provider

gwynethtytLeave a comment
frank ocean – provider

been feelin’ like the lord’s just out of reach for me (for me)
how i feel lettin’ man speak
how i feel letting man speak for me (for me)
holyfield, keep your ears split for me
can’t show my face if you spit for me (spit for me, yeah)

eyes low, chin heavy shoegazer
moonwalkin’, r.i.p. stanley kubrick
you had you some birthdays, could you prove it?
show me the wisdom in your movement
show me some wisdom in your movement

lyrics

altered states

gwynethtytLeave a comment

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

gwynethtytLeave a comment

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.

Impett et al., 2001

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

gwynethtytLeave a comment

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!