But let’s step back and consider what it is when two humans – Joe and Mary – interact with each other. There is a nonstop exchange of information, in the forms of:
• Their physical appearances
• The content of their words
• The emotions and “vibe” behind those words
• The non-verbals, such as body language and eye contact
There is something about the way Joe is wired that uniquely enjoys Mary’s curves. And Mary gets turned on by Joe’s vocal tonality. In each others’ eyes, they sense excitement and a potential for something more. And as they continue to interact, there is a feedback loop. Joe makes Mary laugh, and she touches him gently on the arm in return. Their physical proximity begins to increase, helplessly, and soon they find it impossible to resist a kiss.
On a sort of metaphysical level, what is happening here?
Joe and Mary are exchanging many forms. The form of Joe’s vocal tonality is different than that of his friend Mike’s, and the form of Mary’s laugh is different than that of her friend Tracy’s.
Consider it in this context – supermodel Alessandra Ambrosio and talk show host Rosie O’Donnell are two different representations of the form “woman.” For reasons we won’t get into here, most men find Ms. Ambrosio far more attractive than Ms. O’Donnell, and would prefer to look at her, talk with her, etc.
Ultimately, human interactions can be reduced to the exchange of forms: a nonstop process of expressing, receiving feedback, and interpreting that feedback.
We enjoy this feedback loop when the forms are to our liking, and certain forms are generally more compelling and attractive than others. A slender yet curvy female physique is typically preferred by men, while a deep and smooth vocal tone, for example, is typically preferred by women.
Interestingly, much of this processing happens subconsciously. In his book Social Intelligence, Psychologist Daniel Goleman writes of emotional contagion; for example, how an unshakably happy person can “infect” an unhappy person merely by the strength of their emotion. In this way, even the emotions exchanged in an interaction have a particular form.
THE ROOT OF ATTRACTION
Each form has a value. This value represents the quality of experience we have with that form. We’ll place a higher value on forms which make us feel better and which help us more.
To put this in very clear terms, consider the classic 1-10 ranking system for female looks. Most men would rank Ms. Ambrosio a 9 or a 10, while Ms. O’Donnell would fall far lower on the scale. While we aren’t running around talking about the “value of Alessandra Ambrosio’s form relative to Rosie O’Donnell’s,” we have nonetheless created a ranking system for gauging that value and expressing it amongst ourselves.
Consider, though, that there are probably a few men out there who would prefer Ms. O’Donnell’s looks. Admittedly, this number is probably low – but as my father likes to say, there’s no accounting for taste.
In metaphysical terms, what’s going on here? Well, each and every human has a unique value system which accounts for their unique preferences. In this definition, you can consider your value system to be something which extends beyond your political leanings and cultural preferences – think of it as a filter, of sorts, that processes all of the information you receive, and assigns a value to it.
The smell of fresh-baked bread has a certain value to you.
The experience of playing a video game has a certain value to you.
The interaction you have with a member of the opposite sex has a certain value to you.
These values are a combination of nature and nurture – our biological programming, and our social conditioning. They account for personal preferences between such things as blondes vs. brunettes and Jay-Z vs. Nas.
What does this all come down to? Well, the root of attraction is thus: when a form has a value which is a match for your value system, attraction happens. Think of it as a key fitting into a keyhole. The key is the form, its unique shape is its value, and the shape of the keyhole is the value system.
Never are we more attuned to a person’s value than within the first thirty seconds of meeting them. We pay close attention to their sub-communications to make determinations about their value, relative to ours. Attraction can happen instantly between two people when they quickly have a value match.
Values can be compromised by alcohol, and other environmental and situational factors.
Some men may prefer tall women. Some men may prefer smart women. Some men may prefer red-haired Eskimo women with Ph.D.’s in Molecular Biology. Our preferences for the “right” combination of forms are never made more aware to us than when we are in love, and owing to the uniqueness of the experience of all of these forms at one time, love is always a pleasure, and true love is always rare.
But what we may love one year may be different than that which we love five years later. As we grow, our value systems change relative to what they were when we were first in love with a person. If our partners’ do not evolve in some tandem, we may fall out of love, grow bored, or lose interest.
Critically, we each have a conception of our own value. Witness the woman who only dates rich men, or the man who never sees himself as being able to date tall women. Every person has a conception of the world, or a frame of reality, that assigns different values to different people, places and things. So while the man may never see himself as being able to date a tall woman, he may be utterly indifferent if that is not something that he values.
THE SOCIAL MATRIX: VALUE EXCHANGE IN PRACTICE
As part of our day to day awareness, we are constantly making unconscious calculations about the value of the people, places and things in our lives. We are attracted to things of equal or higher value, and we lose attraction for things with lower value.
Critically, we are rarely reactive to things with lower value than our self-perception, but we can become very reactive to things with perceived higher value. Crushes and obsessions typically form when one individual ascribes a level of value to the other in a way which is not reciprocated. In other words, the interaction, as experienced by both parties, is qualitatively different – better for the crusher than for the crushee. Obsessions – whether felt positively or negatively – are typically the result of tremendously over-valuing the other party.
While there is no fixed “higher” value, we are greatly influenced by cultural and social standards. Luxury and aspirational brands draw their economic premium from the standard of higher value which has been created as part of their inherent quality, their marketing and of how well cool-makers have adopted them.
Our value systems are mostly unconscious; even with a track record of having dated five brunettes in a row, a blonde may come along and knock our socks off.
Our value systems are complex; we may find a girl who matches what should be our exact criteria, with the exception of her man hands, and find ourselves unable to become aroused by her.
Our value systems are subject to change. The girl we lusted over in the city of 10,000 residents may no longer be as compelling after moving to the big city and experiencing more beautiful, cultured, and intelligent women.
We have a term called falling into a person’s frame, which means that we essentially accept someone else’s value system, or frame of reality, as being more compelling than our own. A particularly charismatic singer of a small-time rock band may lead an impressionable and innocent young woman to dye her hair, cover herself in tattoos, and start doing drugs – he has presented a more interesting frame of reality than hers.
Most humans have a long-term social strategy of building value, and aligning themselves with people of high value. In her teens and early twenties, a young woman may seek connections with 'cool' guys and promoters. As she grows, her definition of high value may change to a man with a good job and career prospects.
It should follow on from all of this reasoning, then, that beautiful women are generally perceived as high value for their appearance alone. There is perhaps no greater example of this than in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami, where exceptionally beautiful women are essentially paid to attend clubs and parties. Their high physical value brings other value in the form of wealthy men. Thus we see another rule of attraction: value attracts value.
Whether this is all valuable to you, of course, depends on whether those things are important to your value system.
A person who has experienced a recent value spike – in the form of a promotion, a new car, or a surge of confidence from something that is hidden even from his consciousness – will find himself attracting more people. He will carry himself with a new swagger, represented primarily through his subcommunications, that engenders intrigue and excitement in others.
Conversely, a person who has experienced a recent value drop – the loss of a boyfriend, for example – may have several instinctive responses. She may become insecure about her other alignments, and grasp onto them more tightly. Alternately, she may continue to make assertions of how popular or desired she is, reasserting her value to herself and anyone who will listen.
Interesting things happen when a social group is created. A social group typically has a leader, who sets the values of the group. That leader may consciously or subconsciously have criteria for intelligence, physical appearance and social grace, and will cultivate relationships with those who add value to the environment which he or she is trying to create or experience.
In social sciences, the term “add value” has recently taken hold as a catch-all phrase for being socially savvy. It is critical to understand that this concept is relative amongst individuals, and to a certain extent, a function of the environment. A truly socially intelligent individual will calibrate to the norms of the people around them and contribute to that group in a way which may be different than how he or she would contribute to another group.
People accept as a leader the person who is most sure of his or her values – or frame of reality – and who can create the most compelling reality for them to experience. The grade schooler with older sisters is exposed to more unique music and other cultural elements to which the other kids are not, and thus, may set the “coolness” value for the group.
In the broader social context of “mass society,” the cool-makers are the individuals who create art, music, other expressive media, or even catch-phrases that are quickly enjoyed and adopted by others. History will decide whether Kanye West is seen as the voice of this generation, of this decade (his words), but he certainly creates “coolness” in his music and his style. With his constant references to Louis Vuitton and Gucci, he also creates a virtuous value cycle for himself and for other high-value brands.
Being cool and on the inside of a trend, then, means close access to cool-makers or their creations. Many social leaders have the greatest access or ability to create new or interesting forms of value that have the potential to achieve mass appeal – whether that be a new hip-hop single, a new club or restaurant opening, or a new interpretation of God’s word.
Critically, the flip-side of value is accessibility. If we believe that the value we seek is something we deserve, we feel secure in accessing it. However, if we doubt our ability to attract and hold that form of value, insecurity and defensiveness may hold us back from accessing it.
Interestingly, it is this sense of deservedness, or permission, which creates confidence. When women say that they are looking for a confident man who is just being himself, what they mean is that they want a man who is utterly comfortable with his own value. This man's verbal and non-verbal communications will paint a picture that a fairly intuitive woman will understand. It is part of a person's journey to find their own permission factors - those things they've achieved and created which will give them confidence in their own
value. The higher a person's standards, typically, the higher his or her permission factors.
Becoming confidently self-aware is a matter of understanding one's own permission factors and cultivating them; this is what many people refer to as discovering their purpose, or mission in life. It may involve the development of skills - in this realm, social skills - that allow a person to be socially calibrated and effective.
But what of the young man who was confident from day 1? The person who never thought these things through? Typically, they clued into the right forms of social expressiveness without much introspection;
in other words, they just "get it."
Others may have experienced challenges in childhood or teenage years which lead them to act confidently later in life. We refer to this not as the genuine confidence of self-awareness and skill, but as blind confidence of insecurity. In this case, the person's permission factor may best be summarized as "screw everyone else, I'm doing what I want." These people may eventually develop a level of self-awareness and genuine confidence, or they may one day experience a value shock when they lose something, the value of which was not apparent until it disappeared. These people are smacked in the face with their value systems, and their entire frame of reality is challenged.
Another form of insecurity often rears its head when we feel out of place relative to the value of our environment. We may be intellectually, physically or socially outclassed, and rather than acknowledge the value disparity and either remove ourselves from the group, or accept a subordinate position, we may attempt to attack the environment’s value itself, or that of the people in it. Usually, we merely wish to fit in, but unable to do that, we become defensive or contemptuous.
Two classic examples of this are the girl who tells herself “I wouldn’t want to be a part of that scene anyway” or the man who reflexively refers to the woman who just rejected him as a “dumb bitch”.
In extreme cases, we may want so intensely to access that environment’s value that we plot, spread rumors, and make secretive alliances. Rather than add value to a the group or environment, we drag the whole group’s value down to our level.
This also happens in relationships between two people; a man may put on a good show for a woman in the first few weeks of dating, only to be wrought with insecurities which later plague the relationship. These may be expressed in the form of abuse, lack of support for her goals, friends and social outlets, or indifference – all low value forms which are meant to make the man feel more comfortable and secure.
All of these examples are meant to illustrate the social matrix – the nonstop exchange that occurs between an individual and another individual, or an individual and a group.
----------------------
The ideas presented here are the result of much thought and research. Influences include Robert Pirsig, David Tian, Owen Cook, David DeAngelo, and Philip Zimbardo.
