gwyn’s theory of interpersonal interest, #1

In this series: #1 | #1.5

I was recently invited to give a TED talk (where TED stands for Topical Extended Discussion here) by a clown. Of course, I have risen to the challenge.

I began with the intent to capture obsession but got sidetracked into operationalising interpersonal interest instead. Oh well, still a worthy contribution to society.

A brief primer on terms used in psychometrics (the art of measurement in psychology). Since I have repeated this to my students ad nauseam, I might as well lecture my fans too.

  • A concept/construct: the phenomenon you want to understand. Usually a “big idea” that needs further definition and explanation. In this case, interpersonal interest.
    • What does it mean to be interested in someone?
    • What are the characteristics that comprise interest? What are the central elements it must have, such that if they were not present, the concept would no longer be “interest”?
  • Operationalisation: to make a concept measurable. What are the observable signs of interest?
    • We must be able to see and measure these markers. For example, if thinking about someone is a sign of interest, we should be able to measure it somehow.
      • Example: count the number of times you think about that person in a day or the percentage of time you spend thinking about someone compared to others.
    • Things that are not measurable are psychometrically (and scientifically) worthless.
      • Example: the “energy vibrations” I send out to the universe when I am cursing men to dream about me. HAH

mrw I received this TED talk offer

Interpersonal interest: how much you’re interested in someone or vice versa. Contextualised to social media since that’s my panopticon playground and main site of research.

Now, the Checklist

Signs, in order of increasing intensity (0/absence = least interested, 5 = most interested). Checking off a sign higher on the list indicates that the lower signs have already been met.

  1. Watching your stories.
    • The more stories you watch and the more you regularly check for updates, the stronger the interest. (If your defense is “I’m just scrolling”… don’t you have better things to do?)
  2. Visiting your public platforms unprompted.
    • The preceding suggests they are taking the initiative to visit your profile (or blog, hehehe) without an external stimulus i.e. the action stems from an internal desire. Quite telling behaviour, if you ask me (I adore men who are obsessed with me).
    • Unprompted access to your profile is trickier to measure, but you can make logical deductions (my favourite activity). I wish I knew who read my blog, but it doesn’t matter because I delude myself into thinking that everyone reads it anyway. Delulu~ is the solulu~
  3. Texting.
    • Obviously. The more frequent and initiated, the stronger the interest.
    • A step up from the above because it means that at least one party has initiated contact, hence manifesting the interest. But see the section below on power asymmetry.
    • By the way, DMs on Instagram are like a 2.5. We’re not really friends until we have each other’s numbers (and I’m not just saying this because it means you can then PayNow me).
  4. Meeting in person.
    • Kind of an inevitability following 3 if the relationship is worth anything — see comments below.
  5. Putting aside your ego for them.
    • Best illustrated with a negative example — persistence in effort despite being rejected. Imagine one of your best friends said one day that they wanted to end the relationship. If you would fly down to their place and cry at their doorstep begging them to take you back, that’s a 5.
    • Because it means you’re down so bad you’d put your pride down for another shot, even when the odds are against you. The relinquishing of pride, given its fundamental importance to one’s self-esteem, is the greatest compliment you can confer upon another.
    • We love that; I do. I’ve done it before, and I’ll always have a soft spot for those who’ve tried it with me.

Some comments

  • Before you rate them, you must pre-categorise people into romantic OR platonic interest.
    • If you can’t decide, default to platonic (if you have to think twice, you don’t like them enough — don’t waste their time!)
    • Being interested platonically does not necessarily mean I am interested romantically (fine: the “friendzone”). BUT if I am interested romantically, I am probably also interested platonically. So romantic is a sub-category of platonic.
  • 3 (texting) and 4 (meeting in person) are the most intimately connected signs. The jump from 2 to 3 and 4 to 5 is comparatively large. Not that a relationship can’t be solid if it’s based entirely on text exchanges (the modern equivalent of a pen pal), but unless you have some extenuating circumstance (e.g. live on the other side of the world), there is no reason to not meet.
    • I detest 3.5 romantic prospects the most — those who linger in texting limbo but do not entertain further contact. They’re playing you, sis! You are a backup plan. DROP them like a hot potato, stat.
  • Only consider people 3 and above to be potential friends, 4 for lovers.
    • The 2s either have no courage or do not care enough about you to pursue a relationship. Neither is your problem. Your time should be spent cultivating 3s, 4s, and 5s.
    • They’ve said that they love you over text but can’t seem to find the time to meet? They are asking for a small loan of $20,000, too? They are a LOVE SCAMMER.
  • If you meet a 5 and you feel 5 towards them too — keep them in your life as far as possible.
mrw cornering people i like

On power asymmetries

And now, class, a fun activity:

  • Identify someone you’re interested in.
  • Rate your level of interest in them.
  • THEN, rate — based on their past behaviour — their level of interest in you. Only look at what they’ve done: do not assume, do not infer their intentions.

Use the following formula to determine the interest asymmetry score:
[their interest in me] – [my interest in them].

Examples (may or may not be taken from my past experience):

  • Someone acts like a 2 to me [their interest in me]. I act like a 0 to them [my interest in them]. 2 – 0 = +2.
  • Someone acts like a 0 to me. I act like a 5 to them. 0 – 5 = -5.

A positive score indicates that you have more power in deciding how the relationship will develop presently. A negative score indicates the power is in their favour. Higher scores = greater magnitude of asymmetry.

Any asymmetry calls for an attempt at rebalancing.

  • If you have more power (+): decide if their effort is worth matching.
    • If yes, match it.
    • If not, let them down easy. That’s the least you can do for them. (Except for players. Drag them to hell, babes.)
  • If you have less power (-): decide if they are worth your time and investment.
    • If yes and you want more, COMMUNICATE YOUR DESIRES.
    • If not, off you go for greener pastures, sweaty! We have no time for low-effort relationships.

That being said, you never know how someone might respond to you in the end. (People might really be watching my stories simply because they are interested in observing hypomania in the wild, or because I’m super hot, and NOT because I’m a complex person with deep feelings and thoughts and great music taste. Sigh)

And the scorecard now does not mean it will always be the same; people and contexts change. In particular, based on my past experience, the power dynamics in intense relationships (another favourite of mine) are always fluctuating. Is that stable? No. But is that fun? Absolutely.

Finally, we manifest that we will only settle for 5-5s.

Well, class is dismissed; I hope you enjoyed it. My DMs are always open to new ideas! x

kiss

giving and taking

I had a dream — a nightmare, perhaps — where I was lying beside one of them.

A third party, a casual talker who seemed to lack self-awareness, shared the bed with us. Staring at his back, turned away from us and at a respectful distance, I found myself grateful rather than annoyed by his intrusion.

Either way, I remained pensive, a feeling of discomfort bubbling in my chest until I mentioned that maybe I should go home instead. I said it was the morning, but I just didn’t want to be around him.

Curled up beside me, close enough but never making contact, he muttered something to pacify me. But his body language did not match his words — he seemed to want to get closer and closer the more I squirmed to get further.

He wasn’t the only one, I realise. In every moment I was with them, the abject terror of being jumped pervaded our waltzes; the only real choice I had was whether to lean into the joy of being hunted. I allowed them to decentre me — for that was what I was willing to give — and all of them seemed to revel in taking without reciprocating.

And then they would eventually tell me, sometimes not even directly, as if I wasn’t worth their while — that I was too much for them.

the no man june logs

Earlier, the algorithm bestowed upon me a video criticising boy-crazy girls, and it hit me that I’ve been like that recently. In the spirit of self-improvement, I am thus embarking on No Man June — a month-long sabbatical to eliminate any mention of prospective men and the desire for romance in my life.

The aim is not to repress desire but to sublimate it.

Granted, I like to believe that I have a life outside male validation, and I have been assured so by people who matter. Neither do I think that there’s anything wrong with being boy-crazy — to each their own, as long as you don’t intentionally hurt others (?).

Nonetheless, I don’t like spending so much time obsessing over romance and boys. Like, if I were a supporting character in a movie, I might fail the Bechdel test, considering all the time I spend yapping to my fans online and my friends about My Love Lore. (Though let me establish two things: 1) My friends and fans LOVE my adventures and 2) ALL the men came to me first. I only reciprocated if I wanted to, but I can be persuasive in my own ways.)

A secondary aim is to observe how much more I can achieve when I am not bogged down with illusions and trivialities. I have lots of things to do, people to meet, and places to be! ZOU

Hence, effective today:

The Rules

  • #1: No yapping or disclosure about drama with men, old or new. This applies to both public (social media) and private settings (with friends).
  • #2: No references to the desire for romance or romantic love, direct or indirect. As long as the main idea of the post/conversation is about romance, it is considered a violation.

The Consequences: for every instance in which a rule is violated, I will donate $5.

  • $2.50 goes to an organisation in Singapore that I absolutely detest. Iykyk.
  • $2.50 goes to my accountability buddy (to incentivise them to catch me when I slip up).

The Exceptions

  • I can share if I am asked, i.e. somebody else initiates the conversation for me. However, I cannot supplement additional details that go beyond answering the question.
  • Corresponding to rule #2: I can continue to create content in which specific men and my personal desire for love are not the core subjects. This includes things like my lay theory of love logs (maybe except #3.5), which I consider sociological investigations into the phenomenon of dating. Essentially, no anecdotes, but think pieces are fine. (Ah, 75% of my output is going to be decimated…)

Initial Commitments

  • As preparatory work, I have processed and purged the men concerned. If they don’t want me, they don’t deserve access to me! If you were not purged, sorry but you were not significant enough, LOL. I am not paying $5 for this disclosure because it occurred here.

You are welcome to join me OR catch me when I slip up. Let’s have some fun. Stay tuned for updates, babes ❤

gwyn’s mental health logs, #2: tips from a psycho

in this series: #0.5 | #1 | #2

First written in Jul 2023, with minor edits and commentary in May 2024
(recovery is non-linear, but it will get better)

[May 2024: Enough about silly trivialities like men and love, boring! Let’s yap about ME! Specifically, my psycho ass side. Reviving the mental health logs for my fans!]

ZOU

Since my first post, I’m delighted to report that things have been looking up for me! I am still waiting to be connected with a psychologist, though (something about waiting time and accessibility of mental health services in Singapore…)

In the meantime, here’s a list of things that have helped me get through a recent depressive episode. They read like notes from a textbook, but there’s nothing quite like a hands-on experience.


Coming to terms with it all. Simply accepting that I did (and maybe always will) have a problem liberated me to focus on addressing it rather than being trapped in the quandary of self-doubt. [May 2024: Still psycho! But so happy.]

Social support and companionship. Many friends reached out after they saw my earlier post. Two aspects stood out — a lack of judgement and an affirmation that they would stand by me. In the weeks since none of them has treated me differently. We went out, played, and gossiped about nonsense as usual. I will always be grateful for them.

  • My partner has also been enormously supportive (well, he has always been), listening to my issues and being a staunch voice of reason whenever my spirals strike. He’s also been willing to communicate his challenges in his role as a “mental health caregiver”, which has helped us better navigate our difficult periods together. It’s important to care for your caregivers too!
me n my cuties

Taking a step back and reappraising. Throughout university, I’ve been compelled to prove myself by achieving “success”. My blog was literally named Gwyn’s Guides to Success (it is now Gwyn’s Playground to mirror my newfound commitment to enjoying life). [May 2024: it is now baby g’s diary. Character development!]

  • I wanted to get better grades, take up more leadership roles, engage in more extracurriculars, volunteer more, build more connections, write more papers, have my Prof like me more… the list went on. Talk about an unabashedly narrow (but not uncommon) definition of success. Put them together, and lo and behold, you have an amorphous ideal self unattainable by design. Goals became imperatives that incessantly berated me for not being enough regardless of what I did — like having the consciousness of a toxic tiger parent implanted in your brain.
  • I hit a turning point when my supervisor pointed out that my mental health was taking a toll on my work and that she was genuinely concerned. It was one hell of a “oh, wow, cool” moment (she broke character for me!) I was in such bad shape I could barely function at work, much less recognise that I was floundering. In the following days, I gave more thought to what I wanted (something I hadn’t done in a long time because I was fixated on getting through the motions). Sure, getting a Master’s degree is ~cool~, but I don’t need to destroy myself over it.
  • The same goes for other projects. At the end of the day, a commitment is something you willingly give your time to… so you don’t need to put in any more effort than you can or want to. To paraphrase a quote from another mental health advocate: you can’t water the grass when your well is dry.
  • Shoutout to the book Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals on this topic. [May 2024: Sweetheart? Please mail it back to me.] The big idea: life is short, you can’t do everything, so embrace finitude and enjoy the moment, darling. As long as you’ve lived a life you thought was worthwhile, what does it matter what others think? In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t. Life goes on with or without you. If a good life to me consists of reading manga and writing a personal blog in my spare time that nobody reads(!), then so be it.

Focusing on the things I love, for me. I’ve gotten back into the habit of reading, and you won’t believe this — writing! Similarly, I’m doing things for myself, because I want to, not only because it brings me to some societally-approved end. Some nights, I play Civilization VI over Discord with my friends and then chomp on garlic cheese prata with my family into the wee hours, ignoring the thought that I have a lot of work to do the next day. LOL. Of course, I’ve had to strike a balance because work never ends, but these little moments have made all the difference.

  • So get yourself some self-care. Take the time to recharge, and then move onto great things when you’re ready — if you want to, because you don’t have to!
well, are they?

Taking breaks. There’s only so much work you can do in a day. When you pare it down based on energy levels, you’ll realise that most work is not urgent or even important. When I’m stressed, I ask myself: what is the worst that could happen if I mess up this tiny ass task? Or miss a deadline because I’m overwhelmed? So what? It really isn’t worth all that stress. Go take a nap.

wahoo!

Breaking down things. Based on behavioural activation in CBT. Can’t beat your brain? Hack it.

  • Just be 1% better than yesterday.
  • Committing to the basics, whether you like it or not. Routines, baby!
  • I asked a friend over mahjong recently — what is your life purpose? It’s been a long-running preoccupation of mine stemming from the idea that I need to identify some sort of bigger calling to motivate myself to get up every day. He sagely retorted that it’s “not a good question and only stresses you out”.
  • Instead, focus on one small thing at a time to keep you looking forward to tomorrow. So that’s what I’m doing. It’s the small things… but they add up to make a good life.
    • I am eagerly anticipating the premiere of Dune Part 2 this November (okay, it’s been postponed to March 2024) [May 2024: it was better than I could ever imagine.]
    • And for Volume 3 of my favourite manga to be released in English [May 2024: I flirted my way into getting a Japanese copy because I couldn’t wait. I’d do it again! <3]
    • I am looking forward to the holiday trips I’ll have this year.
    • I am excited to master Japanese and get my JLPT N1 certification! Maybe in 5 years, LOL.

[May 2024: Well, so much has happened since. I’m sure 2023 Gwyn would have been proud of 2024 baby g. I definitely am! Hehe. I love you.]

gwyn’s lay theory of relationships, #3.5

in this series: #1 | #2 | #3 | #3.5

I saw this question on Paiseh Questions recently:

Another interesting thing is that a few similar questions were posted prior. All of them were fixated on women as the subject.

The answer distribution was interesting. It suggests that women do not give themselves completely to men until the latter have “proven their worth”, so to speak.

It made me wonder about my own answer. This post is my process of working it out.


Everyone deserves love — or so a humanistic therapist would say — although not everyone eventually deserves your love.

Not because reciprocity is expected, but because we have a finite capacity and must optimise where it goes. We must make calculated decisions about who we want to love and who we want to love more.

I wanted to believe I could love everyone the same, but I’m only human.

I was obsessed with you. I could beg you to pay attention to me and love me. But what for? I am chasing a mirage. You were never there; only my projected ideal of you was. Alone, I run, and alone, I am exhausted.

Or I could spend all that time that would have otherwise been spent pining on reconnecting with myself and the world. Even redirecting my focus to someone else would be a better idea — someone whose eyes will glow with affection when I am reflected in them and who has a fanatical, absolutist certainty about me. Repeat ad infinitum; such is the search for love.

If I think you’re worth it, of course, I would love you. But I cannot give endlessly without return.

Unrequited love is worthless — yes, not merely useless, worthless. Sure, feel your feelings and all — I understand — but all it ultimately is is a limbo that torments the indecisive. You must move forward. Either cross the suspension bridge to heaven and risk falling or leap straight into hell from where you stand. It will be terrifying for a while, but you will always land, which is a certainty you will never receive from the object of your affection.

The unknown is a critical variable in this. The law of probability is immutable — there is something better out there. Stay or leave for more.

With unrequited love, always leave. You owe it to yourself.

All that being said, would that have stopped me from loving you in the first place?

I bought you a gift before I realised that we had already met for the last time, a decision you made unilaterally for both of us and which I enforced. That’s okay; I’ll use it from now on. I will eventually forget it was ever for you: time is cruel to the ones who are loved but kind to the spurned.

So, my perhaps unexpected answer to the question (given the preamble) is: I will give you everything I have because I am, I was, ready to love you. I don’t believe in withholding love, though I do believe in withdrawing it upon reflection. If it’s not what you’re looking for, I will give it to someone else. I might break, but I will live, recover, and thrive in time.

I hope you do too.

how to counteract love bombers

The spiritual sequel to How to Lovebomb. Obviously, written as a joke — or is it? (cocks head)

The Thingamajig Strategy (by love bomber):
(Accidentally) leave something smol behind at their place.

How/why it works (for the love bomber): A physical object reminds them of you. It creates an excuse to initiate contact, passing the responsibility to do so to them as in a delicate cha-cha routine.

Counterstrategy (for the lovebombed person): Throw the thing away — unless it’s a wallet. If so, retrieve the money and then throw it away. If they really needed it back, they’d ask. If they really wanted to see you again, they would initiate.

how you’ll sleep after getting rid of things that don’t spark you joy

The Casper Strategy:
Ghost them on chat but watch their stories obsessively. Don’t forget to like the stories where they’re super cute or you think allude to you.

How/why it works: Ghosting someone traps them in self-doubt preoccupied with what they did wrong, even though the problem stems from your inability to communicate like an adult. Kick them while they’re down by liking their stories on Instagram regularly, which bumps you to the top of the viewer list so they can’t ignore you even if they want to. It’s all power play, my friends, a perverse one once deconstructed.

(Effective for chronically online people who primarily rely on Instagram as a source of validation. But not effective for those who have a horde of fans to account to if they make questionable decisions.)

Counterstrategy: DON’T block them from watching your stories; no, enjoy the attention! DO block their stories from your feed, so you live in their mind collecting rent while you pay none. Then, go on to live your best life, whether you post about it online or not. Remember that YOU are the bourgeois and THEY are the proletariat.

this could be us but u ghosted me.

The Reincarnation Strategy:
Reappear in their life by DMing them out of nowhere after a prolonged period of presumed death.

This strategy has two variations, each inversely proportional to the confidence or sympathy you wish to leverage. (Neither matters.)

  • Confidence route: provide no accompanying reason at all: simply audaciously announce that you desire to see them again.
  • Sympathy route: supplement the request with an explanation that you have been through some trööma that regrettably caused you to be unable to, again, communicate beyond the level of a three-year-old.

Pick the first variant if you’re insecure and the second if you’re manipulative. This strategy creates a virtuous loop with the ghosting one. You meet, die, reincarnate, and then die again! It’s an absolutely infallible combo. I recommend it 10/10 for clowns.

How/why it works: It throws the recipient off-guard by making them wonder if you have been thinking of them all this while. If they’re so over their head that they forget that you could have contacted them any time in between but chose not to until it was convenient for you (because they are ultimately a substitute), it could seem kind of romantic. In a world where we convince ourselves we don’t owe each other anything, it’s easy to confuse any casual act for affection. Lover beware!

Counterstrategy: Laugh in their face and move on. If you give in, oh well — we all have to binge on fast food occasionally because what is life without sin and a little indiscretion, even if you get a stomachache later. Just don’t make it a habit.

this photo isn’t even thematically related anymore. it’s just funny

The Promising Strategy:
Make promises you have zero intentions of following through with.

Why/how it works: Empty promises lead to expectations, and the most powerful longing always concerns things that could have happened but never did. It’s inverted regret — a nostalgia for something that could’ve been, which could have been anything.

Counterstrategy: This one involves a radical change in your philosophy but will transform your life so drastically you’ll never look back. Hold on tight.

The principle: no intention is real until demonstrated in action.

There are NO exceptions to this. NONE. Intentions mean absolute jackshit until they are realised. Whatever form they take on before realisation does not matter. It might as well not exist. It never existed. (TIL I’m materialistic without the -ic.)

If they believed you were worth it (immaterial), they would show you (material). If they claim to miss you (immaterial), they will meet you (material).

We can go further. A text telling you they miss you means nothing if they do not schedule a date to see you again. A kiss means nothing if the relationship is never defined (a “situationship”) and you are not cuffed — made “material” through accountability to others or bound by a physical contract.

We can argue that a text and a kiss are material since they occur in reality. But that is irrelevant because it is overshadowed by the immaterial intention behind the action that we project onto those we so desperately wish would love us.

The intention means nothing, even if they imply it, especially if you infer it.

Realise that we can never accurately capture the meaning of the present moment — the full picture only emerges in hindsight when the future has happened so that we can contextualise the past with it. You can immerse yourself in the now and feel it all, but that still doesn’t imbue it with any meaning outside your feelings. For an intention to be real, it must be manifested.

The past, present, and future cannot be considered separately in determining what is real and meaningful. Hell, even if it was real, it might not have meant anything. Maybe this is the logic that my pragmatic fans follow — did you really love them if you were never serious about them?

Naturally, you could argue that an intention could be real and meaningful, just that the person seems to be acting differently because you are mistaken about their intention. For example, if you’re only interested in sex, you only do booty calls. That’s perfectly congruent and reasonable if both parties are on board.

But the whole reason games exist is that people struggle to be upfront with what they want — worse if they do not know what they actually want. Then, everyone is in for a ride, and all intentions can go to die.

We can only establish if someone is sincere about you through the two elements of continuity and consistency. In other words, action and commitment, over and over, like the sea waves crashing into the shore for eternity, until death do us part.

—you will find someone who will love you, who sees you as a person, who is attracted to you; who will choose you, and continuously choose you.

my bestie (if everyone had a love like this there would be no divorces)

In short, words are just words (suddenly, I realise what my love language is not). You telling me I’m your favourite or that you respect me means nothing. I don’t care. You either prove it, or none of it matters — saying it is just performativity. You don’t have to say anything; I already know.

Intentions alone mean nothing. Promises mean nothing.


Perhaps even this blog post has meant nothing. But I hope it is at least marginally useful for my fans in helping them sieve out people who deserve them and people who don’t. God willing, considering how much time I’ve wasted on playing games, I might as well help people save some of theirs.

Know your worth, and the rest will follow. Whatever you give, you will receive in turn, good and bad.

– x, baby g, who loves you always (and has hopefully demonstrated it)

Bonus:

we accept the love we think we deserve.

my other bestie (quoting the Perks of Being a Wallflower)

altered states

i dreamt of you, finally.

you told me you met the greatest love of your life, yet your voice cracked ever so slightly, and your smile was a little twisted.

you didn’t have to tell me; i know it was merely a matter of time. i hope you hold onto her tight and give her all the love she deserves, and her to you.

why were we standing facing each other again?

of all things, i remember the embrace of your arms in the quiet dark — it’s not been the same since. my cheek nestled in the nook of your neck, the steady whisper of your breath on my forehead. you would always fall asleep first — softly, calmly, the rise and fall of your chest signalling the transition to an altered state of consciousness.

one, two, three, four.

i would catch up to you later, lingering in that liminal space where nothing else mattered; it was just you and me. even when we had to wake up eventually, even when you would unconsciously turn your back to me in time.

i love you, i love you.

indeed, in an altered state, you will always be mine.

PREP – who’s got you singing again

gwyn’s lay theory of relationships, #3

in this series: #1 | #2 | #3 | #3.5

Humans commit to one another based on considerations of potential. They assess a prospect’s suitability and commit if they decide the arrangement is satisfactory.

Assortative mating comes into play here.

  • You date people you think are “in your league”, or if you’re lucky, you think are out of your league. Despite this, objectively speaking, if they like you back in the long run, they’re in your league (because they feel the same way about you — they think you’re good enough for them). So don’t be insecure about yourself, okay, babygirl? And watch out for lovers who regularly put you down — it’s not you, it’s them.
  • Ever heard of the ELO score on Tinder? That’s what’s operating here, except that Tinder is the World Wide Web (Offline).
  • Your ELO score comprises different dimensions: physical attractiveness/sex appeal, intelligence, wealth, health, humour, “personality”, etc. People differ in their preferences on those dimensions, although universal trends exist. Example:
but note many people don’t know what they really want, or lie to themselves. You and me included.
  • Naturally, idiosyncratic preferences exist. For example, I like simps. (Wait — who doesn’t?) Random disclosure from me because I love to overshare, and I want to remind everyone to know your worth: I permanently disqualified someone recently because he acted like he had no time for me. Huge landmine he stepped on. Well, so be it. You can play games with me… if you’re ready to lose. (Like, I said I would be okay if my partner had little time for me, but you can read my blog but not text me? Then you can stay a blog reader, thank yew.)
    • The preferences are gendered. Universal example: men prioritise physically attractive women; women prioritise high-status men. So, you are more likely to see a rich older man with a hot younger lady than the opposite.
    • The preferences are culturally influenced. Anecdotal example: sexual prowess does not rank highly for a lot of people in Singapore versus some other Western nation where hookup culture is more prevalent (I don’t even need to be specific; that’s how little sex we have. I must go.)
  • A relationship between two people who differ significantly on one dimension can still work out if that dimension is less important to the party who is higher on it. Hence, the “ugly funny guy gets the boring pretty girl” because looks > humour for him, humour > looks for her. You get the idea. On average, their ELO scores even out.
    • Lay theory prediction: the longer a relationship lasts, the more objectively similar the couple’s ELO scores are. A relationship with partners with discrepant scores is less likely to last, and the one with the higher score (delusional or not) tends to withdraw first. But even the delusional one will eventually be knocked back to reality through trial and error feedback — the only constant in life is the law of large numbers.
    • The best way to get an idea of your ELO score is to look at your long-term partner (or the kind of people you attract). If it still doesn’t add up… one of you has a self-esteem issue.

People commit based on potential. They stay committed for different reasons.

The investment model of relationships (Rusbult, 1980) predicts that commitment is determined by three factors. The more satisfied you are with the relationship and the more invested in it, the more likely you are to stay committed. The better you perceive your potential alternatives (other people in “your league”), the less likely you are to stay committed.

Some relevant concepts:

  • Sunk cost fallacy. An economist’s favourite. You’re unhappy in a relationship — but because you’ve invested so much into it, you might as well stay. Consider prospective and opportunity costs instead, which is what you lose by staying. Then again, I still can’t let go of my Sea Ltd stocks. So don’t let me tell you what to do.
  • People who claim they’re “dating down” are lying (and to themselves, too, if they lack self-awareness). You’re staying because you think you couldn’t get a superior alternative if you tried. If you genuinely believed you were dating down, your staying is irrational, meaning there is more to unpack there. Note that these evaluations are inherently subjective — just because you think you’re dating up or down doesn’t mean others will agree.
    • The lesson here (for me) is that if you want to assess your compatibility with your partner, don’t ask yourself. Ask your friends. Ask your parents. They might be biased, but they’re less biased than you.
  • The higher your ELO score, the better your quality of alternatives. That’s why hot guys can afford to play around. I’m just waiting for it to be acceptable for hot girls (joking — I don’t care).

Personal exposition (love and naïveté)

Men in Singapore are looking for stability. At least, an overwhelming number of men I’ve met are like this (same for women, where there is even less variation). My observation is definitely age-contingent, though. Guys are looking for girlfriends at 20 but wives at 30.

I was baffled for years about the preoccupation with stability, but I might be starting to see the light. Love’s great in itself, of course, but it is not enough in the great Pragmatic Nation of Singapore. People want love to lead to concrete outcomes, such as marriage, a BTO, and, most importantly, in the grand scheme of things (driven by a force beyond our control), children: the continuation of our species.

And why not, indeed?

Objectively speaking, the above are not inevitable outcomes of love. A counterpoint, however: maybe love — romantic love in particular — evolved to perfection precisely as an instrument to ensure these outcomes happen, over and over again, across humanity, and beyond time. That is, love was designed to lead to stability. Rather than being choices, as I hypothesised in post #1, they are merely two points on the same line headed in one direction. You either realise that love is to settle or stay naïve.

So, love is not enough.

Maybe I am naïve. I don’t really care. I’ll panic when I’m 30, I guess. Even if singlehood and living in a henhouse with my girls is my destiny, it’s not as if I’ll be loved any less. Put that on the record: it is what it is. Do what’s good for you.

Stay loved, and don’t fret, my darlings.

gwyn’s lay theory of relationships, #2

in this series: #1 | #2 | #3 | #3.5

It seems you all adore my lay theory (or at least find it fun), so here’s a follow-up! Please read part 1 if you haven’t figured out your type — you will need the info to contextualise the following.

In the previous post, we investigated the first tenet, which predicted that men prefer to marry for stability while women prefer to marry for love. (I still stand by this for Singaporean men, by the way.)

Alas, findings from my informal poll did not support my prediction. Instead, we found the opposite pattern: more men voted for love (57.9%), while more women voted for stability (54.5%). How exciting! Of course, that means we must investigate the issue further.

Yes. Study.

In the current study, we will do two things: (1) investigate the second tenet from my lay theory and (2) attempt to replicate the findings of the first poll.

To recapitulate:

Second tenet: I posit that people looking to date can be divided into two major types: people who date to date (the Romantics) and people who date to marry (the Pragmatics).

  • Your gender does not influence whether you are a Romantic or Pragmatic, unlike with marriage. Rather, other aspects such as your personality, upbringing and past relationship experiences will determine your type.

Aim of current study: observe the proportion of men and women that self-categorise into each type under my typology. We are looking at a combination of marriage and dating preferences this time (we looked only at marriage preferences previously).

Gwyn’s Typology of Love, Revisited

Hypotheses: Given the findings from the previous study, here were my predictions this time —

  • Hypothesis 1: For marriage, more men will select love, and more women will select stability.
  • Hypothesis 2: For dating, the split of Pragmatics and Romantics will be roughly equal across genders.

Method: Instagram poll

  • Participants were shown the prompt “Now that you have read my blog, tell me your type” (LOL totally legit study)
  • Men and women answered on separate pages. Both saw the same 4 options (format: marriage/dating preference)
    • Stable/pragmatic
    • Love/pragmatic
    • Stable/romantic
    • Love/romantic

Participants: 24-30 years old, mostly college-educated working adults

  • Inclusion criteria: must have read the first lay theory post (duh, I need more fans)

Results:

  • Overall, both genders (N = 47)
    • Stable/pragmatic n = 13 (27.7%)
    • Love/pragmatic n = 16 (34.0%)
    • Stable/romantic n = 11 (23.4%)
    • Love/romantic n = 7 (14.9%)
    • Stable = 24, Love = 23, Pragmatic = 29, Romantic = 18
  • Males N = 29
    • Stable/pragmatic n = 6 (20.7%)
    • Love/pragmatic n = 9 (31.0%)
    • Stable/romantic n = 8 (27.6%)
    • Love/romantic n = 6 (20.7%)
    • Stable = 14, Love = 15, Pragmatic = 15, Romantic = 14
  • Females N = 18
    • Stable/pragmatic n = 7 (38.9%)
    • Love/pragmatic n = 7 (38.9%)
    • Stable/romantic n = 3 (16.7%)
    • Love/romantic n = 1 (5.6%)
    • Stable = 10, Love = 8, Pragmatic = 14, Romantic = 4

Discussion

Hypothesis 1: For marriage, more men will select love, and more women will select stability.

  • Hypothesis 1 NOT supported.
  • Look at the split across genders (stable/love): males (14/15) and females (10/8). Within each gender, the votes are more or less equally split.

Now, what would Study 1 have to say about this!

Granted, Study 1 was better powered because not everyone reads my blog (sad), so the sample size this time is about half the original. Plus, fewer women responded than men. But if we consider the findings legit, maybe the split is more even than it initially seemed.

What we have suggests that gender does not play a significant role in determining whether you would marry for love or stability. Men and women are equally likely to pick either. Other characteristics such as personality, family dynamics, or past dating experience could better explain whether you prefer to marry for love or stability.

Hypothesis 2: For dating, the split of Pragmatics and Romantics will be roughly equal across genders.

  • Hypothesis 2 PARTIALLY supported — and the results are interesting
  • First, we look at both genders taken together (pragmatic/romantic) = 29/18
  • Then males = 15/14 — roughly the same, which matches my prediction
  • BUT females = 14/4 — disproportionately slanted towards pragmatic dating

My interpretation is that women are more selective than men in the sense that they prefer to date with the intention of ultimately marrying their partner (in the long term).

Actually, that’s not surprising at all. Evolutionary theory does predict that women tend to be more selective in their partners, and I don’t think I need to give an example of it — you’ve probably seen it play out in your own life, or at least by listening to your friends’ stories. (But read this for an interesting caveat.)

Sexual Strategies Theory (SST) put forward by Buss and Schmitt (1993) [suggests that] mate choice […] is highly sensitive to the temporal context of short-term versus long-term partnerships. Based on different minimum parental investment of different sexes, men are predicted to prefer more sexual partners and variety, i.e. more short-term mates. This has been replicated by several studies (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Schmitt et al., 2001; Shackelford et al., 2004). Thus, short-term relationship seeking is believed to be much more common among men than women.

Mehmetoglu & Määttänen, 2020, in Evolutionary Psychology

However, note that not all evidence supports the SST’s premise:

According to a study by Li and Kenrick (2006), “the sexes are similarly selective for long-term relationships, whereas women are more selective regarding short-term relationships” (p. 483). The study also found a significant interaction-effect in which the sexes were more similar in their preferences for short- versus long-term mates: both sexes prioritized physical attractiveness for short-term mates whereas women were less selective for long-term mates’ appearance (Li & Kenrick, 2006).

ibid.

Furthermore, the results we’re seeing in our study could be explained based on our participant characteristics rather than the theories provided above. That’s when things get more complicated and thus fascinating. Some alternative explanations I thought of:

  • 1. Women in Singapore have no interest in short-term dating because it is not considered a possibility in the first place. The dating phase is merely a means to an end. Or, to put it differently, no distinction is made between dating and marriage. Marriage is merely the inevitable, natural outcome of dating. I know people who think like this — and if we generalise, many women think like this as opposed to men, though some men definitely think the same.

The above begs the question of what “dating” means to us in the first place. Is it a short-term relationship with a non-guaranteed possibility of becoming more? The definition of pragmatic dating and the overwhelming female preference for it suggest that women are essentially looking for absolute certainty: they want to be confident that this is the person they want to commit to before committing to them.

Honestly, that baffles me. How can you commit if you do not know what you are committing to? There must inherently be a trial period in the style of Schrödinger, no? And isn’t that… well, dating? It has the absurdity of going to Best Denki, looking at a TV that is not switched on, and deciding to buy it based on its specifications alone. It’s not wrong, but it’s a suboptimal strategy to me.

But it might be just me getting this all mixed up.

  • 2. It is possible that (most) women in Singapore are not interested in dating for love. This is related to the above but has a little nuance to it. When I discuss this matter with my friends, I sometimes get this response: “Why try if it’s not going to work out?”

Again, a totally legitimate (albeit rather avoidant) response. But here’s a poem that expresses my counterpoint better than I can:

Everyone forgets that Icarus also flew.
It’s the same when love comes to an end,
or the marriage fails and people say
they knew it was a mistake, that everybody
said it would never work. That she was
old enough to know better. But anything
worth doing is worth doing badly.
Like being there by that summer ocean
on the other side of the island while
love was fading out of her, the stars
burning so extravagantly those nights that
anyone could tell you they would never last.
Every morning she was asleep in my bed
like a visitation, the gentleness in her
like antelope standing in the dawn mist.
Each afternoon I watched her coming back
through the hot stony field after swimming,
the sea light behind her and the huge sky
on the other side of that. Listened to her
while we ate lunch. How can they say
the marriage failed? Like the people who
came back from Provence (when it was Provence)
and said it was pretty but the food was greasy.
I believe Icarus was not failing as he fell,
but just coming to the end of his triumph.

Jack Gilbert, Failing and Flying

Well, darlings, that’s all I have for now. Let me know if you agree or disagree; I’d love to hear it.

Once again, I hope you find the love you deserve. You deserve everything. I love you!

gwyn’s lay theory of relationships, #1

in this series: #1 | #2 | #3 | #3.5

I have a lay theory of partner selection preferences of males and females in heterosexual romantic relationships. Oh, hear me out — it’ll be a fun ride (perhaps even obvious in hindsight!)


First tenet: Men and women have different criteria for life partners.

Men settle for stability, and women settle for love.

Men are more rational and calculating: they choose to settle with women they intuit they can build families with. This is not necessarily the woman they love the most, although they will definitely try to convince themselves so.

Another way to put it is that they will eventually marry the women their mothers approve of more. As a man, you might scoff at the idea that your mother has any real influence in deciding who you marry, except she does — you just haven’t consciously come to terms with it.

The above is where the “girlfriend but not wife material” (GBNWM from now on) descriptor stems from — because men are better at separating love, sexual desire, and marriage. So, the woman who he loves, the woman who is attractive to him, and the woman who he marries can be three different women. Lucky him if they are the same woman, but they are often separate.

Women are more emotion-driven. They want to and are more likely to settle with men they love. This would suggest that love and marriage come together. And what about sexual desire? Ever heard the familiar story of girlfriends hurt by their boyfriend’s pornography/Insta hot girl pic consumption (let’s not pretend otherwise), while the boyfriend exasperatedly attempts to explain that “porn is just porn; it doesn’t mean I love you less”? Indeed, he does not love her less, but he does not understand that women conflate the three elements.

Of course, women seriously consider aspects like wealth and physicality, which are evolutionary signals for reproductive fitness. But give them a choice and they will let love lead the way.

In summary, men marry with their heads (yes, not the other head), and women marry with their hearts.

Art imitates life

We have discussed marriage. Now, let us discuss dating.

Second tenet: I further posit that people looking to date can be divided into two major types: people who date to date (the Romantics) and people who date to marry (the Pragmatics).

Your gender does not influence whether you are a Romantic or Pragmatic, unlike with marriage. Rather, your personality and past relationship experiences will determine your type. I will go as far as to predict that people who are high on openness to experience (a personality trait) are more likely to be Romantics.

Romantics say “I love them so much I can’t breathe; I have to be with them”.

Pragmatics say “I think they’re a great partner; I can see them in my future”.

There’s no right or wrong — it’s just a preference that has significant repercussions on who you meet and stay with, and how your relationships play out in the long-term. In general, Romantics are open to dating more people than Pragmatics, but they have shorter relationships.

(All of this is to say that you are not a “high-value person”, bless you, if you are selective in your choice of partners; you are probably just a typical Pragmatic, LOL. You should never be using that term unironically anyway.)

I did predict that men are more rational when it comes to marriage, but this does not necessarily mean they are more likely to be pragmatic when it comes to dating. For example, you may primarily date for love and discover a love that clutches at your heart and breaks you apart but still decide to marry someone stable in the end.

What’s interesting is that when the two tenets are combined, they result in unique patterns of partner-seeking behaviour in men and women.

Pragmatic men are the most selective, and Romantic women are the least selective.

Let’s say you are a typical Pragmatic man: you are looking for someone stable, and you are dating to marry. You will immediately disqualify GBNWMs because an uncontrollable woman might be sexual napalm as a girlfriend, but a liability as a wife. (I name this phenomenon “double jeopardy”, dedicated to crazy girls like me.) You will only date potential wives, which significantly restricts your selection pool.

Conversely, Pragmatic women might give chances to and later marry men who seem to not be husband material at first. Because — to use a cliché — love conquers all, and all can be forgiven. There might be no male equivalent for the GBNWM, actually — have you ever heard women describe a man like that?

Romantic men are kind of in-between in the sense that they might date for fun but not marry until they’re confident they’ve found the one.

Romantic women are just in trouble. HAHAHAHAH

Now we can make pairing predictions:

  • Pragmatics prefer fellow pragmatics. Pair two Pragmatics together and you are basically guaranteed a stable relationship. They’re that couple who has been together since the start of university (they met in some school camp), have gotten a BTO, and will be having their wedding this year.
  • Romantics care less about who they date. If paired with a Pragmatic, they may experience stress. If paired with a fellow Romantic, the relationship will be intense, but not necessarily stable, not that they mind.
  • The combination least likely to work out is between a Pragmatic man and a Romantic woman because their values differ the most. (Maybe I keep falling for Pragmatic men…)
the Pragmatic and the Romantic (I actually think Mario is a Romantic)

Third tenet: I expect that conservative men and women (compared to liberals) are more likely to be Pragmatic daters AND marry for stability. Conservatism involves upholding traditional standards in everyday life. Example: you believe that family is defined as the nuclear unit, men and women have different roles to play, etc.

The reason is that the more conservative you are, the more likely you are to adhere to gender stereotypes or the dominant trends you observe around you. And the Singapore Dream is stability across all facets of life. Singaporeans are generally quite conservative and risk-averse. Even marriages are tinged with transactionality nowadays (think BTO).

There’s nothing wrong with being conservative or liberal. It’s a preference. I’m not insinuating that those who lean conservative are mindless sheep. We make decisions that are aligned with our values. If you believe the status quo is fine, you would naturally act in a way that maintains it.


I might be completely wrong. These are all based on anecdotal observations limited to Singapore, and my friends have told me I tend to attract men who are bad for me (like attracts like, OK). You are welcome to DM me agitatedly proclaiming yourself as an exception, hah.

The final caveat is that these are generalisations, as theories must have — it does not mean all men and women act the same way. I am a Love/Romantic based on my theory though (of course). This means I date to date, and I will marry for love, consequences be damned.

Feel free to categorise yourself and let me know what you are. (If I am interested in you, I will ask you if I haven’t already guessed it).

Gwyn’s Typology of Love

Now for the cherry on top.

The research study: I ran an informal poll on Instagram to see if my hypotheses were supported. It’s not IRB-approved and might have involved coercion (I threatened my friends with the cold shoulder if they didn’t respond, hahahahaha).

It covers marriage preferences (first tenet) only. I will conduct another study for the types later, so stay tuned.

My aim is to demonstrate that in selecting a life partner:

  • Hypothesis 1: A higher percentage of men will pick stability > love.
  • Hypothesis 2: A higher percentage of women will pick love > stability.

Method:

  • Participants were shown the prompt “In selecting a life partner, is stability or love more important to you?”
  • They picked one of the two options provided — “stability” or “love” — and indicated their gender, male or female.

Sample characteristics: 21-30 years old, predominantly university-educated

Results:

  • Overall, both genders (N = 101)
    • Stability = 48 (47.5%)
    • Love = 53 (52.5%)
  • Men (n = 57)
    • Stability = 24 (42.1%)
    • Love = 33 (57.9%)
  • Women (n = 44)
    • Stability = 24 (54.5%)
    • Love = 20 (45.5%)

Summary of results

  • Hypothesis 1 not supported. Men prefer love over stability in their criterion for a life partner.
  • Hypothesis 2 not supported. Women prefer stability over love.
  • Of course note that I didn’t test for significance. But the differences seem big enough.

Discussion: Well, consider me shooketh. So I’m an anomaly? And my friends, too? This goes to show that one’s (my) view of the world can be surprisingly limited in the grand scheme of things. Or because I didn’t do my literature review before I generated my theory — it’s grounded science, baby!

Possible explanations of the findings from the literature:

  • Evolutionary theory suggests that men’s long-term mating strategies involve searching for women of “high reproductive value”, which is inferred via physical attractiveness and age. None of these are related to stability (Buss & Schmitt, 2019, pp. 88-89). (But they aren’t related to love either, which more men in the sample picked?)
  • Evolutionary theory again suggests that women’s long-term mating strategies involve searching for men who (1) can provide economic and status resources, (2) offer physical protection, and (3) are willing to commit (ibid., pp. 93-95). These all indicate stability.

Some potential alternative explanations must be considered:

  • Skewed sample characteristics: My followers tend to be liberal, so the effects would be weaker (or even inverted) compared to my predictions.
  • You guys are forecasting wrongly. HAHAHAHAHA. Let’s see why and to whom you all get married in the end — let me know! (wink)

Thank you to all of my 101 followers who participated. I hope you find the love you deserve.

Me and my future man who is rich, ambitious, protective, and committed