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