How would you get around the problem of the weirdness signal sent by such a measure? Sure, if everyone was doing it, there would be no such problem, but if you assume away the problem of collective action, many other more convenient solutions are also available in that idealized world. If you’re the only one doing it, I would say that the weirdness signal is likely to be more dangerous once she finds out about it than if you just said openly “I want a prenup, here’s the deal, and it’s my way or the highway.”
Do people actually pull that off? What’s the “business partners” story? Do you have to have equity in a startup or something so that the story is the partners not wanting to share equity with your wife if she divorces you?
Yes, more often the parents one (backed by inheritance). Very common for rich parents worried about avaricious spouses.
What’s the “business partners” story? Do you have to have equity in a startup or something so that the story is the partners not wanting to share equity with your wife if she divorces you?
A common expression in Portuguese is “isso” (pronounced eeee-so), literally meaning “this” and used with the exact connotation you’ve used it. Usually the speaker overemphasizes the stress on the “i”, and the intended sentiment is conveyed very strongly, even when the recipient is a non-native speaker such as myself.
From a purely denotational perspective, the equivalent in English makes sense. However, when I read it to myself in my head, it just doesn’t feel right. You can’t modulate the pronunciation of “this” in any way to convey the same connotation. As is it looks and feels silly.
I’ll stick to the standard English translation, “Exactly!”, at least until people adopt the Portuguese, “Isso!” (which we all should, it’s just so fun to say and perfect for the situation. Try saying it. eeeeeeee-so!)
This of course comes at the risk of stirring up bad blood between your wife and parents, but since people don’t care that much about extended families these days, many men would probably believe it to be worth the price. In any case, it is an interesting Schellingian real-life story.
I was referring to the specific situation from the linked story. But yes, of course, an analogous comment would apply in the reverse case. Though there would be significant differences in more subtle details of the situation, since the relevant customs and rituals don’t feature identical expected roles for the sexes. Consider e.g. who is expected to make the marriage proposal, which obviously influences the initial and consequent state of the negotiation (or conflict, as per Schelling). (Even in those unconventional cases where these norms aren’t followed, the very fact of deviation from the norm and its acknowledgment have significant consequences.)
For what it’s worth, I recently heard or read a piece (i I don’t have a cite) claiming that marriage proposals in the old sense are becoming less common.
Instead, marriage is discussed in advance, possibly for months, instead of the man making a surprise offer.
I don’t have the exact numbers at hand, but I’m pretty sure that in the overwhelming majority of cases, marriages are still preceded by rituals and customs with greatly different sex roles. For example, quick googling yields this Slate article according to which more than 80% of marriages involve the woman receiving an expensive diamond engagement ring from the man—which is just one element that indicates fundamental asymmetry in their strategic positions.
Even if more and more marriages deviate from the most standard norm, it still means that the sides typically aren’t faced with equivalent strategic situations in the highly ritualized negotiation process, which is relevant for the question of what happens when non-standard approaches are attempted that risk blowing things up by signaling weirdness. But this is a complex topic on which much time could easily be spent.
more than 80% of marriages involve the woman receiving an expensive diamond engagement ring from the man—which is just one element that indicates fundamental asymmetry in their strategic positions.
No so much anymore, in most states of the US. If the proposal is accepted, the ring becomes a part of the couple’s community property. If the proposal is rejected, the man gets the ring back (it is legally considered a “conditional gift” in most states, which the prospective fianceé must return if she refuses or breaks off the engagement). Either way, the ring remains the property of the proposer, so it doesn’t really cost him anything to propose.
You’re right that engagement rings have mostly lost their former economic function as a collateral of commitment. However, despite these legal changes, it’s not correct to say that the ring doesn’t cost the proposer anything. If the engagement is broken, he’ll get it back, but it can’t be resold for anything near the original price, and reuse for a subsequent woman is out of the question (well, he could try, but it would be considered an insulting move leading to a near-certain disaster, and if he tried it surreptitiously, the consequences would be even more catastrophic if discovered). Moreover, even as a part of the couple’s community property, it’s a white elephant asset that will never be sold except in direst desperation, doesn’t yield any rent or interest, and just sucks up money for insurance, so for all practical purposes, the man has parted with a significant amount of money by buying it.
However, despite these legal changes, it’s not correct to say that the ring doesn’t cost the proposer anything.
You’ve changed my mind: there is a real cost to the ring. I considered the ring a thing equal in value to its price but didn’t think it through enough to realize that after it’s bought it only retains much value (as sentimental value to the couple) if the proposal succeeds. Thanks for the links; I had no idea diamonds were so over-priced.
Instead, marriage is discussed in advance, possibly for months, instead of the man making a surprise offer.
Was it seriously ever any other way? That’s hard for me to imagine. A surprise offer? Without the couple ever discussing it before? Even if the man proposes, as is traditional, would someone really propose without talking about it first?
This cry of “was it ever done any other way?” strikes me as historically naive… arranged marriages happened, after all, and still happen. During certain space-time periods I understand it is/was customary to have much younger brides than grooms, in which case it seems more reasonable to surprise rather than discuss (since the groom may not have a great desire for the young bride’s opinions in the matter).
In any case, it seems the question should be answered by a historical sociologist...
Well, yes, of course arranged marriages happened, but arranged marriages were typically discussed and planned among the families involved. I’m referring to this idea of marriage proposals in the “old sense”, where the groom springs the question on the bride and it’s the bride’s decision to accept or reject, right then. (Maybe I’m misunderstanding something.)
If we’re to believe almost every (American) movie ever to include a marriage proposal, then yes.
(On the other hand, movies can be rather slow to reflect changing cultural norms. I think the “If anyone knows any reason blah blah speak now or forever hold your peace” line is only done in movies now. Still, such cliches had to originally come from somewhere.)
This is false. You may be remembering the questions of intent in the Rite of Catholic Marriage, in which the priest asks both spouses to state their intent to marry. (The consent of spouses, freely spoken, has traditionally established the marriage in Catholic belief.) There is no question asked of the assembly.
Here’s an excerpt of this part of the rite, including a link to the whole marriage ceremony:
The current Book of Common Prayer, however (used by Episcopalians and Anglicans), does seem to preserve this language. I think it was originally an English custom in any case.
Any family with a family business, large assets or large debts, children of prior relationships, or unique or special family treasures should consider creating one.
Trouble is, just about everyone does. It’s another regular part of the human social signaling games.
I know I’ve been citing Bryan Caplan an awful lot lately, but he really has a knack for explaining this sort of thing with magnificent clarity, so I’ll point to his classic blog post “Why Be Normal?”:
In both cases, sending off strong weirdness signals significantly reduces one’s chances of finding any sort of employment, or wife, at all — and even if some options remain available, they are inferior to what would be available without the weirdness signal.
I am not sure I understand what exactly you believe to be the essential difference between the two situations, so that the same signaling model doesn’t apply in both.
Weirdness signals characteristics like not being a hard worker or not behaving in a predictable manner, which are more important in an employee than a spouse.
Even if the only bad traits signaled by weirdness were those disliked by employers, that would still automatically make them relevant for potential spouses too. Unemployability, or even reduced employability, is normally a highly undesirable trait in a spouse.
Moreover, weirdness has many other bad consequences too. In all sorts of relations between people, including informal and non-commercial ones, weird behavior provokes rumors and ostracism, increases the probability of conflicts, makes finding friends and allies difficult, and typically binds one to very low status. It also signals higher probability of increasingly weird behavior in the future, which might result in all sorts of nasty situations, including legal problems and violent incidents. Since people typically expect to spend the larger part of their life with their chosen spouse, they are rational to err on the side of caution and break the deal as soon as any statistically sound heuristic raises alarm.
Of course, there are exceptions. On occasions, someone’s peculiar individual weirdness becomes fashionable for art and entertainment purposes, making it a ticket to high status and perhaps even wealth. Alternatively, a potential spouse might share one’s peculiar taste for weirdness and consider it a plus. But I don’t see how these exceptions, or any others I can think of, are relevant for the particular case we’re discussing, namely weirdness signaled by shifting the customary rules and rituals of marriage negotiation by means of an odd-looking legal innovation.
Weirdness isn’t a single thing, nor is it reliably that crippling.
There are a lot of married people in science fiction fandom. And a lot of employed people, though I believe a great many of them conceal their weirdness from their employers.
A few moderating factors for weirdness—you might have an advantage with mates whose weirdness matches yours. This is most obvious for sexual minorities.
Sub-cultures are a way for people to be weird together—they represent a local, variant sort of normal. This probably won’t have the same advantages as mainstream normal, but it’s less costly than being weird all by yourself.
Some weirdness is actually advantageous, or at least Reform Jews and Unitarians have higher incomes than the average.
If there are really advantages to a particular non-standard marriage contract, then talking about wanting that contract is as much a test for finding a compatible mate as it is a debility.
To my mind, the big risk of non-standard contract is that there’s likely to be much less information about its effects than there is for a standard contract.
Sub-cultures are a way for people to be weird together—they represent a local, variant sort of normal. This probably won’t have the same advantages as mainstream normal, but it’s less costly than being weird all by yourself.
That is true, but you understate the case here. If there is a significant subculture where your particular weirdness is the norm, it’s a far more advantageous position than having a peculiar individual weirdness, not just because other individuals are around with whom you can establish social relations that won’t suffer from the weirdness signal, but also because its existence and public prominence demonstrates to the wider society that this particular sort of weirdness is compatible with, and in fact typically accompanied by, being a well-behaved, functional, and productive person. (This of course assuming that your subculture actually is like that; if the subculture attracts lots of deviants and the consequent bad press, it may well make things even worse.) Under these conditions, the relevant characteristic will no longer trigger people’s weirdness heuristics, and it will move under the entirely different category of minority taste—which can still have repercussions for one’s social relations and status, but far milder ones. I would say that the sci-fi fan subculture falls squarely into this category.
Your example of sexual minorities provides another illustration. Observe how those sexual minorities that have struggled successfully for improved status in recent decades have basically followed this public relations tactic: presenting themselves as groups of folks who are on average no less functional, productive, and well-behaved than the rest of society, and insisting that therefore their peculiar characteristics should not trigger people’s weirdness alarms. This is also why mentioning particular behaviors that are viewed negatively in the wider society, and arguably more prevalent in some such groups, is often taken as prima facie evidence of underhanded hostility against them—it threatens to reinforce the weirdness heuristics that are still turned against them in the minds of significant numbers of people.
Some weirdness is actually advantageous, or at least Reform Jews and Unitarians have higher incomes than the average.
I don’t think any religious affiliation sends off significant weirdness signals in the modern North American culture, except out-and-out loony cults and a small number of denominations that, for various reasons, have a bad public image and thus give off a cultish vibe. Certainly, Reform Jews and Unitarians seem to me well within the standard perceptions of the bounds of normality.
Of course, there are plenty of religious folks who insist on marrying someone of the same religion, as well as atheist folks who couldn’t bear being married to someone religious, but such incompatibilities arise due to a simple acknowledgment of incompatible tastes, values, and goals, not because people’s weirdness heuristics get triggered.
To my mind, the big risk of non-standard contract is that there’s likely to be much less information about its effects than there is for a standard contract.
Yes—and this is only one of the many reasons why weirdness heuristics are on the whole statistically sound. When people offer you deals that seem weird, very much unlike the way things normally done in your culture, there is a non-negligible probability that you might get swindled in ways you’re not smart and knowledgeable enough to figure out.
How would you get around the problem of the weirdness signal sent by such a measure? Sure, if everyone was doing it, there would be no such problem, but if you assume away the problem of collective action, many other more convenient solutions are also available in that idealized world. If you’re the only one doing it, I would say that the weirdness signal is likely to be more dangerous once she finds out about it than if you just said openly “I want a prenup, here’s the deal, and it’s my way or the highway.”
The nonweird version of this is “my parents or business partners demand it.”
Do people actually pull that off? What’s the “business partners” story? Do you have to have equity in a startup or something so that the story is the partners not wanting to share equity with your wife if she divorces you?
Yes, more often the parents one (backed by inheritance). Very common for rich parents worried about avaricious spouses.
This.
Missing link?
I believe he means “Yes, that’s the type of thing I had in mind as a ‘business partners’ scenario”.
This.
A common expression in Portuguese is “isso” (pronounced eeee-so), literally meaning “this” and used with the exact connotation you’ve used it. Usually the speaker overemphasizes the stress on the “i”, and the intended sentiment is conveyed very strongly, even when the recipient is a non-native speaker such as myself.
From a purely denotational perspective, the equivalent in English makes sense. However, when I read it to myself in my head, it just doesn’t feel right. You can’t modulate the pronunciation of “this” in any way to convey the same connotation. As is it looks and feels silly.
I’ll stick to the standard English translation, “Exactly!”, at least until people adopt the Portuguese, “Isso!” (which we all should, it’s just so fun to say and perfect for the situation. Try saying it. eeeeeeee-so!)
Spanish has the same thing, but it’s spelled “eso” which means “that” and pronounced ‘eso’ with the e as in “bet”.
You’re right: http://blogs.forward.com/the-bintel-brief/121028/
This of course comes at the risk of stirring up bad blood between your wife and parents, but since people don’t care that much about extended families these days, many men would probably believe it to be worth the price. In any case, it is an interesting Schellingian real-life story.
Women too, presumably?
I was referring to the specific situation from the linked story. But yes, of course, an analogous comment would apply in the reverse case. Though there would be significant differences in more subtle details of the situation, since the relevant customs and rituals don’t feature identical expected roles for the sexes. Consider e.g. who is expected to make the marriage proposal, which obviously influences the initial and consequent state of the negotiation (or conflict, as per Schelling). (Even in those unconventional cases where these norms aren’t followed, the very fact of deviation from the norm and its acknowledgment have significant consequences.)
For what it’s worth, I recently heard or read a piece (i I don’t have a cite) claiming that marriage proposals in the old sense are becoming less common.
Instead, marriage is discussed in advance, possibly for months, instead of the man making a surprise offer.
I don’t have the exact numbers at hand, but I’m pretty sure that in the overwhelming majority of cases, marriages are still preceded by rituals and customs with greatly different sex roles. For example, quick googling yields this Slate article according to which more than 80% of marriages involve the woman receiving an expensive diamond engagement ring from the man—which is just one element that indicates fundamental asymmetry in their strategic positions.
Even if more and more marriages deviate from the most standard norm, it still means that the sides typically aren’t faced with equivalent strategic situations in the highly ritualized negotiation process, which is relevant for the question of what happens when non-standard approaches are attempted that risk blowing things up by signaling weirdness. But this is a complex topic on which much time could easily be spent.
No so much anymore, in most states of the US. If the proposal is accepted, the ring becomes a part of the couple’s community property. If the proposal is rejected, the man gets the ring back (it is legally considered a “conditional gift” in most states, which the prospective fianceé must return if she refuses or breaks off the engagement). Either way, the ring remains the property of the proposer, so it doesn’t really cost him anything to propose.
You’re right that engagement rings have mostly lost their former economic function as a collateral of commitment. However, despite these legal changes, it’s not correct to say that the ring doesn’t cost the proposer anything. If the engagement is broken, he’ll get it back, but it can’t be resold for anything near the original price, and reuse for a subsequent woman is out of the question (well, he could try, but it would be considered an insulting move leading to a near-certain disaster, and if he tried it surreptitiously, the consequences would be even more catastrophic if discovered). Moreover, even as a part of the couple’s community property, it’s a white elephant asset that will never be sold except in direst desperation, doesn’t yield any rent or interest, and just sucks up money for insurance, so for all practical purposes, the man has parted with a significant amount of money by buying it.
You’ve changed my mind: there is a real cost to the ring. I considered the ring a thing equal in value to its price but didn’t think it through enough to realize that after it’s bought it only retains much value (as sentimental value to the couple) if the proposal succeeds. Thanks for the links; I had no idea diamonds were so over-priced.
Was it seriously ever any other way? That’s hard for me to imagine. A surprise offer? Without the couple ever discussing it before? Even if the man proposes, as is traditional, would someone really propose without talking about it first?
This cry of “was it ever done any other way?” strikes me as historically naive… arranged marriages happened, after all, and still happen. During certain space-time periods I understand it is/was customary to have much younger brides than grooms, in which case it seems more reasonable to surprise rather than discuss (since the groom may not have a great desire for the young bride’s opinions in the matter).
In any case, it seems the question should be answered by a historical sociologist...
Well, yes, of course arranged marriages happened, but arranged marriages were typically discussed and planned among the families involved. I’m referring to this idea of marriage proposals in the “old sense”, where the groom springs the question on the bride and it’s the bride’s decision to accept or reject, right then. (Maybe I’m misunderstanding something.)
If we’re to believe almost every (American) movie ever to include a marriage proposal, then yes.
(On the other hand, movies can be rather slow to reflect changing cultural norms. I think the “If anyone knows any reason blah blah speak now or forever hold your peace” line is only done in movies now. Still, such cliches had to originally come from somewhere.)
I average going to about 2 weddings a year, and I think most weddings I go to still have it. I’m pretty sure Catholic services still mandate it.
This is false. You may be remembering the questions of intent in the Rite of Catholic Marriage, in which the priest asks both spouses to state their intent to marry. (The consent of spouses, freely spoken, has traditionally established the marriage in Catholic belief.) There is no question asked of the assembly.
Here’s an excerpt of this part of the rite, including a link to the whole marriage ceremony:
http://www.catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/text-rite-of-marriage-mass.htm
The current Book of Common Prayer, however (used by Episcopalians and Anglicans), does seem to preserve this language. I think it was originally an English custom in any case.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/marriage.pdf
It’s probably no surprise that the default movie mode in the United States would be Anglican, not Catholic.
Thanks for the cite
This is probably the piece you meant.
How can I get one of these?
Defeating a dragon usually does the trick. Might be outdated advice, though.
So why are you thinking of marrying someone who has this sort of aversion to weirdness?
Trouble is, just about everyone does. It’s another regular part of the human social signaling games.
I know I’ve been citing Bryan Caplan an awful lot lately, but he really has a knack for explaining this sort of thing with magnificent clarity, so I’ll point to his classic blog post “Why Be Normal?”:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/why_be_normal.html
Caplan explains why weirdness aversion makes sense for employers, not people in general.
Just about everyone may have an aversion to weirdness, but you’d also refuse to marry just about everyone, isn’t that right?
In both cases, sending off strong weirdness signals significantly reduces one’s chances of finding any sort of employment, or wife, at all — and even if some options remain available, they are inferior to what would be available without the weirdness signal.
I am not sure I understand what exactly you believe to be the essential difference between the two situations, so that the same signaling model doesn’t apply in both.
Weirdness signals characteristics like not being a hard worker or not behaving in a predictable manner, which are more important in an employee than a spouse.
Even if the only bad traits signaled by weirdness were those disliked by employers, that would still automatically make them relevant for potential spouses too. Unemployability, or even reduced employability, is normally a highly undesirable trait in a spouse.
Moreover, weirdness has many other bad consequences too. In all sorts of relations between people, including informal and non-commercial ones, weird behavior provokes rumors and ostracism, increases the probability of conflicts, makes finding friends and allies difficult, and typically binds one to very low status. It also signals higher probability of increasingly weird behavior in the future, which might result in all sorts of nasty situations, including legal problems and violent incidents. Since people typically expect to spend the larger part of their life with their chosen spouse, they are rational to err on the side of caution and break the deal as soon as any statistically sound heuristic raises alarm.
Of course, there are exceptions. On occasions, someone’s peculiar individual weirdness becomes fashionable for art and entertainment purposes, making it a ticket to high status and perhaps even wealth. Alternatively, a potential spouse might share one’s peculiar taste for weirdness and consider it a plus. But I don’t see how these exceptions, or any others I can think of, are relevant for the particular case we’re discussing, namely weirdness signaled by shifting the customary rules and rituals of marriage negotiation by means of an odd-looking legal innovation.
Weirdness isn’t a single thing, nor is it reliably that crippling.
There are a lot of married people in science fiction fandom. And a lot of employed people, though I believe a great many of them conceal their weirdness from their employers.
A few moderating factors for weirdness—you might have an advantage with mates whose weirdness matches yours. This is most obvious for sexual minorities.
Sub-cultures are a way for people to be weird together—they represent a local, variant sort of normal. This probably won’t have the same advantages as mainstream normal, but it’s less costly than being weird all by yourself.
Some weirdness is actually advantageous, or at least Reform Jews and Unitarians have higher incomes than the average.
If there are really advantages to a particular non-standard marriage contract, then talking about wanting that contract is as much a test for finding a compatible mate as it is a debility.
To my mind, the big risk of non-standard contract is that there’s likely to be much less information about its effects than there is for a standard contract.
NancyLebovitz:
That is true, but you understate the case here. If there is a significant subculture where your particular weirdness is the norm, it’s a far more advantageous position than having a peculiar individual weirdness, not just because other individuals are around with whom you can establish social relations that won’t suffer from the weirdness signal, but also because its existence and public prominence demonstrates to the wider society that this particular sort of weirdness is compatible with, and in fact typically accompanied by, being a well-behaved, functional, and productive person. (This of course assuming that your subculture actually is like that; if the subculture attracts lots of deviants and the consequent bad press, it may well make things even worse.) Under these conditions, the relevant characteristic will no longer trigger people’s weirdness heuristics, and it will move under the entirely different category of minority taste—which can still have repercussions for one’s social relations and status, but far milder ones. I would say that the sci-fi fan subculture falls squarely into this category.
Your example of sexual minorities provides another illustration. Observe how those sexual minorities that have struggled successfully for improved status in recent decades have basically followed this public relations tactic: presenting themselves as groups of folks who are on average no less functional, productive, and well-behaved than the rest of society, and insisting that therefore their peculiar characteristics should not trigger people’s weirdness alarms. This is also why mentioning particular behaviors that are viewed negatively in the wider society, and arguably more prevalent in some such groups, is often taken as prima facie evidence of underhanded hostility against them—it threatens to reinforce the weirdness heuristics that are still turned against them in the minds of significant numbers of people.
I don’t think any religious affiliation sends off significant weirdness signals in the modern North American culture, except out-and-out loony cults and a small number of denominations that, for various reasons, have a bad public image and thus give off a cultish vibe. Certainly, Reform Jews and Unitarians seem to me well within the standard perceptions of the bounds of normality.
Of course, there are plenty of religious folks who insist on marrying someone of the same religion, as well as atheist folks who couldn’t bear being married to someone religious, but such incompatibilities arise due to a simple acknowledgment of incompatible tastes, values, and goals, not because people’s weirdness heuristics get triggered.
Yes—and this is only one of the many reasons why weirdness heuristics are on the whole statistically sound. When people offer you deals that seem weird, very much unlike the way things normally done in your culture, there is a non-negligible probability that you might get swindled in ways you’re not smart and knowledgeable enough to figure out.
Agreed. I wish I could upvote this twice.