PDF Summary:The Value of Others, by Orion Taraban

Most of us don't think of relationships as transactions, but in The Value of Others, Orion Taraban argues that all relationships are fundamentally exchanges of value. He explains that people form connections based on what they can offer each other, and that our brains constantly calculate the worth of potential partners through an unconscious process that manifests as attraction, disgust, or indifference.

Taraban explores how value perception shapes dating dynamics, why women and men pursue different relationship goals, and how power imbalances determine who gets their needs met. He also examines how modern technology—particularly birth control and the internet—has disrupted traditional relationship formation, contributing to declining marriage rates and fewer close friendships. This guide covers Taraban's framework for understanding relationships through the lens of value exchange and marketplace dynamics.

(continued)...

Sex and Commitment in Same-Sex Relationships

This statement doesn't hold true for all relationships. For example, in long-term same-sex relationships, both partners are of the same gender, so they share power over both sex and commitment. This means that the exchange of sex and commitment doesn't follow the same pattern as in heterosexual relationships. For instance, in a lesbian relationship, both women might find it equally difficult to get their partner to commit, so they both have equal say in the relationship's progression. Similarly, in a gay relationship, both men might find it equally difficult to get their partner to have sex, so they both have equal say in the sexual aspect of the relationship.

Value Exchange & Relational Dynamics

Taraban argues that relationships are founded on the exchange of value. Relationships serve as channels for exchanging value. When value is exchanged, a relationship is present. Conversely, without an exchange of value, there isn't a relationship. People connect due to differing desires. If each of us has what the other wants, we have a basis for moving closer together. Those with more of what others desire will have superior opportunities for relationships. People are drawn to others they expect will benefit them. When they aren't expecting to gain, people may at times avoid others who they fear might harm them, but usually they just remain inactive. Most individuals feel indifferent until they see someone with something they desire.

(Shortform note: The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber would disagree with Taraban’s assertion that “without an exchange of value, there isn’t a relationship.” In his book I and Thou, Buber argues that the deepest relationships are defined not by any exchange of value but by a direct, mutual presence. He explains that in a true relationship, we encounter the other person as a “You” rather than an “It.” This means we see them as a whole being, not as a means to an end or a resource to be used. Buber believes that when we treat others as objects to be used or valued only for what they can provide, we lose the essence of genuine connection.)

Things that are purchasable or obtainable can be exchanged, and these exchanged goods inspire people to create relationships. On the other hand, anything that isn't for sale or can't be earned can't be exchanged, and thus doesn't form the foundation of relationships. The reason is that exchanges are foundational to relationships, and one-sided transactions don't fit that model. To illustrate, it's not accurate to claim a fan is in a relationship with their idol, just as it wouldn't be correct to state that a victim has a connection with their mugger. Relationships require reciprocity.

(Shortform note: Taraban’s emphasis on “purchasable or obtainable” goods, “exchanges,” and “reciprocity” closely parallels the social exchange theory developed by sociologist Peter Blau in the mid-20th century. Blau’s theory posits that social structures emerge from ongoing exchanges of social rewards between individuals. Like Taraban, Blau argues that reciprocity is essential for stable social relationships, as one-sided transactions fail to create the mutual obligations necessary for lasting connections. This perspective highlights how the exchange of tangible and intangible goods forms the foundation of social bonds, reinforcing the idea that relationships are built on reciprocal interactions.)

However, worth isn't fixed or objective. It resides only in the valuer's perception, constantly shifting as circumstances change and new information emerges. Additionally, this evaluation usually happens unconsciously. As a result, neither person can truly know how the other values a particular good, and they also usually lack full awareness of their own valuation of it.

(Shortform note: This idea that worth is subjective and perception-based is known as the “subjective theory of value.” It emerged in the late 19th century as a response to the “labor theory of value,” which held that a good’s value was determined by the amount of labor required to produce it. The subjective theory of value instead argues that value comes from the satisfaction a good provides to the person using it.)

In relational dynamics, individuals typically aim to trade differing items, making it even more likely that those items will be valued unequally. However, these valuations need to be comparable. Individuals are unlikely to trade what they greatly value for something they don't. This implies that if the perceived worth of the items being considered differs too greatly, the goods won't be traded (and no relationship will form). Because these valuations are not equal and are subjective, partnerships require negotiation, not only when they begin but throughout their entire lifespan. How overt this process is depends on the relationship type. For example, professional transactions typically demand clearly defined terms.

(Shortform note: How do people determine whether the items they’re trading are comparable? One way is by relying on internalized fairness norms. According to equity theory, people assess the fairness of their relationships by comparing their own effort-to-reward ratio to that of their partner. If they perceive an imbalance, they may feel dissatisfied and seek to restore equity by adjusting their contributions or expectations. This ongoing process of comparison and adjustment helps maintain a sense of fairness and satisfaction in the relationship.)

Dynamics of Value Exchange in Relationships

Taraban explains that various relationship types have different rules and dynamics. The rules of relationships are shaped by culture and can be violated, but not without interpersonal consequences. The principles of relationships are rooted in biology and are far harder to defy. The rules and laws of relationships, combined with people’s varied interpersonal objectives, create the dynamic of relational interactions.

(Shortform note: In Marriage, a History, historian Stephanie Coontz argues that what we think of as the “principles” of relationships are actually cultural inventions, not biological laws. She points out that the rules and expectations of marriage have changed dramatically over time and across cultures. For example, in some societies, marriage was primarily about political alliances or economic stability, not love or companionship. Coontz’s research suggests that even the most fundamental aspects of relationships are shaped by historical and social forces, not just biology.)

A contest consists of rules and objectives. In relationships, individuals aim to obtain what they desire from others while adhering to multiple interpersonal and personal norms. When people receive too little of what they desire, they quit participating. Each kind of relationship represents a distinct game, as does each specific relationship within the same category. For example, friendship and business differ; each has distinct rules and aims. Friendship dynamics with one person differ from how they are with another. The aims and guidelines differ in each friendship. The broad category includes significant individual-level variation.

The History of Relationship Games

The idea of relationships as contests or games with rules and objectives has a long history in psychology and economics. In the 1960s, psychiatrist Eric Berne popularized the concept of “games” in his book Games People Play. Berne argued that everyday conversations follow predictable patterns, with people playing roles like “rescuer” or “blamer.” He explained that these games serve psychological needs, such as feeling superior or avoiding intimacy. Berne’s work drew on game theory, a mathematical approach to decision-making that analyzes how people strategize in competitive situations.

Next, let's explore the dynamics of relational value.

The Economics of Relational Value

Taraban argues that women and men exchange different assets in the realm of sexual interactions. Men exchange assets for sexual access, while women offer sexual access in return for assets. The reason is that women dominate sexual access, as sex is riskier for them and they need to protect their reproductive interests by choosing men who can provide for them. Meanwhile, men have a monopoly on commitment, as they decide whether to enter a committed relationship with a woman or not. Therefore, men aim to maximize sexual access while minimizing the resources they offer, and women seek to receive the greatest amount of resources they can while giving minimal sexual access.

(Shortform note: In Untrue, Wednesday Martin challenges the idea that men exchange assets for sexual access while women exchange sexual access for assets. She argues that women are not the low-desire, dutiful, naturally monogamous creatures we have long imagined. Across cultures, when we pay attention to what women actually report and do rather than what we expect of them, we find that they frequently seek sex, novelty, and affairs for excitement, pleasure, and feeling desired, even when these encounters offer them no material benefit at all.)

Next, we'll explore the foundations of relational power and the modern disruptions to value exchange.

Foundations of Relational Power

Taraban contends that relationships inherently involve power dynamics. It's the capacity to have others act to fulfill your objectives. Relationships are the context where people exchange for what they need and want, and those with greater power inevitably prevail. People with less power depend on those with more.

In this dynamic, the person with greater power is less mobile and less committed. They're likelier to leave more easily, endangering the relationship's foundation. In romantic dynamics, the more appealing individual tends to have their desires met. They're advantaged in every stage of a relationship: the attraction phase, the negotiation phase, and the maintenance phase.

Interdependence Theory and Power

In 1959, Thibaut and Kelley published a book on interdependence theory, which analyzes how people influence each other in close relationships. They argued that the partner with more attractive alternatives outside the relationship tends to guide how the partnership unfolds. They viewed close interactions as strategic games where each person tries to maximize their own outcomes. The partner with more options can afford to be less committed and more demanding, while the one with fewer alternatives is more likely to accommodate their partner's wishes to keep the relationship going.

Modern Disruptions to How Value Is Exchanged

Taraban explains that contemporary technology has upended traditional ways of exchanging value in personal connections. People are starting relationships less often than they used to. For example, in the last two decades, the amount of Americans who say they don't have any close friends has increased fourfold. The U.S. marriage rate is currently at its lowest ever, only 50% of what it was back in 1970. Worldwide, couples are separating more often, as shown by how the worldwide divorce rate has doubled over the same period. Additionally, women now have half the number of children they did 75 years back, and half the world’s population currently resides in countries that are below self-replacement levels.

(Shortform note: The study Taraban cites to support this claim was conducted in 2021, and it compares its results to a similar study conducted in 1990. This means that the fourfold increase in Americans who say they don’t have any close friends occurred over a period of 31 years, not two decades. The author of the study, Daniel A. Cox, doesn’t claim that the increase in Americans who say they don’t have any close friends occurred in the last two decades. Instead, he explains that in 1990 only 3% of Americans reported having no close friends, whereas in 2021 12% said they did not have any close friends, indicating a substantial rise over the 31-year period between those surveys.)

A large segment of developed societies is teetering on the brink of demographic collapse as age-old social structures rapidly dissolve. The convergence of factors that created this scenario is highly intricate, and no account could encompass all the contributing elements. However, Taraban argues that a pair of technological shifts are largely to blame for today's drop in relationships. First, birth control has made sex less risky for women, so they are more willing to have sex outside of committed relationships. Second, the internet has simplified the process of finding sexual partners without needing a committed partner. These changes have led to a decline in the value of sex, which has made it harder for people to find partners who are willing to make a commitment in a relationship. As a result, the number of people who are marrying and having children is declining.

The Decline in Relationships and Birthrates

While birth control and the internet have certainly changed the way people form relationships, they are not the only factors contributing to the decline in relationships, marriage, and people having children. In Empty Planet, Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson argue that the great global decline in birthrates is driven primarily by urbanization, rising education and workforce participation for women, and the transition from traditional rural societies to city life. In cities, children become more expensive to raise and less economically necessary, leading parents who aspire to middle-class security to consciously choose smaller families long before their countries become wealthy. This shift in priorities, combined with the changing roles of women and the economic realities of urban life, has led to a decline in traditional family structures and a decrease in the number of people getting married and having children.