10 ms·

The game theory of seduction and marriage with Jane Austen

146 points by delichon 3y ago

oz_science 3y ago
One thing the post could also have discussed is the signalling value of aloofness. People may want to look detached to suggest they have plenty of options.
hinglenkle 3y ago
I was screamed down by an entire classroom in university for my interpretation of “pride and prejudice”; though I was one of only 5 of the 25 students who read it. Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character whom shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed. It is my opinion that P&P is Austen’s way of saying “if these are the players and this is the game then I am uninterested in taking part”. From this reading, instead of Mr Darcy being the perfect man he’s the perfect example of why Jane chose to forgo participation in the marriage practice of the day. TFA’s focus on finances, I feel, is just another example of one such reason provided by Austen to highlight the insincere process.
- kevinwang 3y ago
  I like that analysis! What were your classmates' critiques?
- allturtles 3y ago
  > Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character whom shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed. Doesn't Jane marry Charles Bingley at the end of the novel?
  - hinglenkle 3y ago
    You’re completely right. I spoke incorrectly, but hold that Jane is a mouthpiece of the author who died unwed. Bingley and Jane do wed though in a way largely in contrast to the rest of novels depictions of “the game”. In the eleventh hour of the novel and in a more impulsive ceremony as a sort of ‘double marriage’ with Elizabeth and mr Darcy. The bingley relationship is another example of the interpretation though because it appears the only one in the novel exhibiting “true love” and compatibility between both parties and is met with opposition from just about everyone else.
    - joshspankit 3y ago
      Is it possible the wedding was external pressure on Jane Austen? It’s pretty commonplace now that traditional audiences, studio execs, editors, and even other creators push creators in to tropey “they got together in the end” endings. Is it possible that was true then as well?
      - edflsafoiewq 3y ago
        It seems unlikely. Elizabeth's principle objection to Darcy was that in detaching Jane and Bingley, he had been the "means of ruining, perhaps for ever, the happiness of a most beloved sister". Darcy's correcting this mistake is therefore absolutely essential to reconciling himself to Elizabeth. The Jane-Bingley arc is also the longest in the novel and of secondary importance only to the Elizabeth-Darcy arc. The novel could not really have had a happy ending without resolving it.
    - edflsafoiewq 3y ago
      I highly doubt that Jane is Austen's mouthpiece. Jane's defining characteristic is her almost preternatural goodness in contrast to the highly amusing flaws of the rest of the cast. I think it's unlikely Austen would use such a "perfect" character as her own stand-in. Jane's marriage is also by far the least impulsive of the four marriages depicted in the novel. It is the culmination of the longest arc, and the fulfillment of the longest-held hopes.
- ysavir 3y ago
  Do you have any examples to justify this interpretation? I've read the novel several times and I don't remember anything there to support this.
- lukas099 3y ago
  Damn, that wasn't right of them to scream you down. It sounds like an interesting argument.
  - snvzz 3y ago
    >Damn, that wasn't right of them to scream you down. What's going on in classrooms these days? Facing such a reaction for expressing an interpretation shows deep issues.
    - midasuni 3y ago
      I see no evidence that the alleged screaming down wasn’t 30 years ago so “these days” is doing some interesting work I suspect that “screamed down” is also hyperbole
rendaw 3y ago
Just a few weird things while reading this > Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to commit to a relationship. Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking for a long term relationship? > Tinder data shows that men like 10 times more profiles than women do and that 1 in 50 of their likes leads to a match versus 2 out of 5 for women. Faced with many men happy to date them, women have to identify the ones who may be willing to invest in a long-term relationship. This seems to be saying that men send out lots of likes because they want to play around... but I thought men sent out lots of likes because if they didn't they wouldn't even get a single match, which doesn't say anything about interest in long term relationships.
- lazide 3y ago
  Or…. Anyone on Tinder looking for a long term relationship (actually) is going to a casino to invest? It doesn’t mean you can’t end up rich (actually end up in a positive and healthy relationship/walk away after a big payout), but that’s the definition of a long tail outcome. Aka delusional or an idiot. Near as I can tell, anyone saying Tinder is for long term relationships is just trying to duck societal shame when someone discovers they’re on it. Aka all women, and most men. Which, if you understand the circumstances is ‘fine’.
  - williamdclt 3y ago
    > Aka all women, and most men. Projecting a lot here, it’s definitely not true. Not a single woman that I know is on tinder is saying that it’s for a long term relationship
    - lazide 3y ago
      Then they’ve either broken free from societal conditioning, or society has given up - or you’re not someone they’re worried is ‘in charge’. Would they say the same to their parents? A random cop? Co-workers?
      - 3y ago
dauertewigkeit 3y ago
"Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to commit to a relationship." This sentence caught my attention because it strikes me as false. People do commit in many ways, and rather quickly, and then they break up. A history of many break ups and similiar experiences is probably the chief difference between today and centuries past. IMHO all breakups and all experiences leave their mark.
jvanderbot 3y ago
> Signalling too little interest might result in missed opportunities, but excessive eagerness could prematurely resolve uncertainty in situations where expectations about the prospect of a relationship are actually not aligned. There's something else with aloofness that I thought a lot about when dating. Being aloof, as in unconcerned with outcome, signals fitness, when done properly, because it signals a lack of need to invest in this particular interaction. This does not mean being unkind, just that when someone signals that they have lots of resources and other options, it can come off as being aloof. Not uncaring, just not desperate to escalate. So a "too quick" escalation signals desperation (I'm unfit and cannot attract others), lack of patience, or unconcern about the deeper person - "I've seen enough to charge". All red flags. I actually think this is a better reason to be cautious in social encounters, or at least patient, than the one presented in TFA, at least in modern times. Being able to signal "I'm playing the long game" is attractive all around.
- prepend 3y ago
  > Being able to signal "I'm playing the long game" is attractive all around. I think it’s also a valuable action, not just signal. As important decisions should take time to make.
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    Yeah serious relationships are not a 'game' and shouldn't be approached as such. Otherwise you bring very wrong incentives and mindset into interaction (relationship) that shouldn't be there if you actually seek high quality long term stable one. There are only few setups/recipes for such result, they all look very similar and this is not the way. Also if you find somebody with properly good heart and you are not pulling your weight between you both, they will eventually notice and act accordingly. I know it sounds trivial and automatic, but I've met surprisingly few such couples. And all those questions of 'what did I do wrong' have an answer, usually quite a few (and on both sides, but its never 50:50 guilt).
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
sublinear 3y ago
I don't have much to back what I'm about to say, but I feel like these articles are written for and describe younger people. What's being described here are communication problems due to inexperience rather than the actual "game". This might as well be about chess. People on their second marriage or single people older than about 35 may not have these complications. They can just tell a few stories about themselves and recognize if they're a match right away without much disagreement. Older people don't "reject" as much as they maintain a varying range of distance with that other person over time. Things run their course and people don't get as heartbroken if at all. That this social maturity can occur regardless of romantic experience hints at something more complex going on than "love" or mere game theory.
- sdwr 3y ago
  That maturity is the result of both experience and luxury that one's base needs are met. > What's being described here are communication problems due to inexperience rather than the actual "game". It's only a communication problem in the way that world hunger is a communication problem. For most intents + purposes, it's the actual game. I watched a video about a holiday event at a huge public-works soup kitchen (?) in India. They interviewed a guy who said: "Normally we get rice and daal, today we have paneer and (whatever) as well, by the grace of God!" His attention is on the first-order reality of the food going into his stomach. A more sophisticated/privileged person would abstract up, and say something like "It's nice to see everyone coming together on this special day" , trading in the physical reality for a social one. Sex is the same way, not as immediate as food but still life-or-death in its own way.
- maire 3y ago
  > I feel like these articles are written for and describe younger people. I think the opposite is true. I first read Jane Austin as a teenager. I had no concept of the economic environment of the book. I thought meh. Now that I am retired and re-reading Austin, I view them more in terms of the economic environment. I didn't have this context when I was young, and the books are awesome. In several passages she give a critique of the economic system so sublimely that it passed over my head when I was young.
fergal_reid 3y ago
The Austin novels made a lot more sense to me when I started to think of them as closer to tales of corporate Mergers & Acquisitions, rather than love stories. The rich familes then were like large corporations are now, and a marriage was a very financial merger. I think I realised this when I first read Pride and Prejudice and the main character started talking about basically falling in love with the Pemberley estate. Thereafter, any time I visit an English country house with extensive gardens, the massive wealth expenditure to create them makes a lot more sense when you view them as M&A marketing budget. This is hopefully too cynical, and the truth is somewhere in between - but it's equally naive to read Austen as straight love stories with a modern perspective - there's a lot of clear focus on the incomes and social situations in the text.
- bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
  > This is hopefully too cynical... Nah, it's just how it is. A casual web search will show that women care about money in relationships and marriage... a lot.
  - willismichael 3y ago
    Meh, when we got married she had assets that were easily more than 10x what I owned. I wasn't even able to make any real money until two years later.
  - ArchieMaclean 3y ago
    I'd be willing to bet that the majority of results you find in that search will be men talking about how much women care about money... of course some women do, but far far from all of them
    - saiya-jin 3y ago
      Well its not about money per se, rather power, competence and whatever it translates to. This is almost a daily sight in any society if you know what to look for, and basis of who we were and who we are also today. I don't see any problems with it, there is good logic and history behind it and it explains a lot of behavior of various folks. Certain age usually brings this 'seeing' effortlessly and you actually become annoyed by additional layer of personalities that you see (since you can't escape it anymore facts that a lot of people of both sexes are just badly broken or simply not good people to the core), you just need to grind through enough people/stories around you like any other skill.
drewzero1 3y ago
This is very timely for me as I spent last evening playing Obsession[1]- a board game based on courtship and prestige in (roughly) the era of Austen. They have a few specialized rule variations and one is named for Austen, in which the interest of the desired suitor is not revealed until the end of the season, mimicking the veiled intent of her characters. Definitely worth checking out if you have a long evening and a long attention span. 1: https://www.geeksundergrace.com/tabletop/review-obsession/ https://www.geeksundergrace.com/tabletop/review-obsession/
- solardev 3y ago
  Do you need to be familiar with Jane Austen or Victorian England to enjoy the game? Never read her books or cared about that era, but I'm always interested in new tabletop mechanics & themes! Edit: Decent rating on BGG (8.2/10 score, 3.11/5 complexity): https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/231733/obsession https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/231733/obsession
  - drewzero1 3y ago
    Though the flavor text is heavily inspired by her works, the game doesn't reference any of them directly, and I think it stands pretty well on its own. It's not really specific to the Victorian era either, more of a general old-timey English aristocracy theme. At its core it's really about allocating scarce resources and timing actions over a limited number of turns to build your family's standing in society, and the courtship element is a strong means to that end. Personally I feel like the complexity score may be a bit low; I'm not really much of a tabletop gamer though. It's about as complicated a game as I think I could enjoy.
    - solardev 3y ago
      Cool, thanks for the details! I recommended it to a friend, and will look to pick a copy for myself in the future too (the vendor is currently moving warehouses or something and not selling it for a week or so).
metricspaces 3y ago
the thought occurs that Jane was obsessing over such matters as a disempowered member of her society. another thought is that romantic nonsense was a mind virus created by the elite to psychologically knee-cap the middle class.
- thfuran 3y ago
  What a bizarre notion. Which elite exactly do you think are responsible? Love stories are arrested at least as far back as ancient Greece, so clearly romantic nonsense pre-dates any current elites.
- AntiRemote 3y ago
  [dead]
gavinhoward 3y ago
So I am autistic and can't build theory of mind. I tried so hard to find a partner in college and failed. Now I know why. (Am now happily married to a woman who pursued me because I was that oblivious.)

146 points by delichon 3y ago

One thing the post could also have discussed is the signalling value of aloofness. People may want to look detached to suggest they have plenty of options.

hinglenkle 3y ago

I was screamed down by an entire classroom in university for my interpretation of “pride and prejudice”; though I was one of only 5 of the 25 students who read it. Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character whom shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed. It is my opinion that P&P is Austen’s way of saying “if these are the players and this is the game then I am uninterested in taking part”. From this reading, instead of Mr Darcy being the perfect man he’s the perfect example of why Jane chose to forgo participation in the marriage practice of the day. TFA’s focus on finances, I feel, is just another example of one such reason provided by Austen to highlight the insincere process.

kevinwang 3y ago
I like that analysis! What were your classmates' critiques?
allturtles 3y ago
> Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character whom shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed. Doesn't Jane marry Charles Bingley at the end of the novel?
- hinglenkle 3y ago
  You’re completely right. I spoke incorrectly, but hold that Jane is a mouthpiece of the author who died unwed. Bingley and Jane do wed though in a way largely in contrast to the rest of novels depictions of “the game”. In the eleventh hour of the novel and in a more impulsive ceremony as a sort of ‘double marriage’ with Elizabeth and mr Darcy. The bingley relationship is another example of the interpretation though because it appears the only one in the novel exhibiting “true love” and compatibility between both parties and is met with opposition from just about everyone else.
  - joshspankit 3y ago
    Is it possible the wedding was external pressure on Jane Austen? It’s pretty commonplace now that traditional audiences, studio execs, editors, and even other creators push creators in to tropey “they got together in the end” endings. Is it possible that was true then as well?
    - edflsafoiewq 3y ago
      It seems unlikely. Elizabeth's principle objection to Darcy was that in detaching Jane and Bingley, he had been the "means of ruining, perhaps for ever, the happiness of a most beloved sister". Darcy's correcting this mistake is therefore absolutely essential to reconciling himself to Elizabeth. The Jane-Bingley arc is also the longest in the novel and of secondary importance only to the Elizabeth-Darcy arc. The novel could not really have had a happy ending without resolving it.
  - edflsafoiewq 3y ago
    I highly doubt that Jane is Austen's mouthpiece. Jane's defining characteristic is her almost preternatural goodness in contrast to the highly amusing flaws of the rest of the cast. I think it's unlikely Austen would use such a "perfect" character as her own stand-in. Jane's marriage is also by far the least impulsive of the four marriages depicted in the novel. It is the culmination of the longest arc, and the fulfillment of the longest-held hopes.
ysavir 3y ago
Do you have any examples to justify this interpretation? I've read the novel several times and I don't remember anything there to support this.
lukas099 3y ago
Damn, that wasn't right of them to scream you down. It sounds like an interesting argument.
- snvzz 3y ago
  >Damn, that wasn't right of them to scream you down. What's going on in classrooms these days? Facing such a reaction for expressing an interpretation shows deep issues.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    I see no evidence that the alleged screaming down wasn’t 30 years ago so “these days” is doing some interesting work I suspect that “screamed down” is also hyperbole

rendaw 3y ago

Just a few weird things while reading this > Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to commit to a relationship. Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking for a long term relationship? > Tinder data shows that men like 10 times more profiles than women do and that 1 in 50 of their likes leads to a match versus 2 out of 5 for women. Faced with many men happy to date them, women have to identify the ones who may be willing to invest in a long-term relationship. This seems to be saying that men send out lots of likes because they want to play around... but I thought men sent out lots of likes because if they didn't they wouldn't even get a single match, which doesn't say anything about interest in long term relationships.

lazide 3y ago
Or…. Anyone on Tinder looking for a long term relationship (actually) is going to a casino to invest? It doesn’t mean you can’t end up rich (actually end up in a positive and healthy relationship/walk away after a big payout), but that’s the definition of a long tail outcome. Aka delusional or an idiot. Near as I can tell, anyone saying Tinder is for long term relationships is just trying to duck societal shame when someone discovers they’re on it. Aka all women, and most men. Which, if you understand the circumstances is ‘fine’.
- williamdclt 3y ago
  > Aka all women, and most men. Projecting a lot here, it’s definitely not true. Not a single woman that I know is on tinder is saying that it’s for a long term relationship
  - lazide 3y ago
    Then they’ve either broken free from societal conditioning, or society has given up - or you’re not someone they’re worried is ‘in charge’. Would they say the same to their parents? A random cop? Co-workers?
    - 3y ago

dauertewigkeit 3y ago

"Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to commit to a relationship." This sentence caught my attention because it strikes me as false. People do commit in many ways, and rather quickly, and then they break up. A history of many break ups and similiar experiences is probably the chief difference between today and centuries past. IMHO all breakups and all experiences leave their mark.

jvanderbot 3y ago

> Signalling too little interest might result in missed opportunities, but excessive eagerness could prematurely resolve uncertainty in situations where expectations about the prospect of a relationship are actually not aligned. There's something else with aloofness that I thought a lot about when dating. Being aloof, as in unconcerned with outcome, signals fitness, when done properly, because it signals a lack of need to invest in this particular interaction. This does not mean being unkind, just that when someone signals that they have lots of resources and other options, it can come off as being aloof. Not uncaring, just not desperate to escalate. So a "too quick" escalation signals desperation (I'm unfit and cannot attract others), lack of patience, or unconcern about the deeper person - "I've seen enough to charge". All red flags. I actually think this is a better reason to be cautious in social encounters, or at least patient, than the one presented in TFA, at least in modern times. Being able to signal "I'm playing the long game" is attractive all around.

prepend 3y ago
> Being able to signal "I'm playing the long game" is attractive all around. I think it’s also a valuable action, not just signal. As important decisions should take time to make.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  Yeah serious relationships are not a 'game' and shouldn't be approached as such. Otherwise you bring very wrong incentives and mindset into interaction (relationship) that shouldn't be there if you actually seek high quality long term stable one. There are only few setups/recipes for such result, they all look very similar and this is not the way. Also if you find somebody with properly good heart and you are not pulling your weight between you both, they will eventually notice and act accordingly. I know it sounds trivial and automatic, but I've met surprisingly few such couples. And all those questions of 'what did I do wrong' have an answer, usually quite a few (and on both sides, but its never 50:50 guilt).
  - jvanderbot 3y ago

sublinear 3y ago

I don't have much to back what I'm about to say, but I feel like these articles are written for and describe younger people. What's being described here are communication problems due to inexperience rather than the actual "game". This might as well be about chess. People on their second marriage or single people older than about 35 may not have these complications. They can just tell a few stories about themselves and recognize if they're a match right away without much disagreement. Older people don't "reject" as much as they maintain a varying range of distance with that other person over time. Things run their course and people don't get as heartbroken if at all. That this social maturity can occur regardless of romantic experience hints at something more complex going on than "love" or mere game theory.

sdwr 3y ago
That maturity is the result of both experience and luxury that one's base needs are met. > What's being described here are communication problems due to inexperience rather than the actual "game". It's only a communication problem in the way that world hunger is a communication problem. For most intents + purposes, it's the actual game. I watched a video about a holiday event at a huge public-works soup kitchen (?) in India. They interviewed a guy who said: "Normally we get rice and daal, today we have paneer and (whatever) as well, by the grace of God!" His attention is on the first-order reality of the food going into his stomach. A more sophisticated/privileged person would abstract up, and say something like "It's nice to see everyone coming together on this special day" , trading in the physical reality for a social one. Sex is the same way, not as immediate as food but still life-or-death in its own way.
maire 3y ago
> I feel like these articles are written for and describe younger people. I think the opposite is true. I first read Jane Austin as a teenager. I had no concept of the economic environment of the book. I thought meh. Now that I am retired and re-reading Austin, I view them more in terms of the economic environment. I didn't have this context when I was young, and the books are awesome. In several passages she give a critique of the economic system so sublimely that it passed over my head when I was young.

fergal_reid 3y ago

The Austin novels made a lot more sense to me when I started to think of them as closer to tales of corporate Mergers & Acquisitions, rather than love stories. The rich familes then were like large corporations are now, and a marriage was a very financial merger. I think I realised this when I first read Pride and Prejudice and the main character started talking about basically falling in love with the Pemberley estate. Thereafter, any time I visit an English country house with extensive gardens, the massive wealth expenditure to create them makes a lot more sense when you view them as M&A marketing budget. This is hopefully too cynical, and the truth is somewhere in between - but it's equally naive to read Austen as straight love stories with a modern perspective - there's a lot of clear focus on the incomes and social situations in the text.

bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
> This is hopefully too cynical... Nah, it's just how it is. A casual web search will show that women care about money in relationships and marriage... a lot.
- willismichael 3y ago
  Meh, when we got married she had assets that were easily more than 10x what I owned. I wasn't even able to make any real money until two years later.
- ArchieMaclean 3y ago
  I'd be willing to bet that the majority of results you find in that search will be men talking about how much women care about money... of course some women do, but far far from all of them
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    Well its not about money per se, rather power, competence and whatever it translates to. This is almost a daily sight in any society if you know what to look for, and basis of who we were and who we are also today. I don't see any problems with it, there is good logic and history behind it and it explains a lot of behavior of various folks. Certain age usually brings this 'seeing' effortlessly and you actually become annoyed by additional layer of personalities that you see (since you can't escape it anymore facts that a lot of people of both sexes are just badly broken or simply not good people to the core), you just need to grind through enough people/stories around you like any other skill.

drewzero1 3y ago

This is very timely for me as I spent last evening playing Obsession[1]- a board game based on courtship and prestige in (roughly) the era of Austen. They have a few specialized rule variations and one is named for Austen, in which the interest of the desired suitor is not revealed until the end of the season, mimicking the veiled intent of her characters. Definitely worth checking out if you have a long evening and a long attention span. 1: https://www.geeksundergrace.com/tabletop/review-obsession/ https://www.geeksundergrace.com/tabletop/review-obsession/

solardev 3y ago
Do you need to be familiar with Jane Austen or Victorian England to enjoy the game? Never read her books or cared about that era, but I'm always interested in new tabletop mechanics & themes! Edit: Decent rating on BGG (8.2/10 score, 3.11/5 complexity): https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/231733/obsession https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/231733/obsession
- drewzero1 3y ago
  Though the flavor text is heavily inspired by her works, the game doesn't reference any of them directly, and I think it stands pretty well on its own. It's not really specific to the Victorian era either, more of a general old-timey English aristocracy theme. At its core it's really about allocating scarce resources and timing actions over a limited number of turns to build your family's standing in society, and the courtship element is a strong means to that end. Personally I feel like the complexity score may be a bit low; I'm not really much of a tabletop gamer though. It's about as complicated a game as I think I could enjoy.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Cool, thanks for the details! I recommended it to a friend, and will look to pick a copy for myself in the future too (the vendor is currently moving warehouses or something and not selling it for a week or so).

metricspaces 3y ago

the thought occurs that Jane was obsessing over such matters as a disempowered member of her society. another thought is that romantic nonsense was a mind virus created by the elite to psychologically knee-cap the middle class.

thfuran 3y ago
What a bizarre notion. Which elite exactly do you think are responsible? Love stories are arrested at least as far back as ancient Greece, so clearly romantic nonsense pre-dates any current elites.
AntiRemote 3y ago
[dead]

gavinhoward 3y ago

So I am autistic and can't build theory of mind. I tried so hard to find a partner in college and failed. Now I know why. (Am now happily married to a woman who pursued me because I was that oblivious.)