Nice shirt, I have one just like it

Whenever I see an attractive girl, I immediately start searching for an “in.” I need a reason to talk to her. Is she talking to someone I know? Did she miss the same class and we both need to make something up? Did we meet at some random place far outside of campus? Same brand backpack? I’ll take anything. Why go through this charade?

Behind the “in” lies a frightening truth. It’s the same truth that makes arranged marriage seem so alien and loveless to Westerners. Love is supposed to be this mystical force that draws random people together. Surely you can’t just select two people, encourage them to marry, and they end up loving each other as much the self-determined couple. The very thought is sickening because so much emphasis is placed on the meeting. The mythology of the self-determined marriage is that two people who were always meant to be married finally met thanks to a chance encounter.

Just as self-determined marriages hide how many people are potential mates, the “in” hides how many are potential friends. We could probably become great friends with half the people we meet in our school classes or even on the subway. Yet we don’t talk to them without some catalyzing commonality. The excuse to chat won’t be profound. It won’t reflect some deep similarity. It won’t be a good starting point in a relationship. It’s merely an excuse. [The “in”] allows us to think of love and friendship as connecting forces that flow through the universe, inviting already-compatible people to make acquaintance. It allows us to think of love and friendship as connecting forces that flow through the universe, inviting already-compatible people to make acquaintance. Consider how you met your friends. You probably remember most meetings as lucky encounters in which you were statistically quite fortunate to meet someone so similar. If we all feel this way about our friends, perhaps it is the norm rather than providence.

If we really could get along with such a large percentage of people, why the games and excuses? Consider you wish to purchase an expensive item that you believe to be very rare. You come across it at a garage sale you just happened to stop by. Without question, you’ll buy it and take good care of it. However, if you learned it was mass produced and available anywhere, not only would you be less likely to purchase it, when you did, you’d probably be more careless with it.

This is the dilemma of human relationships. If we believe love and friendship are plentiful and easy to come by, we will not sufficiently value and invest in those relationships. If we believe love and friendship are plentiful and easy to come by, we will not sufficiently value and invest in the relationships. If after every argument with a current friend I thought about the hundreds of other potential friends I walked by every day, I’d very likely not expend the effort to work through it. Why not just try out a new one?

We evolved in circumstances where such freedom of choice was impossible. Unlike agrarian societies, which are a very recent development, nomadic tribes must distance themselves from other tribes to survive. This meant that we were only in contact with a few dozen others at most throughout our sociobiological development. In this setting, burning bridges with others or even allowing your own bridges to be burned would be very dangerous to your survival. We’ve only had rich, dense interaction with others for a few thousand years–not nearly enough time for our friending algorithm to recalibrate.

Would a recalibration to select and discard friends rapidly be a good adaptation for us today? Perhaps not. The survival value of friends may lie more in their persistence and less in the specific people selected for the role. Certainly it’s nice to have friends who like the same music and movies and talk about the same things, but their loyalty and your shared history is what gives them their survival value.

Luckily, our culture has introduced an artificial boundary which ingeniously limits our exposure to potential friends. The perceived randomness catalyzing relationships makes both parties feel the connection is more special and unique than it actually is, and this vague belief feeds the relationship, encouraging both to expend more resources to strengthen it.

Since we only really have room for a limited number of friends, there’s no real danger in believing we’re only compatible with a small percentage of people so long as we have enough “chance encounters” to fill these roles. It does present other problems, however, especially in places with high population density. These situations are so random and diverse that they’re nearly impenetrable to ins. It would probably be very beneficial to randomly talk to people we sat next to on the subway. We could learn about each other and make valuable business or personal contacts with little danger. Regardless, would we even consider doing such a thing? Even if we did, neither the initiator nor receiver of the interaction would feel special or consider it could become a real friendship. I could’ve selected anyone to chat with and you could’ve been selected by anyone. Interacting with others without an in may only be a faux pas because if it works too often, our dream of a friend-aligning force would be dashed.

4 thoughts on “Nice shirt, I have one just like it

  1. Society today rejects blatent individualism, therefore people most look for a conversation stater in order to begin something. If someone just randomly started talking to me on a subway I would be scared and assuem that they want to rob or rape me. People reject anything other than the norm. One cannot just hop into bed with someone for noticing them. A relationship, whether romantic or platonic, must be gained by some effort. And that effort is the “in.” The “in” is necessary for any good relationship. As you have the “in” representing a common interest between two people, it naturally is the basis of a relationsip. If two people have nothing in common, yet they are friends, that friendship will not last long. They will run out of things to talk about, places to go, and people to hang out with to supplement the group. I don’t see how you consider the average person’s views of love to be easily acquired. Personally, i regard love as fickle and hard to get a grasp of. And I value it when I have it, regardless of difficulties caused by obstacles hitting it. Overall it was a good essay, but as per custom I’ll have to disagree with some of your ideas. It was a little too pessimistic for my taste. Go watch a chick flick and get some Starbucks and then write it again. Good title though.

  2. I’m sorry you thought it was pessimistic. I should’ve pointed out some of the more optimistic conclusions it implied like good friends are made, not found. It was also quite heartening when flying over a city at night and looking down at the lights and considering I could’ve been lifelong friends with a good half of them.

  3. We need an “in” cause we are scared of being rejected. Plain and simple. If that person is a potential date, friend, business opportunity, friend of a friend I might be interested in, I need an “in”. They are good to have. I’m not scared of a strangers point of view, or being rejected by a complete stranger, so, therefore, I find it easy to talk to strangers, and yes, I do make contacts that create new “ins” in roundabout ways. The word “in” always was, and always will be, to a certain extent. That’s how life works. Adios

  4. Americans in particular seem generally unable (unwilling?) to allw a male and female enjoy a conversation or have fun together outside the context of courtship and mating. Virtually all heterosexual are imprisoned in the explicit and implicit belief that all heterosexual interactions are potential or active “relationships” that must be moving towards monogamy for purposes of mating. How silly‚Ķ

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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