Gendernomics: On Value Part 4

This is part 4 of a 5 part essay. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Valuation of Self and Others

The valuation of self is closely tied to self-awareness. One could argue that there are two extreme cases that illustrate the spectrum on which humans exist. The neurotic on one hand has an extremely depressed view of his own value, as a result of being very critical of self, whereas the narcissist has an extremely optimistic view of their own value as a result of poor self-awareness. In both cases, the person is inaccurate in their self-valuation, and suffers consequences due to this factor.

Neurotics minimize their strengths and magnify their weaknesses in their own internal perception of self.  This can lead to two broad spheres of results, on one hand one has the neurotic person who achieves great success as a result of constantly improving self, and seeking better results. On the other hand one has those neurotics that view their weaknesses as too great to overcome and as a result do not work to improve themselves. In the first of these situations, the neurotic can often become a high achiever, whereas in the latter they often fail to achieve at all. The former type of neurotic often has a large gap between their perceived value and their objective value, while the inverse is true of the latter.

Narcissists maximize their strengths and are to varying degrees ignorant of their weaknesses. This can also lead to two broad spheres of results. The narcissist that is also a high achiever and as a result of this has a smaller gap between their self-perceived value and their objective value. On the other hand the narcissist that is a non-achiever, and has a large gap between their self-perceived value and their objective value.

A common observation in the valuation of self is to what one is comparing. A person in isolation can be valued differently, than a person who is valued in contrast to another. This is similar in part to how a company has a stand-alone valuation, and a benchmark valuation, the latter being when the company’s metrics are compared with that of other comparable companies. The latter is also vulnerable to the contrast effect, where a person is viewed as more or as less due to the stature of another person or another group.

When valuing others the factors that affect valuations are much the same, except that one is working from much less information. One can compare this to “insider buys” in a stock market, where someone in an advantageous position within a company, such as a member of the executive team, or the board buys shares in the open market. This is often viewed as a positive signal to the market as it means someone with a greater degree of knowledge of the company views this time as a good time to buy. When we value ourselves, we have access to every single piece of data, when we value others we have much less.

The psychological system 1 and system 2 factors outlined by Daniel Kahneman, where one can often make rapid valuations based on available visual characteristics, that have a greater margin of error than the same valuation conducted through system 2. A ready observation of pedestalization for instance, is that such valuations have been conducted in a system 1 fashion, with little attention being paid to identify the underlying axioms and premises of such a valuation.

The characteristic of system 1 is that it trades speed for accuracy, much in the same manner that shooting from the hip does for firearms. When conducting such a valuation or superficial analysis, one must always be mindful that the probability of error increases at every level of the judgment. Not only do we have access to limited data, we will tend to value what little data we have very highly, but we lack enough to identify a pattern within the observations, our sample size is very small, and we are prone to make rapid decisions. Thus, it follows that our snap-valuations of others will be heavily biased by these factors. When the context factor is added, for instance by the person being put in a position of power, in an environment with a high volume of social proof, or other situation our valuations will increase, if the converse contexts take place, our judgment of their value will be less.

The Sexual Stock Market

The best analogy to the sexual market is a stock market. A company that is publicly traded will have multiple valuations at the same time based on the perception of traders, there are those who think the company is over-valued, those that find it under-valued and those who find it valued correctly. The valuations that these three groups have made, are all based, to some extent on the expectations they have about the future of the company, based on the information they have available to them, their time horizon, and various other factors. The Efficient Market Hypothesis in the hard formulation states that the present share value reflects all information both public and insider, whereas the softer formulation states that it reflects public information.

This is why information is so powerful in the markets, because if you have better information than anyone else, you can make a more accurate valuation than your competition. The Hot-Crazy scale, the relationship between how attractive a woman must be in order to make up for a certain level of crazy, is a great example of such information, because one’s valuation of a woman’s SMV will always be influenced by a man’s awareness of her level of crazy. The intangible assets referred to in an earlier part, affect the valuation of her tangible assets and vice versa.

Within every market companies fall into varying categories, “Blue chips” are large companies that often have a long history of stability, operate in sectors that are experiencing little growth, and that are perceived as having less risk than “Growth companies” that often have a shorter history, operates in sectors with high growth and that are perceived as having higher levels of risk. Over time shares of the Blue chip variety will experience less volatility (less fluctuations of share value) than “Growth Companies”, however they may experience less peaks in popularity.

As shown in Dataclysm [1] there is more variety to men’s sexual market valuations, as the range of partner preferences among men are more diverse than those of women. Thus, it is natural that valuations made by women of men are less varied, and thus that men should expect less volatility in the market valuations of their SMV. On the same note, as male valuations are more diverse, it means that your average woman will experience higher volatility, but less variability in men’s valuations of her.

If one draws on company valuation, multiple valuations exist at the same time:

  1. The market value of the company’s equity as listed on a stock exchange
  2. The value of the company’s assets less its debt as shown by the company’s accounting.
  3. The market value of the company’s assets less its debt as actually achieved as a sale of all its assets as part of an arms length deal

There are also 2 additional modifiers, there are those that think the results of the valuation methods above are too optimistic and those who regard them as overly pessimistic.

Which one of these is the correct valuation method to utilize and what modifier is the correct one to apply?

In the sexual market, every single person is represented by a stock ticker, that has among others the current offer price, current selling price and the last sold price. These are in constant flux, as trades are made, offer values adjusted, and all the other factors constantly play off each other. There are the macro factors such as the distribution of males to females, divorce laws, demographics, social conventions and rules. There are also micro factors such as an individual’s sexual market value, and general level of performance, in addition to whether the value is declining or increasing.

These are constantly playing off each other to ensure that sexual market value is never a static rate, but an amalgamate of the different values that were outlined earlier in this essay:

  • The sexual market value of the person both for a short term hookup.
  • The sexual market value of the person based as calculated by their ex.
  • The sexual market value of the person based on a valuation by someone evaluating them for a long-term relationship.

After all, one must keep in mind that a person will at the same time be evaluated in terms of sexual market value by different people and with different ends in mind. The short-term value is largely based on tangible assets, the long-term value as calculated by a potential suitor in an arms-length transaction is based on a mixture of tangible and intangible assets based on public information. The long-term value as calculated by one or more ex-partners will be based on tangible and intangible assets but include both public and private information.

The first value would be what decides the results a person gains on Tinder or a similarly superficial medium where the primary factors are reduced down to the base necessities to make a decision with few if any long-term consequences. If one applies the law of large numbers one would expect such valuations in aggregate to land at a mean which would be a fairly accurate reflection of a persons worth within that context. As with all valuations there will be some debate regarding the accuracy of such a valuation, and whether it’s an accurate reflection of underlying drivers of value, or whether it is a reflection mainly on popularity. As author of the intelligent Investor Benjamin Graham puts it:

In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.

This brings us to the last two types of valuation and those that would more accurately reflect those of a more fundamental bent.The reason for the two types of fundamental analysis, is to reflect one where the person conducting the valuation has insider knowledge and one where they have only publicly available information. A person’s ex has more information about them, but will have a more negative or positive slant depending on how the relationship ended, in a sense they have more information than they need to make this valuation, where the person conducting the second valuation have less than they need. While a person externally, can observe most of the tangible assets in their current state with quite a high degree of accuracy, the intangible assets are more up for debate, only a person with insider knowledge can accurately value them.

The distinction between tangible and intangible assets is a sensible one when utilized in sexual market valuations, where tangible factors would be those of a physical nature and intangible those of a psychological nature. The depreciation of tangible assets can with some degree of accuracy be established, using the sexual market graph among other things. However, those of an intangible nature are more challenging to approach. A person’s mind rarely appreciates or depreciates with the same predictability as does their physical shell, thus, while one can form a judgment about the present state, the nature of change is more difficult to accurately value. A solution to this conundrum that has been utilized by value investors is to view the intangible assets combined with their contribution to creating barriers to entry.

A barrier to entry is a value that a company has that acts as a barrier between the company and outside forces. For instance, the brand recognition of Coca Cola is an intangible asset that differentiates their product from that of their competition, and if the market for soft drinks should shrink it will help maintain the market share held by Coca Cola. A second dimension often utilized by value investors is to view the history of the company, for instance if a company has a 50 year history of always paying a dividend the probability that they will stop doing so is lower than a company with no such history beginning to pay a dividend. Past or present behavior is by no means a guarantee but in humans habit and “how it has always been” is a strong anchor. This does in no way guarantee that your sweet, virginal church-girl won’t run around cheating on you, or just because she doesn’t drink now that you won’t find her hiding with wine in the laundry room in a couple of years, but her habits serve as barriers towards poor behaviors.

This is in a sense how the social, cultural, religious and familial norms worked to secure stability prior to the sexual revolution. They were very strong barriers to behaviors that have negative effects. The consequences of such behaviors socially, religiously and within the family would act as a discouragement from acting out. As these norms have been largely eroded, the only guidance available would be a woman’s history.

For more on Gendernomics, check out my book at


4 comments on “Gendernomics: On Value Part 4

  1. Holly says:

    SVM and The Wall

    Many years back when I visited my hometown, I met up and lunched with two classmates. When I asked if they were getting anything to drink (alcohol wise) they both laughed, looked at one another and said no. Puzzled by such a response I asked why. Almost verbatim they both stated, “Oh, those drinking days are lonnngggg gone.”

    What I failed to understand was they used all of their SVM to drink and hook up with other men.
    ( I had been married at twenty) When I lunched with them they were single, still looking, and looked used up. Another girl which I knew since the second grade while we were in high school became pregnant, married, and divorce which made her more available sexually to continue to seek meaningless relationships because of her *innocent* looks. Recently, I saw her on FB years after we graduated.

    The Wall is NOT kind.


  2. therealyekke says:

    Whereas I understand the urge to use economics as a vehicle to understand sexual valuation, I have to reject it other than the lame-O comment that there is supply and demand.
    Sexuality and money are incongruent – I can save it, spend it, invest it in infinite small pieces all over. You and I are singular, in the here and now, and that will never change. The only economic theory I can even remotely match with reality is Tax receipt maximization, for as far as it matches with a ‘typical female’ life approach as they progress from nubile to post wall. Several european countries on purpose over-tax so that they are confident that they are squeezing less than optimal amounts of money from their serf population. Women ignore the wall until it starts affecting them (at 25, 29, 32, and 43) in more and more profound ways.
    Beyond that, there is no “market” because men and women are not rational.
    1. Male doubt – in a market, you push the price up until the number of bidders is 1, then settle
    2. Female doubt – “is he the best I can do” continually bids the price up until there are NO bidders (slut to spinster)

    Where economic theory stops being useful is the irrationality of the male-female interaction – the spinster being the impossible to “buy” woman which goes to impossible to “sell” woman in one fell swoop.

    I would go on, but other folks have already posted sufficiently on this


  3. […] This is the 5th and final part of a 5 part essay. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s