Why ‘playing hard to get’ may actually work
rochester.edu
rochester.edu
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.
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.
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
It's basically flirting but longer?
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.
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.
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.
>“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”
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.