I’m open to persuasion - what insights into relationships can we get from the concepts of “dating markets” and “objective mate value” that you don’t think we can get without them?
I’m open to persuasion - what insights into relationships can we get from the concepts of “dating markets” and “objective mate value” that you don’t think we can get without them?
It’s really long and I only skimmed it so I might be missing something (although I am familiar with the blog and the writer), but all he really seems to be saying is that in social environments where there are significantly more of one sex than the other, heterosexual people of the minority sex have an easier time dating than people of the majority sex, because they have more potential partners and less competition. That’s a pretty obvious point and we don’t need the concept of a “dating market” to grasp it. I don’t deny competition for partners sometimes exists, but not all competition is market competition.
But that is precisely what an example of applying market dynamics to analyze dating looks like… it’s about supply and demand (competition) and how that affects incentives and norms… not sure what you’re looking for if that doesn’t “count”!
Social competition is not the same thing as market competition. As I said before, there’s no price mechanism and no exchange of one good for another. It’s more just people trying to get attention and build connections with others.
For example, suppose you are at a meetup and some well-known people are there. Those people will probably have an easier time finding people to talk to than less well-known people, and other people at the event may compete for their attention. Would you describe the resulting situation as a “friendship market”? If not, how is it different?
Alternatively, siblings sometimes compete for the limited resource of their parent’s attention. And for various reasons, some children do need (and receive) more attention than others. So the siblings may alter their behavior and attitude to try and one-up each other and get attention from Mum and Dad. Is the resulting situation a “parent market”?
You’re welcome to disagree with me that using “markets” and “market dynamics” to analyze social settings is a helpful analogy… but yes, you could of course use market language to help describe the social/friendship dynamics you mention. Econ has a very broad understanding of markets as well as a broad understanding of value and trade and incentives, it is not assumed that everything must be mediated by $ to be a market or to be analyzed using basic econ principles… if you find the language unhelpful that’s fine but many of us do find it helpful.
OK, we can agree to disagree. I’d be curious to read your take one day on what you find valuable/helpful in the “dating market” and “objective mate value” framework.
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I meant I’d be keen to read more about what you find valuable in this framework (beyond just a link to another piece) as a post on your blog, not a reply to me specifically. It was a reader suggestion. Of course you don’t have to write anything if you don’t want to.
I’m open to persuasion - what insights into relationships can we get from the concepts of “dating markets” and “objective mate value” that you don’t think we can get without them?
Here’s a blog post that I think uses the concept of a mating market well: https://putanumonit.com/2020/01/26/skewed-and-the-screwed/
It’s really long and I only skimmed it so I might be missing something (although I am familiar with the blog and the writer), but all he really seems to be saying is that in social environments where there are significantly more of one sex than the other, heterosexual people of the minority sex have an easier time dating than people of the majority sex, because they have more potential partners and less competition. That’s a pretty obvious point and we don’t need the concept of a “dating market” to grasp it. I don’t deny competition for partners sometimes exists, but not all competition is market competition.
But that is precisely what an example of applying market dynamics to analyze dating looks like… it’s about supply and demand (competition) and how that affects incentives and norms… not sure what you’re looking for if that doesn’t “count”!
Social competition is not the same thing as market competition. As I said before, there’s no price mechanism and no exchange of one good for another. It’s more just people trying to get attention and build connections with others.
For example, suppose you are at a meetup and some well-known people are there. Those people will probably have an easier time finding people to talk to than less well-known people, and other people at the event may compete for their attention. Would you describe the resulting situation as a “friendship market”? If not, how is it different?
Alternatively, siblings sometimes compete for the limited resource of their parent’s attention. And for various reasons, some children do need (and receive) more attention than others. So the siblings may alter their behavior and attitude to try and one-up each other and get attention from Mum and Dad. Is the resulting situation a “parent market”?
You’re welcome to disagree with me that using “markets” and “market dynamics” to analyze social settings is a helpful analogy… but yes, you could of course use market language to help describe the social/friendship dynamics you mention. Econ has a very broad understanding of markets as well as a broad understanding of value and trade and incentives, it is not assumed that everything must be mediated by $ to be a market or to be analyzed using basic econ principles… if you find the language unhelpful that’s fine but many of us do find it helpful.
OK, we can agree to disagree. I’d be curious to read your take one day on what you find valuable/helpful in the “dating market” and “objective mate value” framework.
I gave you an example! You disagree that what I find valuable is valuable - that’s fine but I’m not going to try to convince you on this point
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I meant I’d be keen to read more about what you find valuable in this framework (beyond just a link to another piece) as a post on your blog, not a reply to me specifically. It was a reader suggestion. Of course you don’t have to write anything if you don’t want to.