Paul Walker says Valentines day is irrational. Giving a woman money, he says, is Pareto-superior to dinner and flowers.
Now, I’m not famed for understanding women. But my hunch is that a man who says: “I can’t be bothered with that Vally day bull. Here's a £100 - get yourself another pair of shoes” will not be getting any action for a while.
Giving women what they want is rational. Women want romantic gestures. And this demand can be rational, especially for a woman who is looking for commitment. I say this for four reasons:
1. The peacock tail effect. Peacocks have elaborate tails because these signal genetic fitness. Similarly, a man who spends money on Vally day is signalling his ability as a provider: “look, I can offer you so much that I can afford to fritter money away on gestures.”
2. Investment in commitment. Love can be modelled as an addiction; the more time a couple spends together, the more likely they are to stay together. Dinner together is therefore an investment, in a way that letting the laydee go shopping whilst you watch the rugby on TV is not.
3. Noise. If a woman is looking to settle down with a man, she wants to learn about him, to be sure he’s The One. However, a man who rejects the social norm of Vally day increases uncertainty about who he is. The woman thinks: “if he rejects this cultural norm, what other norms does he reject. What sort of guy is this?” Her noise-signal ratio rises.
4. Rationality as counter-signalling. If a woman is looking for commitment, she’ll not want a narrow utility maximizer, because such a man will leave her the moment a better offer comes along.
There is, I think, a general lesson here. Although Vally day is daft if understood in narrow instrumental terms, it makes economic sense if we interpret rationality more widely. Could it be that Paul’s mistake is a common one among economists, of construing rationality too narrowly, and being too quick to see irrationality?
Now, I’m not famed for understanding women. But my hunch is that a man who says: “I can’t be bothered with that Vally day bull. Here's a £100 - get yourself another pair of shoes” will not be getting any action for a while.
Giving women what they want is rational. Women want romantic gestures. And this demand can be rational, especially for a woman who is looking for commitment. I say this for four reasons:
1. The peacock tail effect. Peacocks have elaborate tails because these signal genetic fitness. Similarly, a man who spends money on Vally day is signalling his ability as a provider: “look, I can offer you so much that I can afford to fritter money away on gestures.”
2. Investment in commitment. Love can be modelled as an addiction; the more time a couple spends together, the more likely they are to stay together. Dinner together is therefore an investment, in a way that letting the laydee go shopping whilst you watch the rugby on TV is not.
3. Noise. If a woman is looking to settle down with a man, she wants to learn about him, to be sure he’s The One. However, a man who rejects the social norm of Vally day increases uncertainty about who he is. The woman thinks: “if he rejects this cultural norm, what other norms does he reject. What sort of guy is this?” Her noise-signal ratio rises.
4. Rationality as counter-signalling. If a woman is looking for commitment, she’ll not want a narrow utility maximizer, because such a man will leave her the moment a better offer comes along.
There is, I think, a general lesson here. Although Vally day is daft if understood in narrow instrumental terms, it makes economic sense if we interpret rationality more widely. Could it be that Paul’s mistake is a common one among economists, of construing rationality too narrowly, and being too quick to see irrationality?
Putting Valentines day on the same day as the rugby is irrational, daft and probably dangerous.
Posted by: Kit | February 14, 2009 at 01:15 PM
It also a way to check single commitment: it is not easy to attend to two Valentine's dinners.
Posted by: john | February 14, 2009 at 03:30 PM
A silly Vally Card and a box of Chocs that's quite cheap but which you know she likes in the morning.
Then cook something that she's never had before (and not something that she'll never want to have again) for dinner in the evening.
Follow that with some good old home-made BaconSalt Chocolate and you're home and dry.
You're thoughtful and take note of her likes, but not a wastrel, you can cook, and you have a sense of the bizarre proved by the BaconSalt Chocolate!
Posted by: Crazy Stu | February 14, 2009 at 04:34 PM
"this cultural norm": what, when did that happen?
Posted by: dearieme | February 14, 2009 at 04:49 PM
"New experiments with robotic female birds suggest that the best male lovers listen to females and adjust their courtship similarly."
That is from the New Scientist's Short Sharp Science blog. "Best" means most successful.
Posted by: D iversity | February 14, 2009 at 06:40 PM
(1) is served equally well by just giving her money.
(3) does not increase signal-to-noise ratios. Quite the opposite: observing someone selectively reject cultural norms provides a great deal of information. However, some women may value conformance to cultural norms for its own sake.
Regarding (4), I read "narrow" rationality as being a view which makes overly strong assumptions about the ends a person is seeking. Is that what you meant?
Posted by: Jacob Wintersmith | February 14, 2009 at 06:41 PM
"New experiments with robotic female birds suggest that the best male lovers listen to females and adjust their courtship similarly."
That is from the New Scientist's Short Sharp Science blog. "best" means most successful.
Posted by: D iversity | February 14, 2009 at 06:43 PM
Don't forget that way back St valentines day was an anonymous deal where the shy swain sent a card or somesuch.
From what you say it sounds like it has become yet another "what have you given me lately" from thwe view of females. that is till they are 60+.
Posted by: john malpas | February 15, 2009 at 12:58 AM
"Don't forget that way back St valentines day was an anonymous deal where the shy swain sent a card or somesuch."
I put that to a couple of young blokes at work, and they said "Stalker!" in unison.
One of them, who's a lad, said that Vally's Day is the easiest night to pull - if you find maleless females out that night you know they must be single and are looking for action.
Posted by: KB Player | February 15, 2009 at 01:16 AM
I have to agree with Kit over the rugby. Bad idea putting anything else on at the start of the Super 14. And I have to also agree with Jacob about points 1, 3 and 4. But that post has cause me some trouble!!! :-)
Posted by: Paul Walker | February 15, 2009 at 01:41 AM
A lawyer acquaintance says, "Flowers are a necessary but not sufficient condition of Valentine's Day."
He is very happily married.
Posted by: KB Player | February 15, 2009 at 09:49 AM
I'm now trying (and failing) to rationalise to myself why I spent £120 taking the missus out to dinner last night...
Posted by: Yaffle | February 15, 2009 at 01:24 PM
"Could it be that Paul’s mistake is a common one among economists, of construing rationality too narrowly, and being too quick to see irrationality?"
Contemporary economics is basically the explication of this mistake.
Posted by: dirigible | February 16, 2009 at 04:33 PM
rugby is my favorite sport because this brings out the best from each of the players both on and off the court because unlike other sports that you can only win if you play as a team and each position has a specific purpose and requires the maximum you both physically and mentally ...
Posted by: buy viagra | April 07, 2010 at 08:31 PM