It definitely does, no questions about that, but only as long has you have a high enough perceived value from the other party. A hobo playing hard to get won't win anything from it. You have to display some sort of value, be it real or faked.
To put it simple, if you chase something (job, love interest, etc.) it means you really need that something, if you need it, it means you have no other options, if you have no other options it makes you desperate and being desperate signals low value. If nobody else wants you, why should I?
Think of it like ivy league or a night club. Everyone wants to get into the ones that are the most difficult to get into whereas almost nobody wants to go to the ones anyone can just walk into. That's why girls will flake on you if you're always too available for dates while they're trying to go out with that guy who keeps ignoring their texts.
It's basic human evolution from our tribal days to desire what's scarce and discard what's not.
I subscribe to the theory from How I Met Your Mother - there's always a settler and a reacher in a relationship. It's just unavoidable, though over time the two might swap, for whatever reason.
When I was young my cousin told me he envied me because I was smarter (in his view) and spent my days inside the house reading books. I, on the other hand, envied his good looks, charisma, popularity and athleticism. I never had a romantic relationship with my cousin (:P), but I like to think they work similarly. It’s not that one must be in a superior position, but each partner must recognize some value in the other that they do not possess themselves.
Not that it's something I'm proud of, but when I had worse mental health, I hung on to a few partners just for the sake of being less lonely, and to make up for the lack of support network through family, etc.
Relationships are interesting in that sense - I've seen more relationships where the two balance each other out, instead of being particularly similar (interests, personal traits, etc). I mean, it makes sense! If I'm after company, I'd want someone who makes me do things I wouldn't normally. Easier to maintain a balance between together and alone time this way too, if you have a not-too-big overlap in interests.
Long term committed relationships are a compromise from at least one party. At least one has settled.
As cynically as that sounds it's the truth whether most people would like to admit it or not.
That's rather reductionist. People (can) have warped senses of self-worth which mean both sides are dating/marrying "up" simultaneously, or "down" simultaneously (i.e. between narcissists).
There are also plenty of couples who value things like family/culture over individual worth and thus mating carries much more weight than the sum of parts.
Reminds me of the story about two sisters arguing over an orange.
"Management guru, Mary Parker Follett, tells the story of two highly competitive sisters quarrelling over a single orange that they both wanted. Neither of them would budge until their mother intervened and decided that the only way to resolve the dispute was to cut the orange straight down the middle and give each sister one half each. The first sister then squeezed her orange half to make a drink of fresh orange juice while the second sister grated her orange half for peel to add to orange scones. As a result, the sisters only got half of what they wanted." [0]
The sisters valued different parts of the orange. They'd both think they'd gotten the best deal (dating/marrying up) if they had shared it.
It doesn't have to be like that, because people aren't one-dimensional. I may be better along axis A (money, say, or intelligence). My spouse/long term partner may be better on axis B (looks, say, or relational ability).
And, since I'm weaker on axis B, I may view my partner as above me. And, since my partner is weaker on axis A, they may view me as above them. And we may both think that we married better than we deserved.
If there is a general societal expectation of playing hard to get (imo one half of flirting), failure to do so will generally result in “dating down”.
Flirting is push/pull and it is fun for everyone because it amplifies the novelty of a new connection. People who don’t know how to flirt likely end up dating people who they were able to spark a connection with despite lacking that skill.
I got married ~3 years ago after several years of dating around. This book really helped me understand the psychology of finding a partner and getting married
Love Factually - Duana Welch, PhD
It talks a lot about playing hard to get. The book basically frames it in the same “more in demand” that this linked article talks about.
And also adds something I’ve always remembered.
We see hard-to-get as attractive because we know, for others, they will be impossible-to-get once they’re our partner.
(I’m paraphrasing)
So hard to get only works as long as we perceive they’re hard to get for others also.
Anyways, that book was definitely a life changer for me so if you’re interested in this kind of stuff or trying to understand the confusing world of finding a partner I highly recommend it.
Nobody is forcing you to select from your desperate suitors. Having many suitors means you have options and are free to casually pursue your own interests and the queue of suitors is there to validate your high status in the eyes of the interest you are pursuing.
If you assume there are plenty of suitors, then playing hard to get would advertise yourself to the folks on the higher end of the desirability curve, possibly giving you more selection there, and having reasonable fallbacks otherwise.
If there aren't a lot of suitors, then you'd probably want to go for the best you can get, because there's probably not much better, but almost certainly worse.
I wonder if there's a good way to formally analyze this
That depends entirely on how hard you play and when you allow yourself to get got.
The article points this out. You've got to make the other person think you're just out of reach but maybe if they stretch . . .
It works for men, too. The less you put yourself out there, the less rejection you'll experience. Consequentially, you'll have a higher self-perception which will translate to a higher external perception. When opportunity comes knocking, be cool, don't trip yourself up. Slowly spiraling towards a relationship delays gratification which can intensify satisfaction, and also provides an opportunity for sober reflection -- you can adequately respond to warning signs and pull away without drama.
Also bears noting that the strategy "may" result in missed opportunities -- and that's the purpose of that word in the title.
When a lady cardinal is being wooed by a couple of bright red guy cardinals and she eventually chooses one, we call that nature. When humans do this, we get our feathers ruffled. Strange.
What are you talking about? My feathers aren't ruffled. I consider them both nature.
I think it says a lot about HN culture that the mere mention of 'women' makes people automatically assume I must be some kind of misogynistic basement-dweller.
These days it's "the pickup game", before that it was "dating", before that it was "courting", and on and on back through the ages. Sure, men can play hard to get, but everyone knows that males tend to pursue females. It's not controversial. It's just the way we're wired, likely due to our biology and the consequences of reproduction for each sex.
Because humans have a choice in it. Women can choose not to do it, the female cardinal can't, it's just an indelible part of their mating ritual and instincts. Ought implies can - there's no reason to be angry at someone for something if they can't help it.
In addition, female cardinals do that ritual because it's a way of filtering for mates without conscious/rational assessment and communication... something which human women are entirely capable of, so they don't need wacky evolutionary tricks to do it.
But also, the GP doesn't seem to have his feathers ruffled anyway, so it looks like you're just searching for some offense here.
This is the assumption. (Most)Women nest when a child is on the way. That's an involuntary behavior. Why can't there be some involuntary behavior associated with choosing a mate?
And I'm not searching for some offense. I keyed off the OP saying "Game", but I don't feel they particularly had their feathers ruffled.
Right, there are indeed involuntary behaviors. But I think there are plenty of examples of women that choose not to play hard-to-get - if it was involuntary we would have no, or vanishingly few, examples. If "voluntary" means anything - and I'm not talking about free will vs determinism here - this is one of those behaviors that is indeed voluntary.
> “Playing hard to get makes it seem as if you are more in demand—we call that having higher mate value,” says Harry Reis, a professor of psychology and Dean’s Professor in Arts, Sciences & Engineering at Rochester.
>“People who are too easy to attract may be perceived as more desperate,” says coauthor Gurit Birnbaum, a social psychologist and associate professor of psychology at the IDC Herzliya.
Thank god for theses scientists undertaking this examination of this curious ritual called “human love”
Based on what I've seen in online dating in my own experiences and the experiences of others, this is not an effective strategy. In fact I'd say it's a counterproductive strategy. Timing and options are large contributing factors to this.
The largest problem with online dating is that there are no natural filters in place. Dating in meatspace means that oftentimes you mean people in contexts that help pre-screen them and give you an idea what you are dealing with (mutual friends, work, gym, hobby, etc.) Online dating strips that away and forces you to have to evaluate each person in person in order to have any clue if things may actually work out in a relationship. In this case, the important thing is to drive things to the first date and then take it from there.
(Technically I guess this is easier if all you're looking for is sex)
With a large pool of options it means that the entire game of "waiting for a couple of days to signal non-desperation" is a counter productive strategy. People constantly have potential people to meet. If you take too long to respond, it will signal disinterest or that you are ghosting them, and they will simply move on.
Note that none of this means "always make yourself available at all times". That will reek of desperation.
Get shot down cuz you're over-zealous / Play hard-to-get, females get jealous -Young MC, 1988 or so
In all seriousness, if this is a strategy to make yourself look better than you are, shouldn't prospective partners ask why you need to do that? Doesn't your playing hard-to-get imply that you're the desperate one, on some level? Or rather it's the "I drive a Dodge Stratus" of dating. It separates/differentiates you from the lowest tier, but I think those who are truly in the top tier will probably use some kind of counter-signaling approach.
Welcome to the wonderful world of over-thinking it and trying to game the system.
As I shredded off the last bits of my "childhood" / "youth" / "young person vibes" in the last years I realized that dating is just as horrible as the rest of life.
Everyone just runs around with a fuzzy version of the dating calculator* in their head. Is that person good enough? What's my chance to find someone better? Is it worth sacrificing the energy I spent on my current partner for the chance of finding a better one? I see "settled" and unhappy people all around. Those who have "reproduce" as next point on their bullet list for life.
In gay dating it's even worse, because there are usually no wombs with their "best before" date involved and social pressure to settle is lower.
Maybe try meeting someone who is not "everyone", and also make sure you don't fall into the same trap yourself? If you meet a person you settle down with, it doesn't stop attraction to other people, but you have a choice to limit that expression to managable levels, or live with the hell of not doing that.
It doesn't just apply to dating. Jobs, friends/parties, and more.
I played semi-passively HTG and Google had an HR person who invited me to design my own role in any department ranging under the umbrellas of SRE, SRE (lead), to SRM.
Another consideration, be it any realm, is: do you really want or need whatever/whoever it is? You probably don't, so have fun and give fewer f's. There is nothing lost by inquiring and demonstrating socially-/self-aware persistence. Be like Peter, post-hypnosis. ;-)
40 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 81.6 ms ] threadIt definitely does, no questions about that, but only as long has you have a high enough perceived value from the other party. A hobo playing hard to get won't win anything from it. You have to display some sort of value, be it real or faked.
To put it simple, if you chase something (job, love interest, etc.) it means you really need that something, if you need it, it means you have no other options, if you have no other options it makes you desperate and being desperate signals low value. If nobody else wants you, why should I?
Think of it like ivy league or a night club. Everyone wants to get into the ones that are the most difficult to get into whereas almost nobody wants to go to the ones anyone can just walk into. That's why girls will flake on you if you're always too available for dates while they're trying to go out with that guy who keeps ignoring their texts.
It's basic human evolution from our tribal days to desire what's scarce and discard what's not.
Dating up means the other party has more desirable alternatives. Dating down means they don't. That translates into different relationship dynamics.
Are you constantly trying to win them over, are they constantly trying to win you over, or is it equal?
I subscribe to the theory from How I Met Your Mother - there's always a settler and a reacher in a relationship. It's just unavoidable, though over time the two might swap, for whatever reason.
Relationships are interesting in that sense - I've seen more relationships where the two balance each other out, instead of being particularly similar (interests, personal traits, etc). I mean, it makes sense! If I'm after company, I'd want someone who makes me do things I wouldn't normally. Easier to maintain a balance between together and alone time this way too, if you have a not-too-big overlap in interests.
There are also plenty of couples who value things like family/culture over individual worth and thus mating carries much more weight than the sum of parts.
"Management guru, Mary Parker Follett, tells the story of two highly competitive sisters quarrelling over a single orange that they both wanted. Neither of them would budge until their mother intervened and decided that the only way to resolve the dispute was to cut the orange straight down the middle and give each sister one half each. The first sister then squeezed her orange half to make a drink of fresh orange juice while the second sister grated her orange half for peel to add to orange scones. As a result, the sisters only got half of what they wanted." [0]
The sisters valued different parts of the orange. They'd both think they'd gotten the best deal (dating/marrying up) if they had shared it.
[0] http://www.managetrainlearn.com/page/win-win-deals
And, since I'm weaker on axis B, I may view my partner as above me. And, since my partner is weaker on axis A, they may view me as above them. And we may both think that we married better than we deserved.
Flirting is push/pull and it is fun for everyone because it amplifies the novelty of a new connection. People who don’t know how to flirt likely end up dating people who they were able to spark a connection with despite lacking that skill.
Love Factually - Duana Welch, PhD
It talks a lot about playing hard to get. The book basically frames it in the same “more in demand” that this linked article talks about.
And also adds something I’ve always remembered.
We see hard-to-get as attractive because we know, for others, they will be impossible-to-get once they’re our partner.
(I’m paraphrasing)
So hard to get only works as long as we perceive they’re hard to get for others also.
Anyways, that book was definitely a life changer for me so if you’re interested in this kind of stuff or trying to understand the confusing world of finding a partner I highly recommend it.
If there aren't a lot of suitors, then you'd probably want to go for the best you can get, because there's probably not much better, but almost certainly worse.
I wonder if there's a good way to formally analyze this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
It's basically flirting but longer?
Also bears noting that the strategy "may" result in missed opportunities -- and that's the purpose of that word in the title.
I think it says a lot about HN culture that the mere mention of 'women' makes people automatically assume I must be some kind of misogynistic basement-dweller.
These days it's "the pickup game", before that it was "dating", before that it was "courting", and on and on back through the ages. Sure, men can play hard to get, but everyone knows that males tend to pursue females. It's not controversial. It's just the way we're wired, likely due to our biology and the consequences of reproduction for each sex.
In addition, female cardinals do that ritual because it's a way of filtering for mates without conscious/rational assessment and communication... something which human women are entirely capable of, so they don't need wacky evolutionary tricks to do it.
But also, the GP doesn't seem to have his feathers ruffled anyway, so it looks like you're just searching for some offense here.
This is the assumption. (Most)Women nest when a child is on the way. That's an involuntary behavior. Why can't there be some involuntary behavior associated with choosing a mate?
And I'm not searching for some offense. I keyed off the OP saying "Game", but I don't feel they particularly had their feathers ruffled.
>“People who are too easy to attract may be perceived as more desperate,” says coauthor Gurit Birnbaum, a social psychologist and associate professor of psychology at the IDC Herzliya.
Thank god for theses scientists undertaking this examination of this curious ritual called “human love”
The largest problem with online dating is that there are no natural filters in place. Dating in meatspace means that oftentimes you mean people in contexts that help pre-screen them and give you an idea what you are dealing with (mutual friends, work, gym, hobby, etc.) Online dating strips that away and forces you to have to evaluate each person in person in order to have any clue if things may actually work out in a relationship. In this case, the important thing is to drive things to the first date and then take it from there.
(Technically I guess this is easier if all you're looking for is sex)
With a large pool of options it means that the entire game of "waiting for a couple of days to signal non-desperation" is a counter productive strategy. People constantly have potential people to meet. If you take too long to respond, it will signal disinterest or that you are ghosting them, and they will simply move on.
Note that none of this means "always make yourself available at all times". That will reek of desperation.
In all seriousness, if this is a strategy to make yourself look better than you are, shouldn't prospective partners ask why you need to do that? Doesn't your playing hard-to-get imply that you're the desperate one, on some level? Or rather it's the "I drive a Dodge Stratus" of dating. It separates/differentiates you from the lowest tier, but I think those who are truly in the top tier will probably use some kind of counter-signaling approach.
Welcome to the wonderful world of over-thinking it and trying to game the system.
Everyone just runs around with a fuzzy version of the dating calculator* in their head. Is that person good enough? What's my chance to find someone better? Is it worth sacrificing the energy I spent on my current partner for the chance of finding a better one? I see "settled" and unhappy people all around. Those who have "reproduce" as next point on their bullet list for life.
In gay dating it's even worse, because there are usually no wombs with their "best before" date involved and social pressure to settle is lower.
* https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/dating-theory
I played semi-passively HTG and Google had an HR person who invited me to design my own role in any department ranging under the umbrellas of SRE, SRE (lead), to SRM.
Another consideration, be it any realm, is: do you really want or need whatever/whoever it is? You probably don't, so have fun and give fewer f's. There is nothing lost by inquiring and demonstrating socially-/self-aware persistence. Be like Peter, post-hypnosis. ;-)