A meditative rose

A discussion on an analysis to determine whether a relationship would create value and be sustainable reminded me of a big peeve a certain ex-boyfriend used to have - about how I analyzed every situation from a cost-benefit perspective. This always left me confused - though I couldn’t vocalize why at the time - maybe at that point I still felt guilty about letting reason guide me … I’ve clearly grown up since then Anyway, I don’t see how a relationship, or any action, that is based on no rational thought is superior to one that we go through with only if it makes sense.

Why such an analysis makes sense is clear – costs exist in any transaction, so you need to assess them and acknowledge that the benefit is greater to go ahead with the transaction. Of course, the costs and benefits don’t need to be tangible or even rational – driving an hour to pick someone up from the airport may be worth it, if you feel seeing them an hour earlier is worth it (not that I would ever do that ). Or, doing something for a person just to make them happy adds value to you, if their happiness matters to you. So we can easily use this framework to assess so called ‘unselfish’ relationships, or those based solely on emotion, not reason.

The more interesting question is, why is doing such an analysis considered cold? I’m not sure I have the answer, but I’ve tried to come up with a couple of potential reasons someone could think this analysis is either unnecessary to make a good decision, or even suspect the motives of someone who does perform this analysis.

I guess the first would be, if the cost is too low – the major costs involved in relationships (ongoing relationships – let’s ignore transaction and entry/exit costs here) are time, giving up or compromising on one’s own views and preferences, suppressing one’s own interests to achieve a level comfortable to both parties, etc. For someone with a strong identity and personality, this wouldn’t be true – so we can safely banish these types to the fringes of our world, where they can wallow in sloth and mediocrity – oh wait – they’re already there, living in the ‘burbs.

The other argument would be if the benefit one gained was so high as to not require any analysis at all – it’s likely it can outweigh any cost that can reasonably be expected. This might be a better argument, but I see two flaws in it. The first is that if the benefit were really that high, you wouldn’t be so defensive about conducting the analysis – what are you scared of finding. The other is that, if you are capable of entering into a relationship with someone who provides such high benefit, it’s very likely that you bring a lot to the table yourself. So, going back to the first argument, the cost to you is likely to be fairly high as well, so a trade-off against the benefits might well be worth it.

The last argument could be that suffering (cost > benefit) is good, or at least, irrelevant, so you don’t need to guard against it. This is again interesting, because I could make an argument that short-term suffering may not necessarily imply long-term suffering, so sticking it out through the rough times could still lead to a net benefit scenario over the long term. For this to hold, you need entry and exit costs. If these were non-existent, you make a series of short-term decisions and jump in and out of relationships when they provide benefit to you. Of course, you could choose to not be in a relationship at all – you form friendships, which lower both the cost and the benefit (though maybe to a smaller extent), and have no exit costs, and limited entry costs. The other issue with making short-term decisions is that entry costs, in particular, will go up tremendously with time (especially for women, being depreciating assets ). So you might want to cut your losses and lock in what benefit you can today (sum Benefit > (sum Regular costs + sum Entry costs), though sum Benefit < sum Costs for the particular relationship being evaluated)

This, and another comment about unconditional love, also set me thinking. Isn’t it true that someone who hasn’t done a cost benefit analysis doesn’t truly love me for myself? If I think I have enough worth to bring value to a relationship and to the other person, I would welcome such an analysis. Even if I have doubts about my own worth, I have to recognize that the only way a relationship can be sustainable is if I bring to the table qualities that my partner values, and in greater quality than are available to him elsewhere.

If he doesn’t do this, I am stuck with someone who likes me for ‘the way I laugh’. Next thing you know, he’ll be saying he likes me because I look sexy in black, or because I have nice hair. That’s just incidental, honey, that’s not who I am. I deserve better than that…