relationships · social philosophy

Compatibility and the spectrum of cynicism.

I would argue that the main thing the prevents people from getting into relationships isn’t a lack of basic compatibility with others – but a mismatching of their level emotional cynicism and bad timing.

Let me explain.

Basic compatibility

There are some core things are basic deal breakers about whether someone is a romantic match for us or not, things like:

  • Whether they’re a smoker or not
  • Their level of exercise
  • Whether they do drugs or not
  • Their age
  • Their employment and/or social standing
  • Their political views
  • Their religious views

Different people are going to have different deal breakers. Many of us would never consider dating a smoker – but some people are ok with it. Some people couldn’t stand the thought of dating someone with an opposing political ideology, others are political apathetic and don’t care.

The point is – of the entire dating pool, there’s a subsection of people of people who you’re actually going to have some semblance of realistic compatibility with.

Now, if you’re an intelligent progressive-minded person living in a small shittown – then it’s likely that your eligible dating pool will be unworkably small – and working with that is not what I wish to deal with here.

For somebody in a decent sized progressive city – your compatible dating pool is still going to contain hundreds or thousands of prospects.

Chemistry

After basic compatibility is met – there’s still whether the two of you get along or not.

It’s possible that you both have similar lifestyles and share similar world views – but you go on a date, and you just don’t get along. You don’t find their jokes funny, or you finding their flirting wooden. Maybe they have a certain physical appearance that you just don’t find attractive.

But even if after we eliminate all of these – I would still say that people in decent sized progressive cities still have a healthy sized dating pool of people they’re compatible with, and are attracted to – so what prevents people from getting into relationships?

Perhaps people are too picky

Let’s get this point out of the way first. It’s plausible that many people are being too picky. They want someone who earns $100k a year, and has rock hard abs, and is super intelligent, and likes dogs, and shares their taste in movies, and always knows the right thing to make them laugh. If they’re not considering dating anyone who doesn’t meet all of these criteria – then perhaps they narrow their dating pool too small to be workable.

I’ll concede that this may be the case for some people – but I don’t think it’s the primary factor that prevents most people from forming relationships.

Enter the emotional cynicism spectrum

People, in a given moment, have an emotional state that fits on a spectrum of distrusting and cynical on one end, and joyous and willing to love on the other.

Being more cynical will mean when a guy says hello in the supermarket line, the person is more likely to dismiss them as a creep or give a curt response. Whereas existing on the more open to love side of the spectrum will more likely result in a friendly conversation that leads to a date.

The point here is – whether this date happens or not – isn’t due to their inherent compatibility, but their respective emotional states at the time.

People’s day to day life experiences affect their emotional state. For example, being sent some abusive messages or being ghosted will likely make someone more cynical – while having a stranger pay for your bus when you were out of cash will make you more willing to love.

Our emotional state is likely to fluctuate. You go on one friendly date – it goes well – you become more willing to love. That allows a date with a different person to occur. You get ghosted. You become more cynical.

It’s this dynamic that ultimately makes finding a mate seem difficult, despite the apparent abundance of potential romantic partners – we may be just meeting each other at the wrong times; had you met that person a week later – the date might have gone entirely differently.

There’s a couple more points I’d make:

  • Both partner’s being open to love isn’t what’s necessary for a pairing to occur. I would argue that both partners being cynical can also allow a pairing to occur – as both go in with a more standoffish stance – and both feeling like that’s what they deserve. I would say though – that this kind of relationship is ultimately going to be less satisfying – or, at least not what this writer is looking for.
  • I think there’s also a similar timing problem in terms of social maturity. For example we might be meeting people who we’re fundamentally compatible with, but who still find upfront communication awkward. This kind of timing problem doesn’t have the same fluctuation that the emotional cynicism does; it tends to be something that develops in a linear fashion.

The cute optimist in me says that in considering this – maintaining an optimistic emotional state in response to events that might make you cynical is the important takeaway here – as it’s the being optimistic that is going to be opening the doors.

That said – it’s good to go in optimistic, but with an attitude of detachment – anticipating that there’s a decent chance that something won’t pan out. That atleast lets that eventuality not affect your emotional state as much as it might have.

It’s hard to say what this means in practice. Say you’re arranging a date for a Friday night. A common likelyhood is that they’ll flake on the date. I guess a healthy technique to manage that outcome – is to have also made plans for what you’ll do if that happens, one that doesn’t involve acting cynically yourself. For example you might make plans of ‘If this date doesn’t happen, I’ll go for a run instead’. I don’t think this would necessarily negate all negative emotional experience – but it’s the best you can do.

It’s funny – I feel like the tail end of this post might spread a little cynicism. But I think it does objectively demonstrate a healthy and emotionally mature thinking. I would hope this has an uplifting effect in knowing that there are others out there with with this kind of emotional consideration.

Advertisements
policy · politics

Let’s pay people $50/week to use contraception.

First – let’s be clear that I support a Universal Basic Income (UBI). The policy I suggest here could be used in additional to a UBI (ie. people would receive this allowance on top of their UBI), or in the context of our current welfare entitlements, as a less costly, less universal UBI.

The allowance

The proposal is simple. We give people of reproductive age $50/week if they are taking long term contraception (ie. IUD, depo, or implant).

Because the nature of our biology dictates that long term contraception is only available to women, only woman of ages say 16-40 would be eligible for this allowance.

The woman would, upon having her contraception installed, get a signed certificate from her doctor, which she can then take to her welfare office to start receiving her allowance. In the case of contraception that requires renewal (eg. depo), she would be required to bring this certificate to the welfare office every renewal period.

The contraception and doctor’s visit would be paid for by the state.

Someone women don’t suit certain certain kinds of contraception. Fortunately there are three different kinds – so it seems unlikely that a woman would be unsuitable to all three. In the case that she is – she could be given an alternative (eg. condoms if need be), and still be eligible for the allowance – unsuitability would need to have strict criteria.

The allowance wouldn’t be means tested; all women aged 16-40 would be eligible, regardless of whether they’re unemployed, a single mother, or they earn a million dollars a year. The reasoning for this allowance, is that it would provide people with immediate short term incentive to take contraception – making the default position to be not having children. 

Why? Decision making – the discount rate

This necessity for this policy comes down to an economic concept called discount rateIf I were to offer you $1000 now, or $1000 in a year’s time, it would make sense that you would choose the $1000 now, as you can make some use of it now, even if just to put it in the bank to earn interest.

What if I offered you $1000 now, or $2000 in a year’s time? Depending on your situation, you might take the money now, if say you had a power bill you desperately needed to pay; if you were already plenty flush, you’d more likely take the money in a year’s time, 100%pa being a pretty good return on investment. If I was offering $1000 now, or $10,000 in year’s time, you’d be even more likely to put off taking the money.

The exact ratio of how much money I’d need to offer in order for you to delay, is what determines your discount rate. The higher your discount rate, the more money I’d need to offer you to delay; or in other words, the higher your discount rate, the less the same dollar now, is worth in a years time.

Discount rates also apply to costs. Imagine if I were selling you a new phone and you can pay $500 for it now, or $1500 in three years’ time – depending on your discount rate, you might, or might not think that the three years’ time deal is a good deal.

This same decision making factor applies to taking contraception. There’s an immediate cost of taking contraception – the time spent going to the doctor, the cost of contraception etc. There’s also a cost of not taking contraception – the potential that you have a child, (or face the decision of having an abortion), the corresponding time and money costs of raising a child.

Because of peoples’ discount rate – the cost of having a child is reduced – it’s in the future and abstract, compare to the immediate real cost of using contraception. Additionally – New Zealand’s welfare entitlement for children discounts the cost having children for those not already employed by giving increased welfare entitlement.

Anecdotally – this is reflected in doctor’s offices, where a sexually active young girl, who is not on contraception is asked ‘well what are going to do if you get pregnant?’ responds with, ‘I don’t know – receive a benefit’.

An allowance for contraception provides immediate incentive to use contraception – using contraception becomes a lot more worthwhile if you’re receiving $50 a week to do so.

Why is this necessary? What’s wrong with having children? 

Firstly – global warming. The single most significant thing you can do to blow out your carbon footprint is to have children. We shouldn’t be cavalier about bringing an additional person into the world. It should be a well considered decision – which is what the allowance seeks to do – change the default from ‘having children’ to ‘not having children’.

Secondly – the social cost of additional people.

I think that the investment required to raise someone who is able to contribute to society in a meaningful manner has increased.

Where one hundred years ago – an illiterate person could have a child, and that person grows up less educated than the average person today, that person could still make a useful contribution to society – working as a labourer in a factory or building roads. This is a little glib, but all that was required to produce a useful human being, is having the person healthy and limbs intact.

Now – technology is quickly outstripping our requirement for human labour,  increasingly – those jobs machines can do.

Just being educated also won’t enough. Computers are increasingly taking on intellectual jobs – for example it’s conceivable that doctors wont be required in the future – as evidence by Watson’s ability to diagnose a patient where doctors were not.

Point is – it’s not enough to accept raising a healthy child as successful parenting – there’s a rising bar for what’s required for someone to comfortably navigate the society of the future. Even if all that ‘raising the bar’ means is ‘having parents who really wanted to have you’.

And to do that – we should be delaying parenting until people really want to (enough to forego the contraception allowance), at a point where they’re presumably more prepared and capable as parents.

Immigration

There’s another reason that I think we should be raising the standard of parenting – we can make up a short fall of unskilled and semi-skilled labour via immigration.

There is an existing tension where unskilled or semi-skilled labour in New Zealand are concerned with immigrants taking their jobs.

In a global society, with increased global cooperation I don’t think it’s fair for New Zealand to shut the doors to vast numbers of people in lesser off countries to preserve the jobs of the people lucky enough to be born here.

At the same time – I’m not proposing a fully open door policy, I think cultural tensions need to be managed, but this is out of scope for what we’re discussing here.

By having less children ourselves – that increases our ability to import labour – which is a good thing, because it means that we can select the kinds of education and skills we have to fill the gaps, rather than having to reskill or acccomodate people with skills that we didn’t choose to have.

Addressing criticisms:

“This will cost a lot of money”

Using this page from Stats NZ I estimate that 802,700 are women in the 15-39 age bracket, and using this page  2,510,000* people are employed.

That gives a cost of approximately $16/week per employed person.

Personally, I’m perfectly ok spending this kind of money, and I think many other people would be too. Especially if this program was shown to reduce money spent on sole parent welfare – the cost does not seem like a lot.

*nb. Employed counts as doing at least one hour work, so this number includes people working part time. I had a hard time trying to find fulltime employment statistics.

“This is unfair, because only woman can receive it.” 

Actually, I think this is good measure to address the gender pay gap.

“This is eugenics.”

The entire reason for making the allowance applicable to all women aged 16-40, is avoid the demographic targeting slippery slope.

“This targets the poor, because they’ll be more affected by the monetary incentive than a rich person.” 

I agree that a poor person’s decision making will be more affected by this allowance than the wealthy.

However, what’s important to highlight is that this is giving people free money, where they wouldn’t have received it before. If someone doesn’t want to subscribe to the scheme, they don’t have to.

I would be concerned if the existence of the allowance was used as a reason to cut other entitlements. For example – it wouldn’t be fair to reduce unemployment benefits with the rationale that the cut can be made up with the allowance. But given that only woman are eligible for this contraception allowance – this is quite nicely mitigated – as you couldn’t cut unemployment welfare without affecting the men, and you couldn’t apply unemployment welfare unequally between sexes.

The argument that this policy would be bad for the poor is an interesting one – because essentially it argues against giving more money to the poor.

“This might cause people to delay having children until it’s too late.”

The argument here is that for a couple who both work lower wage jobs, they might keep putting off having children while they earn that extra $2600 a year, and it eventually be too late.

There’s a couple I’d make here:

Firstly, we have Working for Families in New Zealand, which serves to assist families on lower incomes – and I wouldn’t propose scrapping that.

Secondly – I think people who really want to have children, $50/week wouldn’t be enough to put them off. The $50/week really serves as an incentive for those who don’t really intend to have kids right now.