INEQUALITY is the basis of RELATIONSHIP: an economic model of relationships

[@psychacks]

Thinking of going to grad school? Check out STELLAR, my top-rated program and the world's only empirically-validated GRE test prep system. Use the code "PSYCH" for 10% off all membership plans: stellargre.com. People need things from other people. And the medium through which value is exchanged is a relationship. When the value of the proposed exchange is strictly equal, no transaction occurs -- as this would actually be a net loss for both parties. No transaction, no relationship. This suggests that inequality is the basis of relationship, as it is the unequal exchange of value that motivates transaction. I will explain more in this episode. Become a Psychonaut and join PsycHack's member community: kzbin.info/door/SduXBjCHkLoo_y9ss2xzXwjoin Orion is a licensed psychologist in the state of California. Podcast available of Spotify, Instagram, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and others. See the "About" tab for more information on donations and consultations. Website: oriontarabanpsyd.com #dating #relationship #economics

[@JustLIkerapunzel]

Disagree with your hypothesis that it's not equal because "both people think they got the better deal". Yes both people must see that they gained what they wanted put of the transaction but that doesn't translate to thinking they got the "better" deal. I can be at a festival and feel like I am like dying of thirst in the summer heat. They can sell a 5dl waterbottle for 8$ which is a clear rip off. If I am thirsty enough I will end up still paying those 8$ based on the shops higher leverage despite me knowing they got the better deal. In a relationship I can be the one struggling to pick up after myself and clean but passioned about cooking while dating a neat freak to whom those tasks fall easy. I don't believe that I make "the better deal" by doing the cooking chore knowing they do the cleaning. I'll simply perceive it as a fair and EQUAL transaction as both people get to do something we find easy and not have to do something we perceive as frustrating simply based on preference. So imo equality is everything but it's up to the individuals to basically "value" what each one brings to the table

[@nolanmerchan5095]

"They don't need coffee, they already have coffee, they want your money". Brilliant. I really like this explanation. A transaction, whether financial or romantic, must benefit both parties. Thank you.

[@toddjohnson271]

Which why men are walking away.....very little benefit and huge risks.

[@Anonymous-md2qp]

@@toddjohnson271 I completely agree. I cannot think of a single thing that will benefit my life by being in a relationship. It’s all losses.

[@JoseDiaz-rd9fh]

​@@Anonymous-md2qp🤔 there has always been loss between men and women. Usually in one direction from man to the woman. The main point of contention that you and myself can agree on is that you no longer have control of what that loss will be. Women want men to have all the responsibility they have ever had for a relationship with virtually no authority. Moreover women want to very much act as if they are single and available within the confines of a relationship were they continue to reap the benefits of said relationship. Put another way the government and family court system is the modern woman's husband and the men are unwitting plow horses. Modern relationships hold almost no value for men because they don't care to protect any of the interests that men value. Easy example would be mandatory paternity tests. They protect the women's interests under the gise "in the best interest of the children"the only way to mitigate risk to some degree is to be subservient to the woman you are in a relationship with. Hence the phrase happy wife happy life. It's important to understand why relationships are failing because we have excellent reasons to not take women seriously today. And when a loved one asks you why you avoid them it can really help to have a well reasoned articulate response. They may not be happy with it at first but if they are reasonable and pay attention they will at least acknowledge at some point that you do have a good point

[@BasementBerean]

Sad but true. I was married for 17 years, but when I got sick with a debilitating illness and could not work, my ex divorced me. I wasn't worth having around. I was a liability instead of an asset and a solution to a problem.

[@dreamcatcher7939]

This is so sad for you. But I've learned very few marriages survive tragedies. It's not that a tragic event changes you, because you are what you are. Rather, it brings to light a quality, a part of you not seen before. None of us know how we'll react in any given situation. We think we do, but no, we don't. Your partner had a choice- stay and care for you. Or run. But you also have a choice. Wallow in self-pity. Or fight and become stronger. You see, you too will find out what you are made of.

[@BasementBerean]

@@dreamcatcher7939 I was healed by a miracle of God overnight in May of 2015. I actually went to sleep sick, and awoke in perfect health. Then I started a second career that I am now retired from. I am hugely blessed and thankful for my life, and still have an amicable relationship with my ex.

[@PolishBehemoth]

A good wife/husband would stick around tk care for you.

[@ruckin3]

@@BasementBerean ???????????? still have an amicable relationship with the person who betrayed you? I was feeling bad for you because I went through the same thing. Got paralyzed in a car wreck and divorced me immediately . She called 5 months later in tears (engaged to another man) and she was crying and wanting to remain friends. I hung up..... Not out of spite but I mean cmon .....some self respect.

[@BasementBerean]

@@ruckin3 Well, our relationship needs to be amicable for the kids. We have two, and they're almost grown but we need to work together (and not have them see us divided) for their confidence and peace of mind. Also, I was on the receiving end of a miracle, and that is not a license to be a jerk to anyone, even her, if it can be avoided. Perhaps a difference is that my ex is not seeking another relationship, and she told me that she would consider that adultery, so she is still honoring our marriage in a spiritual way even though she legally dissolved it. Your situation is awful, and I'm not sure that I would have been as "amicable" in your situation a I've been in mine. I totally understand why you hung up.

[@zodglubby]

My definition of love (stolen from somewhere) when 2 people have attraction to each other, and both think they can't do any better = love 😍

[@utkarsh4386]

That’s not true. There’s always someone better but you don’t have all the time in the world. It’s about finding someone that is humble to quit the game.

[@katoombaau]

My definition of love (also stolen from elsewhere) = a concept invented by women to manipulate men.

[@-haclong2366]

@@katoombaau I think rather that men evolved to feel love to invest their resources in a mate, if a man didn't feel love he'd just go to the next one after impregnating her.

[@adamsmith2385]

For me, love is when two conscious beings treat the other's needs and desires as their own.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

What a terrible definition of love. If that's truly how you view it, you won't have success in your relationships. When you frame it as "doing better" you are in a comparative mindset. You're constantly on the lookout for a way to cheat, or to break up and get with someone else. Think about how you view all other relationships. Like with your family, or your friends. Are you constantly comparing your brother to someone else's brother, wishing you had a "Better" brother? Are you constantly thinking "man I have such great friends, couldn't do any better". No, of course you're not. It's about the connection you have with them. It's not something you can measure on a better or worse scale. And it's not as if you own your friends either, which is also something that framing promotes.

[@justlurkin]

And when the transaction is successful, we stick the terms and conditions in a box, call the box "love" and never speak on whats inside the box again, only about how pretty the box looks. But when they're not aware we're still peeking at what's in the box to make sure we're still getting the better deal.

[@psychacks]

I don't think that's entirely wrong. Love is like a sausage: no one really wants to look too closely at how it's made.

[@PharmacyTechLabs]

@@psychacks Love is like a sausage haha!

[@zodglubby]

Perfect description

[@stillawake76]

@@psychacks Poetry

[@brain0nfire]

This is a very good point that should be realize more often. People trade something 'equivalent' not 'equal'. There's no point trading equal things.

[@meenki347]

Or, there's no point trading the same thing.

[@leviathon2]

An then only equivalent in the eye of the beholder!

[@jameswallace8202]

It is so refreshing to see someone that is able to combine psychological and economic principles. I am so glad KZbin displayed you on my page

[@griesemermd]

Another great video. I wish I had access to these when I was younger. These videos spell out a lot of the wisdom I gained only after years of experience.

[@JoseDiaz-rd9fh]

You need good advice paired with some lived experience with it to register properly and give you the will to make it applied wisdom. A lot of us myself included resonate deeply with this content because our lived experience mirrors what he describes.

[@neyson220293]

I've heard Dr Jordan Peterson talking about how successful women find it difficult to find a partner; he says that hypergamy makes it so that they are aiming for a man that is higher in the hierarchy, which means their dating pool is reduced. your economic model of relationship further explains this fact, because not only do the men they are striving for, have a disproportionately large dating pool but they also have little to gain in a dating transaction with a successful woman. there are three assets that a woman can use with a rich man and those are beauty, personality and time; not only successful women are most likely falling short on the personality aspect as disagreeability is a requirement to have a successful career, but they are also definitely falling short on the time aspect

[@andreal2625]

Interesting that you think success means a disagreeable personality. That can be true but might depend on where you work and how aware you are. If people like you, you can often get more cooperation.

[@neyson220293]

@@andreal2625 you can use psychology to get people's cooperation, but that doesn't make you less disagreeable.

[@JoseDiaz-rd9fh]

​@@andreal2625the biggest drawback to relationships is the lack of knowledge on acceptable loss. Because family court judges have so much discretion it's making it a very unsavory decision to be a traditional man today. The old saying of just pick better woman is simply gas lighting and does nothing to address the problem

[@planetary-rendez-vous]

If economics are about people's decision then economics is psychology I always thought psychology is everywhere but seems more like economics is everywhere... This explanation is brilliant and could very well fit a darwinian perspective.

[@brain0nfire]

Everywhere people are there is psychology. Economics is sort of a branch of psychology, since it's about the behavior of individuals and collectives in function of value and scarcity.

[@TomFranklinX]

@@brain0nfire Every humanities discipline is a branch of psychology, just as every STEM disclipline is a branch of Physics.

[@brain0nfire]

@@TomFranklinX ironically, I'd argue that both of those branches can even be traced back to some sort of astrological association. Astrology is after all the study of the relationship between people's minds and the configurations of the sky. And the modern equivalent is quantum physics where the observer is being considered as substantial to the observations.

[@TomFranklinX]

@@brain0nfire I'm a philosophical Idealist, for me mind and matter is one :D

[@brain0nfire]

@@TomFranklinX I think there is no solution namable. I think there is both unity and separation on different frames of reference. What we experience is a relation between our senses and the world. This means that we are actually experiencing ourselves - even though the world's 'shadows' are cast upon us. And on the other hand we are the world (a part). So we are both totality and part; and the mind/matter experience is an infinite recursion between these two (which may only be apparent distinct aspects we perceive as split due to our perspective/predicament). The real search is for God that encompasses all. And God cannot be named. Words don't suffice as inadequate simplifications for experiencial descriptions. Our human condition, with as much freedom as it gives us, it also restrains to understand the totality to which we belong to and to which we experience as this kaleidoscopic illusory spectacle. It's only a subset; it's only an emanation.

[@idlehourlinda6476]

Just finished my morning workout, and this has given my brain a similar workout! Viewing our lives as simply a series of transactions could be helpful in causing us to be more deliberate and circumspect with our decisions as they relate to our own as well as other people's motives. Interesting!

[@wayne7936]

This should cover the cost of a cup of coffee these days in SF. Right?

[@flemutter7211]

This guy is really growing on me. Facts 💯

[@castiel4746]

From a secular perspective you are right, as the polish philosopher Zigmunt Baumand explained in his book "Liquid Love" humans are reduced to a consumption product and they are always open to new better "products" to consume, so relationships are not longer "solid" everything is liquid and temporary. From my perspective a empty society, but our current context.

[@cliffarroyo9554]

How on Earth did Bauman see it all coming?

[@alexforce9]

I dont get why we assume that relationships are to be solid? Why should they be? Life itself is changing all the time. Relationships are part of life. The only solid things in the universe are the laws and principles of how things work and interact with each other. If you are no longer get the best deal in this relationship - leave. Just remember what that best deal is. Coz often is not someone new, younger/richer. But someone who understand you well and is willing to put the work in, good at comunication ect. The problem is not people following the economical principal - the problem is that people are dumb and pay premium for useless junk lol.

[@thaimuayshoo1171]

@@alexforce9 Exactly. When a wife gets wrinkley, the husband should divorce her and when the husband gets laid off the wife should leave him. Universe is chaotic after all, best to just go get yours. Will to power within this meaningless existence.

[@PolishBehemoth]

Thats not true for complete comitted romantic relationships. Part of the exchange in romance and marriage is they give up the possi ility of oursuing better for the sake of the stabilit of the family. They even say it at the vows "for better or worse, richer or poorer"

[@RynoGotIt]

Once you build a large fan base start a podcast. I love your insights.

[@findinglela]

Yes

[@idesel]

It never stops to amaze me when successful women think they deserve successful men because they are successful. It takes a while to be successful, so these are usually women in their 30s and above who have focused on their careers. The problem is that by the time they reached this success, they lost what men of any age actually want i.e youth. Even a poor men generally doesn't get attracted to a women due to her success.

[@lesbo37]

Furthermore a lot of the traits that drive successful careers are very masculine traits, so not only have they sacrificed their youth and beauty they've also lost their femininity in the process.

[@idesel]

@@lesbo37 Very true.

[@iampicasso1811]

@@lesbo37 so true

[@spotifyabigail3028]

Idk there are successful guys who like milfs/older successful women. Yung Gravy is perfect example, man loves milfs. There's someone for everyone, just like some men wait till they're older to start dating and are left with older women or women who are too young to connect with in the same way they'd find with women their age (some are happy with the gold diggers tho, no foul if that's what you like Betty White has her pool boys I'm sure).

[@rexaustin2885]

@@spotifyabigail3028 there are always deviations from the norm. What one needs to remember is that nature selects those deviations out eventually.

[@RobertRod818]

100% agree with you. My partner recently told me, "don't lecture me when we hang out, I already get lectured enough by my family at home". So this, makes perfect sense.

[@GreatRetro]

I wanted to write something like "Man, where had you ben 10 years ago?" but I'm just gonna thank you for existing and sharing this now! ^_^

[@mortensimonsen1645]

This is perhaps what many relationships start out as, but they must certainly evolve in order to be of any higher value. Maybe you get a child because you want to, but you will have to stay a mother or a father no matter how things are going with the child. Same with the wife/husband. To reduce all relations to transactions is cynical. I don't doubt it is true to a large degree - and I have experienced it to my bitter disappointment. But if all relations are simply transactions - then nothing can last.

[@SmileyEmoji42]

Time makes good relationships grow stronger. With time you get to to better understand your partner and they get to know you better. This means that they are better able to spot opprtunities for mutually beneficial transactions than an outsider can. This is true in business and in personal relationships. With personal relationships the shared history also has its own value - Everyone likes to reminisce now and again, especially as we get older and come to realise that our best days are in our past.

[@tyrians6376]

“Economics isn’t about money, it’s about how people make decisions.” As an economist, thank you so much for saying this. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain that.

[@Luanavit22]

I love your videos because they reinforce my beliefs and show me I’m not so stupid. Thank you ❤

[@vaneakatok]

I love precisely the opposite - videos that make me question my believes, and humiliate me and show me that there is more to learn. I guess to each his own.

[@MaybejustNarbe]

Can you continue on this, it’s amazing. Please write a book.

[@Maruwasa]

i agree - it must be expanded on

[@darek795]

Very brillant. You may say the same about society. A poor could gain more from interaction with rich person than from another poor person, he could learn something new.

[@lloydgush]

The basis of a relationship is that two things that are different relate to each other through some form of transformation.

[@PolishBehemoth]

Youre missimg the transactional part of all rrlationships.

[@lloydgush]

@@PolishBehemoth that's the transformation part. And I'm being way more generic with the term "relationship" than you think.

[@SnugglehPuppeh]

Trading dollar bill for dollar bill would still be considered productive economic action by mainstream economists. Gotta make that GDP number look higher.

[@prehensiledale1215]

You CAN have a relationship that transcends the transactional, although you have to be mindful about it and clear about your vetting process.

[@beestreet9996]

Vetting process? Transactional? Very noticeable very repugnant. What about just being a gentleman plain and simple

[@Maruwasa]

That's a great insight, I think you should expand it into a longer video that unpacks it even more thoroughly. As a person that did economics at a tertiary level, I really like the idea you are putting forth.

[@TrollMeister_]

It’s so refreshing to hear someone speak the truth over politically correct clichés.

[@dugw15]

I agree with the premise but disagree with thr language used. "Equality" in our society in the last few decades generally is taken to mean equality in inherent value and dignity. Men and women are equal in that way, but not the same. They offer each other something the other doesn't have. I'd prefer different language, but the premise is valuable nonetheless.

[@dubemelchi]

Wow bro, excellently articulated arguments. Every man needs to sub. I say “men” because you explain things in a way that i believe men have been thirsty for. Thank you for your work. It’s so tactile.

[@thomasmann4536]

I think this is an incomplete picture of relationships. Yes, transactions are part of a relationship, but - in a healthy relationship - both parties gain the same thing which none of them have on their own. In game theory, this would be called the nash equilibrium, AKA the rational choice to make.

[@Emma-nl5wk]

Was thinking something similar.. If I give you a compliment and you give me a compliment, both giving and receiving compliments will make both of us more happy - interactions like these don’t seem to fit into the transactional framework he proposes. I might have misunderstood his point though.

[@Hknasw]

I would say a healthy relationship is when both parties are getting what they want from the other. Whatever it is they want is what is being transacted. The relationship falls apart when one party is not receiving what they want or is getting a lower quality of what they want while they are still giving the other party what they want.

[@thomasmann4536]

@@Hknasw if you want to view emotional support, emotions, etc. as "transactions", have at it. The problem is, those aren't quantifiable, so when one person feels like they are getting a worse deal out of it, it's more likely they who are the problem.

[@seanbutler9429]

@@thomasmann4536 Emotional support is more difficult to measure for sure, but in my experience with: GFs in my 20s, an ex-wife and a current wife, @Hknasw is correct. Emotional support is measured in "how you feel" about your partner when considering the entirety of all your mutual interactions. There is an "emotional accounting" that happens for both parties of the relationship; whether either party is aware it or not, it is subconsciously going on. And that does not mean it is always equal, but over time, if one party to the relationship feels they are not receiving "proper value" in terms of what that person personally values based upon what that person brings to the table, then that person will grow more and more resentful over time. And if the issues between the parties are not addressed, then the relationship will get worse and worse.

[@zzzzzz69]

This is true that value is unequal due to differences in subjective perception But just to clarify, the implication of inequality in this context is different from the implication of inequality as in to take advantage of (which also has subjective definitions like almost everything else), so a transaction of unequal values can and should still occur within an agreed definition of "fair trade" as opposed to taking advantage of each other via said transactions Also all else being equal, a wealthy man entering into a relationship with a poorer woman is equally unattractive to a wealthy woman entering into a relationship with a poorer man, it's the all else being "equal" part that complicates this "equation", and depending on each person's subjective perception there's no saying how desirable or undesirable this prospect is or whether it's even relevant to the person

[@Oneandonly-xn5ey]

Your videos blows my mind. New concept i haven’t heard before in psychology.

[@ironclad452]

As soon as her presence is equal to or (hopefully) more valuable than my peace, I'll choose her. But as long as she takes away from my peace, she's not an option.

[@KASLtja]

Nietzche wrote about the dynamic between the loved and the beloved in a relationship in the book Human All too Human.

[@ronindude9640]

WOW, WOW, WOW ! Best video ever !! This is such deep wisdom. This is mathematics with a psychological twist and it makes great sense. Thank you for explaining all of this, sir ! I call you sir because you deserve that. Really... THANK YOU !! I couldn't have understood what you explained for the rest of my life if you didn't make this video.

[@findinglela]

I know

[@vaneakatok]

whre you high when you wrote this?

[@ronindude9640]

@@vaneakatok Based on your spelling, I should be asking you that question, shouldn't I ?

[@jacklaurentius6130]

This video needs 1 millions views.

[@Coach_B2024]

Man, you are super good! I’m devouring your content! Thanks

[@Dora-wc8be]

Two people make a relationship. They don't have to see eye to eye on everything, they don't have to ' get' each other. What they do have is a desire to learn about each other and to not let others dictate their actions. Thank you. Interesting topic.

[@zuckthebetacuck2789]

Not

[@Dora-wc8be]

@@zuckthebetacuck2789 🙄

[@BrunoBerryhoneybuns1370]

wow... I'm proud to say that I'm currently exercising this knowledge and putting it to good use and it's nice to see some confirmation of what I'm doing

[@rayrwyr]

Not sure of the wisdom of this video. When I buy something I do not think I got a better deal than the seller. What I think is: I needed something and I got it using money and so my need got met and so I am at a better situation than before when my need was unmet.

[@s7ai]

As a consumer I'm looking for the best deal possible to reach my goals - as a producer my goal is to offer the best perceived deal to the consumer.

[@SmileyEmoji42]

That not quite right. The producer's goal is to offer the worst deal to the consumer that they see as better than no deal. Doesn't work so well with personal relationships though.

[@birdsinacage6627]

You've just outlined the benefits of a free market system and applied it to relationships. Very brilliant. The individual decides. Makes one wonder why governments everywhere harp on equity, meaning equality of outcome as defined and measured by them. Imagine if a gov. Decided who you could or even should date.

[@Hknasw]

Could you elaborate on how it relates to a free market system? I am genuinely interested

[@birdsinacage6627]

​@@Hknasw free markets allow maximal decision making, subsequently allowing for differences in perception. Ideally, one strives for accurate perception which logically requires accurate measurement and data processing. This process reveals differences and by extension unequal traits and performance in that which is being measured, whether it be mate selection or investment decisions. The drs example of spending three dollars on coffee indicates both parties have calculated they each have an advantage by supplying the other with what they personally do not have (inequality). The motivational power of providing a good or service without external coercion, is the basis of the FM system whether in economics or relationships

[@roses6564]

@@birdsinacage6627 Free markets also allow do-overs instead of allowing marriage to paralyze evolution and personal growth.

[@christopherqueen3194]

This is a fascinating idea, well presented. I shall have to consider this for some time. Thanks.

[@andreal2625]

Each person can bring different things to the relationship that are complementary. Too much similarity is boring. Some compromises and renegotiations happen. Friendship and some common beliefs help. Treat each other with respect. How can anyone expect that income ratios won’t change over time? Deal with that with maturity.

[@jlolson53]

You're the Von Mises of psychology/relationships. :) Very clever - but to nitpick, what's happening (I think) is not that one perceives what's being received as superior to the value of what's being offered; it's not as if I view a plumber as superior (for example) to my electrician's ability in any overall sense; rather, I see the differences or division of labor overall as being superior to a system where I am forced to do everything. In other words, I don't need to view what I'm offering to a possible romantic partner as inferior to what she's offering me; instead, I only need to recognize that in the division of labor/production system of exchange, I can trade for something I neither view as superior or inferior - but rather. UNEQUAL relative to our own values in that context. I might even regard what I'm offering (say, protection, to a woman) as superior to her offering of emotional support (or whatever) - but for me, in the specific context, I attach a higher value to the exchange than I do to no exchange. Am I making sense? :)

[@psychacks]

I think that fits with my understanding, which is why I tried to avoid words like "superior" or "inferior," which tend to carry a moralistic connotation. Trade is always based on unequal estimation of value, and that estimation is largely predicated on the necessity of our circumstances.

[@jlolson53]

@@psychacksFai enough. I appreciate your intelligence and insight on these subjects. Particularly enjoyed your piece on the origins of Romance. I hadn't thought of that!

[@crocopsjonjones5534]

This is Gold. Many red pill content creators explained why the 50% 50% equality doesn't work, this explanation is very unique and easy to understand.

[@John-qt3vt]

Always learning something from this channel.

[@GeorgeDonnelly]

Always so insightful! Nicely said.

[@deanchur]

Briffault's Law could have been mentioned in there as well as a great example of relationships being based in economics.

[@jawwad4020]

Fair assessment. However, the fact that it is the self and not the partner that is of "lower overall value" could be lost on some folks. Choose your partner wisely and treat them as such!

[@AetherXIV]

i like how you both understand economics and evoloution

[@socialdiving2305]

Yes, when well developed personalities combined they get more then they were separately. Like 1+1>1. But, provocative logic provided by dr: relationships are spoiled when people are going in "trading" so far that they become commodities

[@jasonjon]

wow. just wow. you're a genius doc

[@learncadadia7832]

2:53: "Because nothing is gained, for the expenditure of time and effort, to execute the transaction, which could have been more profitably spent in another transaction."

[@dank1518]

Out inequalities is / are my wife always made 6 figures going back 25 years ago, therefore decisions about $ are her domain & she’s really great at investing & buying stuff. Recently joined 6 figures club & I’m now allowed vetoing power; her rule.

[@ImWORTHITINC]

WOW! YOU ALWAYS OPEN MY MIND!!! GREAT STUFF, DR!!

[@jlvandat69]

Good stuff. I had never viewed relationships from this perspective, and it make perfect sense. Very helpful.

[@chingamage2548]

Thank you Sir! Please write a book that would be amazing

[@didelphissaksia786]

Mr. Dude Sir... THANK YOU SO MUCH for your channel! I am going to use this to send to some (female) people in order to clarify some things with them.

[@chriss377]

Every relationship is a value for value exchange.

[@mohamedelgendy3923]

So could this be an argument in favor of traditional gender roles? Would you say the value that a woman could can offer a man in return to his financial provisioning is domestic labor and sex? Also, your argument sounds pretty darn solid in theory but is there any empirical data to back it up? And if there is, could you do a seperate episode on that? Thanks Doc.

[@mohamedelgendy3923]

@@sarahrobertson634 Typical, if she stays home which is what alot of women want to do, then she should be expected to do those things, and even women who do work desire men who are at their level or above and would like him to be the main provider, which means she should offer something in return. I'm not saying men shouldn't help at home but women have to bring something to the table....

[@FarmingUnclear]

@@mohamedelgendy3923 I agree with you but you assume that women 'must' come to the table. They can simply choose to never have a relationship. Unlike men, they have easy access to sex and validation.

[@mohamedelgendy3923]

@@FarmingUnclear You said that men have easy access to sex? What planet do you live on? Its the complete opposite. Also when men and women choose to come to the table, they must provide something. I'm not saying anyone should be forced to go to the table

[@FarmingUnclear]

@@mohamedelgendy3923 unlike men

[@Straga_Severa]

@@FarmingUnclear Well, the word "must" has different meanings. In this way it is used conditionally - "to get X, you must do Y". You can chose to not do Y, but this just means you'll not get X. If it's ok for you, then great =-)

[@stephencaron3047]

Excellent description of a common problem

[@ABC-jq7ve]

This is why I don’t understand why women go around sleeping with random men off the street and having one nights stands - what is in it for them? When they could be investing in a potential spouse.

[@rapanchoo]

Doctor Taraban, now I can see we’ll how you apply what we can see in Human Action to relationships. I love it. ❤

[@pcka12]

In a male / female relationship the difference in gender provides the basic 'difference' providing 'value', beyond that there is choice.

[@TheRicioShow]

What do I think- I think you are absolutely brilliant 👏 I am 57 two divorces one release 31 years,.2nd 2 years single mom of 3 very costly both in Virginia. Now in California been to Philppines 6 weeks past 12 months my next romantic partner will 100% be in Philppines because Filipina young and beautiful knows I am there for Ribs!!! Lol

[@Aethelhart]

Wasn't it Aristotle who said that marriage is friendship between unequals?

[@Smoketherapy]

Perhaps redefine as Complementary Inequality

[@alexforce9]

Thats actually also explains why women are on high alert when you are "too nice" to them. They are feeling that they are not providing equal value back so they see it as sus.

[@bluebutterfly5062]

I think women are sus about men being nice because women often use niceness to hide their intentions. They are used to others being nice as just a means to an end. Women are also programmed to look in between the lines instead of straight at something for what it is.

[@Kenny-Ross]

In other words, they know they'll never be so "nice" to you and thus are in debt.

[@allanluis3696]

@@Kenny-Ross no, they believe you below them in market value and can no longer 'look up to you" (respect you). It's deep in the subconscious.

[@Kenny-Ross]

@@allanluis3696 Yes that's it! If you're acting overly too nice then you're demonstrating to her that she has more value. On a subconscious level that's how it's perceive. You got it!

[@polina6303]

not really man, it’s usually cause they have been already hurt so much by other men, that they don’t trust them anymore and they can’t believe that a man can be nice… that’s how it is most of the times, unfortunately

[@julianrandle6437]

Now that was really insightful. Thank you.

[@claudiuslangenbeck8514]

Of course value is subjective. Each party values what they’re giving up less than what they are getting. Nothing is a zero sum game. And if one party feels like they are losing value why would they enter into this relationship?

[@patriciocastro391]

I don't know if this expose applies to what some people say: Marriage is a business transaction, I think it does

[@stevenhickey9453]

I'd love to hear or have explained to me how the female lack of integrity (don't do or honour what they say or demand or insist is reality). I suppose it is related to their communication perspective wherein words don't matter/have meanings, like considering loyalty to be loyalty when she won't be loyal if she's not getting worshiped enough.

[@smirka7]

More gold, thank you so much

[@ismailjawadwala1863]

Wow man your videos are unbelievable good🤯

[@dcikaruga]

Really like this video, however, the coffee shop may even have a surplus of money itself, it's objective is to keep selling coffee and continue making a profit for it's owner - gain.

[@NordicHyperborean]

Your doing society a great help continue on brother!

[@LucaWolfeMurray]

what about love? if i love a girl, being around her is just as valuable to me as the caffeine in the $6 coffee. Surely then it's just "Well i wanna be around her because she gives me that comfortable feeling" and she feels the same back.. i don't need my comfortable feeling to be stronger than hers in my mind..

[@SmileyEmoji42]

Firstly, Why does she feel comfortable around you? Suppose it's because you pay her lots of complements - Then that is the price that you are paying for her to allow you to hang around with her. Not much of a price, you may think, but we've all at least heard of relationships where this cost has become an irritation. Secondly if one side feels much more strongly then the other then that tends to be seen as being needy or clingy so it is actually desirable for your gains from the transactions to be roughly equal.

[@nenirouvelliv]

There doesn't have to be a value discrepancy on what's being offered, both parties are missing something that the other can provide, and together they can fulfill the needs they would not be able to fulfill on their own. That's not to say that inequality isn't unavoidable, because in almost all cases people don't have the exact same value to offer to the other party.

[@giama7618]

Like Jane Austen novels they all are based on a transactional basis where the man is the prize to get like in pride and prejudice

[@peterwilliams1119]

Thank you for this. Great insight.

[@michaeln.2383]

I read that if the female gets promoted at her workplace, it could ruin a marriage. She would be the breadwinner and have to upgrade.

[@alexforce9]

The problem comes from her thinking she could do better. Without actually understanding that her new title means jack shit to the men she is attracted too lol.

[@JoseDiaz-rd9fh]

Really depends on the people she has around her and the mindset she had going in. All that said this often does hold true. They understand better than most men that they will be fleeced in divorce should they decide to bring the bread winner so if was ever a consideration it's best to do it before it kicks in. It's not that they necessarily want to divorce you but they want it as a feasible option

[@allanluis3696]

@@JoseDiaz-rd9fh except the data says otherwise. Divorces dramatically increase AFTER the wife gets promoted. Women INITIATE 70-90% of all divorces. She believes she is better than you and hypergamy kicks in and kicks you out on your ass.

[@lmrbeerbellyl]

what kind of television is that in backround? OLED?

[@COD8player4life]

Assuming absolute value is neat but it doesnt quite capture the nuance of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. I.e.$1 = $1. But commodities don't have a fixed value and exchanging them can increase the total value in an economic system.

[@user-ib7it2li8f]

I don’t talk about my business with my new partner only after one year I told him. No I’m almost don’t talk about my work…

[@tommyX.808]

4:28 you're soo good man!!

[@jonasbauer3942]

Tack!

[@kariboroff7392]

Thinking of relationships as purely transactional is inherently nihilistic. Good luck treating people like commodities and having a happy life.

[@mindischubert]

Logic isn't baked into the human psyche (Kahneman and Tversky). Also, social transactions in themselves are profitable. Everyone who gives a high-five, gets a high-five, and everyone involved in the exchange receives a social reward.

[@elitedrumlessons6174]

Brilliant analysis that gets to the heart of the issue!

[@ahgtrell]

Roles will always Exist in Relationships. Because, It's a Business.

[@patvandestraat5625]

great lesson. totally obvious, but rarely questioned aspect of daily life.

[@bfe954]

I’ve recently tuned into your channel and I absolutely love your ability to present information in a concise and logical way with examples that I haven’t heard before. This is absolute gold. I’ve even showed women I’ve been talking to these videos and despite the myriad of emotional women with low logical intelligence, none of them have been able to refute anything you say. Thank you for your content.

[@troubleshooter5811]

Emotional and low logic. Sounds like the majority of women. There is an acronym from a harsh word that is not totally untrue- Can't Understand Normal Thinking.

[@doffmoffin]

Excellent talk!

[@TDOTSE1]

Such a great Laoshi 🙏🏾🔥👌🏾

[@utarian7]

I don’t like the dollar bill analogy. I think it’s more accuracy to say I’ll mow your lawn, you clean my house.

[@IllDawgable]

I've heard someone say that 50/50 in relationships is not a realistic approach. Is that correct?

[@JoseDiaz-rd9fh]

Yeah for most it will not work. Once women have kids many don't want to contribute financially which under normal circumstances would be fine. The problem becomes is women can and do become lazy home makers. As the only bread winner you also are in ideal position to divorce rappe. It is not necessary for things to be equal as long as both partners are making a good faith effort and complimenting each other pulling in the same direction. The biggest problem I see in society is culturally and legally speaking we no longer incentivize good moral virtuous behavior in particular with women. Women used to keep each other in check, if a woman was found out to be sleeping around and being promiscuous would be socially ostracized from the rest of the women. I don't ever think anyone should be punished by the legal system for being immoral. But I have no issue with shame and social ostracization.

[@PolishBehemoth]

It depends what you mean 50-50

[@גירסמגדלני]

You are the master of reframing

[@slartibartfast2452]

The coffee analogy does not hold true. Generally, men are not going into coffee shops to trade money for coffee. They are trading money to hone their flirt game on cute baristas.