Saying the quiet part loud: emperors must wear clothes

I'm Dr. Orion Teraband, and this is Psych Hacks, Better Living Through Psychology, and the topic of today's short talk is saying the quiet part loud. In this talk, I'm going to explain why many of my ideas about relationships tend to rub people the wrong way. There is a rule concerning relationships, and this is true irrespective of the type of relationship under consideration. And the rule is that the core transaction at the heart of the relationship should not be explicitly discussed. And while there are some reasons why this might be the case, this prohibition gives rise to a lot of the difficulty and the confusion that people are subject to encountering in relationships of all kinds. This is especially true for sexual relationships. There is more euphemism and indirectness and deceit in this type of relationship than in any other kind of relationship between human beings. Like, we're not even supposed to say sexual relationship. We're supposed to say romantic relationship, as if every couple that fucks does so after a candlelit dinner. In any case, it might be too much to start with sexual relationships, so I'm going to start with a type of relationship that people are more comfortable discussing, professional relationships, and work over to sexual relationships once I've laid down the analogy. All right, let's get to it. In a professional relationship, the core transaction at the heart of the relationship is the exchange of labor for money. If that exchange occurs, you have a professional relationship. If that exchange does not occur, you do not have a professional relationship. The exchange of labor for money is both necessary and sufficient for a professional relationship. That said, even though every single person watching this video understands that people go to work in the morning because they want to get paid, in the culture of professionalism, this is not something that anyone is supposed to draw a lot of attention to. The reason for this rule is simple. It's designed to protect the dignity of those involved. Let's say that you're a prospective employee who sits down with a corporate executive for a job interview. Even though you both know that you are attempting to exchange your labor for money, if that executive were to start that interview by saying, we both know why you're here. You just want to get paid. How would you respond? It's actually a fairly awkward situation. You might say something like, well, I mean, yeah, but that's not the only reason why I'm here. Of course, a paycheck sounds really nice, but I was attracted to your mission and your culture and I have a lot of passion for this line of work. So I would say, yeah, no, yeah. And of course, if the roles were reversed and you, the applicant, came right out of the gate with, so how much does this position pay? Best of luck to you. Like you didn't play the game and kiss the ring. It may even offend the dignity of the executive who might prefer not to think of himself as buying an often substantial portion of a human being's life to increase the profitability of his organization. The rule governing professional relationships functionally dictates that the exchange of money should be the last thing on the minds of two people who are only talking to each other out of their mutual interest in exchanging money for labor. I mean, many job openings won't even publish the compensation along with their application requirements, which is actually pretty wild if you think about it. Now, here's the thing. Because we're not really allowed to talk too much and too directly about the core transaction at the heart of professional relationships, we tend to give a lot of attention to other things that sound professional-ish in order to cover over the fundamental exchange. Things like managerial impact and organizational culture and team building and quality of life perks and leadership styles, etc., etc. It's not like these things aren't useful or impactful in professional relationships in their own right. It's just that they're not nearly as useful or impactful in professional relationships as labor or money. Now, what can unfortunately occur as a consequence of our collective refusal to say the quiet part loud is that people can actually start to believe that the professional-ish bullshit that is used to protect the dignity of the people involved and of which we hear so much is really important, and that the core exchange at the heart of the relationship of which we hear very little isn't or shouldn't be very important at all. Now, this is kind of harmless and ineffective when prospective employees fall for this. They just tend to get passed over for the position. However, it's completely tone-deaf when the executives buy their own bullshit. We heard this a few years ago during the hiring difficulties following the shutdowns. I don't understand why no one wants to come back to work. We have beanbag chairs, and we have a welcoming and inclusive corporate culture, and we have a family-like environment, and we love and believe in our teams. I just don't get it. Of course, the question is, what were you paying? Especially in light of inflation and the relative success of work from home, were you offering less money for more effort? Could that possibly be the issue? I don't know, maybe. I understand that paying people more money doesn't solve all employment problems, but it will solve a lot of employment problems. That's because this strategy relates not to the bullshit, but to the core transaction at the heart of the relationship. If you appreciate the insights on this channel, I would highly encourage you to get your hands on a copy of my book, The Value of Others. Over the course of 432 pages, I delve deep into my economic model of relationships and explain the behavior of both men and women in the game of mating and dating. I also provide a lot of actionable advice on how to get and keep more of what you want in the sexual marketplace. Once you read The Value of Others, you'll never look at relationships the same way again. Now available in ebook, audiobook, and paperback formats. The links are in the description. Great. Now let's segue over to sexual relationships. Hopefully, the digression into professional relationships will make this fairly simple. In a sexual relationship, the core transaction at the heart of the relationship is the exchange of sex for resources. This is why people don't just have sex indiscriminately. They have sex with those who can give them more of what they want. If that exchange occurs, you have a sexual relationship. If that exchange does not occur, you do not have a sexual relationship. The exchange of resources for sex is both necessary and sufficient for a sexual relationship. That said, even though every single person watching this video understands that people go on dates because they want to get laid in the culture of courtship, that is not something that anyone is supposed to draw a lot of attention to. And the reason for this rule is simple. It's designed to protect the dignity of those involved. Let's say that you're a man who goes out with a woman on a date. Even though you both know that you are attempting to exchange resources for sex, if the woman were to start the date by saying, look, we both know why you're here, you just want to get laid, how would you respond? It's actually a fairly awkward situation. You might say something like, well, I mean, yeah, but that's not the only reason I'm here. Of course, I would like to make love when the time is right, obviously, but I'm also attracted to your personality and your intelligence, and I'm looking to find a true partner with a real connection. So I would say, yeah, no, yeah. And of course, if the roles were reversed and you, the man, came right out of the gate with, so how much, best of luck to you. You didn't play the game and you didn't kiss the ring. It almost certainly would offend the dignity of the woman who might prefer not to think of herself as selling access to her body as a means of securing commitment, provision, and resources from a man. The rule governing sexual relationships functionally dictates that sex should be the last thing on the minds of two people who are only talking to each other out of their mutual interest in exchanging sex for resources, which is actually pretty wild if you think about it. Now, here's the thing. Because we're not really allowed to talk too much and too directly about the core transaction at the heart of sexual relationships, we tend to give a lot of attention to other things that sound relationshipy in order to cover over the fundamental exchange. Things like love languages and attachment styles and emotional vulnerability and shared interests, etc., etc. It's not like these things aren't useful or impactful in sexual relationships in their own right. It's just that they're not nearly as useful or impactful in sexual relationships as sex and resources. Now, what can unfortunately occur as a consequence of our refusal to say the quiet part loud is that people can actually start to believe that the relationshipy bullshit that is used to protect the dignity of the people involved, and of which we hear so much, is really important, and that the core exchange at the heart of the relationship, of which we hear very little, isn't or shouldn't be very important at all. When we refuse to talk about the exchange of sex for resources at the heart of sexual relationships and instead insist on talking about the exchange of love in romantic relationships, then really, the only possible remedy for relationship issues is to love more or love better. Good luck with that. Now, this is kind of harmless and ineffective when men fall for this. They just tend to get passed over. However, it's completely tone-deaf when women buy their own bullshit. I don't understand why I'm having trouble meeting men. I mean, I'm offering a genuine emotional connection. I'm a successful and independent woman. I've been to therapy. I'm an effective communicator. I'm ready to find my person and go on my last first date. I think I'm a catch. I just don't get it. Of course, the question is, how attractive is your sexual opportunity? Could that possibly be the issue? I don't know. Maybe. I don't know. I understand that giving men access to more and more attractive sexual opportunities doesn't solve all dating problems, but it will solve a lot of dating problems. That's because this strategy relates not to the bullshit, but to the core transaction at the heart of the relationship. When we only talk about the bullshit designed to protect people's dignity, we lose sight of what's really bringing people together. What brings people together is ordinarily not very noble or high-minded. This actually creates a lot of opportunities for undignified behavior in the sexual marketplace because you can't solve core problems with bullshit solutions. You can only solve core problems with core solutions. If you're having issues in your relationship, you might want to look at the fundamental value proposition, the fundamental transaction. In almost every case, the dissatisfied partner believes that he or she is giving more than he is getting. Why would that be the case if relationships weren't transactional? Check it out for yourself. What do you think? Does this fit with your own experience? Let me know in the comments below. Please send this episode to someone who you think might benefit from its message because it's word-of-mouth referrals like this that really help to make the channel grow. Anyone looking to join my free weekly newsletter or book a paid consultation can do so on my website. The links are down below. As always, I appreciate your support. Thank you for listening.