis, the opposite sex is the fish, and each of us as an individual is fishing for a lasting relationship.
Leaving aside that a really hungry person will simply get a net (and ladies, fishnet's WILL do it for a one night stand,) most of us are willing to play a numbers game to a degree, with the incentive of stability and happiness as our final destination.
Chapter Two: What step am I ready for?
The problem with categorizing everyone is that it leads to pigeon hole thinking. B.F Skinner was the father of behavioral psychology. He used an apparatus called a Skinner box to train animals. Rather than try to stuff you in a Skinner box, I'll assert that as we mature we go through more than one stage of development. I will not pretend to offer an exhaustive list, but rather list as many as I can account for, and agree that people at large try them in the order that they think of them, not in some programmatic tier system.
Lastly, there is no final state or “box” of maturity that anyone can just jump to the end and be instantly mature. This book is to help us all think more clearly about the problems we face at our various levels of development.
Lastly, there is no final state or “box” of maturity that anyone can just jump to the end and be instantly mature. This book is to help us all think more clearly about the problems we face at our various levels of development.
Chapter three: Copycat Identity
We all usually start off agreeing with some form of peer pressure. Whether the influence of our chosen peer group is beneficial or destructive, we start off using someone else's value system. Use drugs, rebel, conform, lead, follow; doctors, lawyers, politicians, plumbers, we start off seeking experimentally where we are happiest. So consider this set first:
Let's contrive a very unlikely example. Dick sees that Jane is very beautiful. Finding that the object of her affection is the President of the Chess club, Dick joins the Chess club, reads Kasparov, competes like a demon, and wins the County Chess King tournament. His over-awed peers elect him President of the Chess Club. Jane, being predictable as all women are, succumbs to his advances and we have Nirvana – Boy gets Girl. I know we are all laughing, but this is the stylized result that Dick envisions. The point we all miss is that the kiss is the end of the movie but it is only the start of the relationship. Up to this point, Dick had a goal: Become President of the Chess Club/Win Jane's affections.
Consider Dick's situation first: Victorious though he may be he is automatically insecure. Even in this ideal world, he is not going to become World Chess King. Worse yet, he doesn't WANT to. He finds that Jane is in love with someone he is not, and as beautiful as Jane is, he discovers that he is not in love with who she is. She has become a trophy. He loses County Chess Champion next time around, and Jane discovers that he is mortally fallible.
And what of Jane's part? She cannot believe that she has been “deceived” by a man who claims to be a Chess Champion, but all he ever really wanted to be was a Vet! It is academic who dumps who.
Consider what opinions of the opposite sex have been re-enforced. Dick has “learned” that there is no point changing to please a girl. He has “learned” that “All Girls” don't love you for who you are. Jane has “learned” “All Men” will do anything as long as they are in pursuit, but don't really want to be “in a relationship.” Furthermore, “All Men” want her only for her looks.
This would be bad enough if Dick and Jane met their ideal mate the very next time they ventured “out there.” BUT when Jack shows up to try and win Jane's affections, he has a very negative stereotype to overcome. Neither is Dick particularly kind to Jill. Jill loves animals, and thinks Vets are the unsung heroes of the New Millennium. Dick thinks it's an act, and is skeptical. Jill feels like he doesn't trust her, and therefore doesn't love her. Jill finally concludes that he is more in love with her looks than her character and although he really thinks she's prettier than Jane, it ends up not mattering
The point is this: Preconceptions are self fulfilling. Multiply this out by many years, and factor in that relationships are less commonplace than Untested Crushes, (these last remaining unchallenged by reality,) and it is a marvel that Cross-Gender relations, (admittedly bad,) are not worse to the point of violence.
Recapitulating, we recall that Dick modified his identity to obtain Jane's affections.
Let's contrive a very unlikely example. Dick sees that Jane is very beautiful. Finding that the object of her affection is the President of the Chess club, Dick joins the Chess club, reads Kasparov, competes like a demon, and wins the County Chess King tournament. His over-awed peers elect him President of the Chess Club. Jane, being predictable as all women are, succumbs to his advances and we have Nirvana – Boy gets Girl. I know we are all laughing, but this is the stylized result that Dick envisions. The point we all miss is that the kiss is the end of the movie but it is only the start of the relationship. Up to this point, Dick had a goal: Become President of the Chess Club/Win Jane's affections.
Consider Dick's situation first: Victorious though he may be he is automatically insecure. Even in this ideal world, he is not going to become World Chess King. Worse yet, he doesn't WANT to. He finds that Jane is in love with someone he is not, and as beautiful as Jane is, he discovers that he is not in love with who she is. She has become a trophy. He loses County Chess Champion next time around, and Jane discovers that he is mortally fallible.
And what of Jane's part? She cannot believe that she has been “deceived” by a man who claims to be a Chess Champion, but all he ever really wanted to be was a Vet! It is academic who dumps who.
Consider what opinions of the opposite sex have been re-enforced. Dick has “learned” that there is no point changing to please a girl. He has “learned” that “All Girls” don't love you for who you are. Jane has “learned” “All Men” will do anything as long as they are in pursuit, but don't really want to be “in a relationship.” Furthermore, “All Men” want her only for her looks.
This would be bad enough if Dick and Jane met their ideal mate the very next time they ventured “out there.” BUT when Jack shows up to try and win Jane's affections, he has a very negative stereotype to overcome. Neither is Dick particularly kind to Jill. Jill loves animals, and thinks Vets are the unsung heroes of the New Millennium. Dick thinks it's an act, and is skeptical. Jill feels like he doesn't trust her, and therefore doesn't love her. Jill finally concludes that he is more in love with her looks than her character and although he really thinks she's prettier than Jane, it ends up not mattering
The point is this: Preconceptions are self fulfilling. Multiply this out by many years, and factor in that relationships are less commonplace than Untested Crushes, (these last remaining unchallenged by reality,) and it is a marvel that Cross-Gender relations, (admittedly bad,) are not worse to the point of violence.
Recapitulating, we recall that Dick modified his identity to obtain Jane's affections.
Chapter Four: The Unique Identifier.
Imagine instead that we start off determining that we will be completely unique, and similar to no one. One aspect of this is dress. Mohawk haircuts, tattoos, piercings and the grunge look have been past manifestations of this kind of “counter culture.” This can result in a person seeking out odd talents and pursuing excellence in arcane fields all in an attempt to have an identity that cannot be compromised. Implied by this choice is the good observation that “looks” are not everything, and one should not be judged strictly by outward appearances.
Let's say Dick has sought this unique character, and Jane is attracted. If she is from a conformist peer group, her hopes are doomed. But if she is equally individual, Dick and Jane are threatened by paradox. They have unique appearance and identity in common. Although they are individual, they have individuality in common. They form a peer group of two! Unfortunately this may be the ONLY thing they have in common. Attempts to maintain identity end up offending all compromise, and any relationship cannot last. They cannot be “together” and “distinct” at the same time.
Let's say Dick has sought this unique character, and Jane is attracted. If she is from a conformist peer group, her hopes are doomed. But if she is equally individual, Dick and Jane are threatened by paradox. They have unique appearance and identity in common. Although they are individual, they have individuality in common. They form a peer group of two! Unfortunately this may be the ONLY thing they have in common. Attempts to maintain identity end up offending all compromise, and any relationship cannot last. They cannot be “together” and “distinct” at the same time.
Chapter Five: Identity and Predictability, Nature versus Nurture.
This should lead naturally into a discussion of “What exactly does make someone unique?” Unique has been so overused in the media that it is now commonly used as a comparative. Yet people are no more identical than fingerprints. How can we resolve this, with the apparent similarities and occasional copy-cat behavior? Consider that from birth, our character is the accumulation of decisions or choices. If a parent disciplines us, and we agree, then we begin to implement that decision in our own affairs. If we disagree, we resolve not to let that be a decision we ever make. How to drive, what to eat, where to go, with whom to associate, when to act: The “whys” of how we do things. I learned from a psychiatrist that this is how we build our “sense of self.” This actually addresses the age old question of Nature versus Nurture is a unique way.
If the combinations and permutations of these were not enough, we change our minds at intervals that, while not random from the point of view of stimulus, are not readily predictable by any pattern. For example, “I'm sick of blue sweaters. Blue is no longer my favorite color!” When these things are taken into consideration, even “GI Joes,” military personnel who all wear size 10 shoes, and have names starting with “N” are still different enough in personality that it boggles the mind.
A more interesting question we could ask is this: “Do I mind being predictable?” Most of us just can't stand it. Some of us don't care that much, but are in the minority. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is at pains to be predictable so that the stock market doesn't do anything crazy. And yet no one on Wall Street would presume to predict what color his socks will be on any given day.
The flip side to that coin is that militarily the element of surprise is invaluable. We carry this over into everyday life in small ways: We think “If you don't know what I'm going to say, then I can win an argument.” If no one knows how I am going to spend my money then I should be able to get a better deal. Are these things really true?
Surprisingly enough, mostly NO! If you agreed instantly, I would not need to say “surprisingly!” However: If you know what I am going to say, you needn't ask. If enough people buy VW Beetles, VW beetles are dirt cheap. Not very individual but still dirt cheap.
If being predictable works out so well for us, why are we at such pains to be different?
If the combinations and permutations of these were not enough, we change our minds at intervals that, while not random from the point of view of stimulus, are not readily predictable by any pattern. For example, “I'm sick of blue sweaters. Blue is no longer my favorite color!” When these things are taken into consideration, even “GI Joes,” military personnel who all wear size 10 shoes, and have names starting with “N” are still different enough in personality that it boggles the mind.
A more interesting question we could ask is this: “Do I mind being predictable?” Most of us just can't stand it. Some of us don't care that much, but are in the minority. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is at pains to be predictable so that the stock market doesn't do anything crazy. And yet no one on Wall Street would presume to predict what color his socks will be on any given day.
The flip side to that coin is that militarily the element of surprise is invaluable. We carry this over into everyday life in small ways: We think “If you don't know what I'm going to say, then I can win an argument.” If no one knows how I am going to spend my money then I should be able to get a better deal. Are these things really true?
Surprisingly enough, mostly NO! If you agreed instantly, I would not need to say “surprisingly!” However: If you know what I am going to say, you needn't ask. If enough people buy VW Beetles, VW beetles are dirt cheap. Not very individual but still dirt cheap.
If being predictable works out so well for us, why are we at such pains to be different?
Chapter Six: Predicting Vs Predictability
To understand why we do not want to be “predictable” we can usefully investigate our own ability to predict. What if you could predict what the questions on next week's Biology test would be? What if you could predict when Zebras would be on sale in South Africa. What if you could predict who would win the NBA finals? What if you could predict where a lost child would be found? (Make up your own example of predicting a “why,” it's not easy.)
Clearly this predicting stuff is great... we need to bottle this stuff and sell it! There is a flawed logic that says: If predicting others is good for me and gives me an edge/advantage, the being predicted must not be good for me.
Let's think it through: If students can predict questions on a test, it defeats the purpose of testing. In reality, if you know the material, any set of questions is OK. The teacher is just spot checking you. Secretly the teacher wants you to do well, just not cheat. If you know when Zebras will be on sale, you will show up exactly then, and I can't sell them for as much. In point of fact, you can get the best price on Zebras right around Christmas time... they make lousy Christmas presents, and Zoos are not much patronized at that time of year. If you could predict who would win the NBA finals, everyone could predict it. There would be no point in gambling on it. As for predicting where a lost child would be found? The child is not bent on being un-predictable – that would be hiding. This child is lost and he really would benefit tremendously by finding himself predictable.
Having established then that predictability is not all bad, it remains the case that most of us (my secret is out – I don't mind being predicted all that much,) dislike our character being anticipated?
Calling for a trumpet flourish and a drum roll... "Trumpet flourish, drum roll please:"
I didn't capitalize it because I wanted you to read the other stuff, not just skip down to this part. But it's IMPORTANT, so I decided to put it in it's own paragraph. Keep in mind that even stupid people are complicated. But we – and please pay attention to my word - “ASSOCIATE” simplicity with stupidity. The aforementioned Chairman of the Federal Reserve is certainly not stupid. He is taking many factors into account, and carefully weighing many possible outcomes. And yet careful observation has shown that if he carries two brief cases to his main meeting, interest rates are going up.
Clearly this predicting stuff is great... we need to bottle this stuff and sell it! There is a flawed logic that says: If predicting others is good for me and gives me an edge/advantage, the being predicted must not be good for me.
Let's think it through: If students can predict questions on a test, it defeats the purpose of testing. In reality, if you know the material, any set of questions is OK. The teacher is just spot checking you. Secretly the teacher wants you to do well, just not cheat. If you know when Zebras will be on sale, you will show up exactly then, and I can't sell them for as much. In point of fact, you can get the best price on Zebras right around Christmas time... they make lousy Christmas presents, and Zoos are not much patronized at that time of year. If you could predict who would win the NBA finals, everyone could predict it. There would be no point in gambling on it. As for predicting where a lost child would be found? The child is not bent on being un-predictable – that would be hiding. This child is lost and he really would benefit tremendously by finding himself predictable.
Having established then that predictability is not all bad, it remains the case that most of us (my secret is out – I don't mind being predicted all that much,) dislike our character being anticipated?
Calling for a trumpet flourish and a drum roll... "Trumpet flourish, drum roll please:"
People do not like to be predicted because they think it makes them look simple.
I didn't capitalize it because I wanted you to read the other stuff, not just skip down to this part. But it's IMPORTANT, so I decided to put it in it's own paragraph. Keep in mind that even stupid people are complicated. But we – and please pay attention to my word - “ASSOCIATE” simplicity with stupidity. The aforementioned Chairman of the Federal Reserve is certainly not stupid. He is taking many factors into account, and carefully weighing many possible outcomes. And yet careful observation has shown that if he carries two brief cases to his main meeting, interest rates are going up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)