paradigms.

isn't it funny how what we study frames how we look at/think about/analyze our world. this thought occurred to me while gchatting with another former econ student (who shall remain nameless) about relationships and dating. do other people, of the non-economics/non-finance sort, discuss dating in terms of "diversified portfolios" and "hedging risk" and "return on investment"? (sexy right?) i remember my ex-boyfriend, a biology/twiggy plants man, said love (and all emotions) could be reduced to chemicals and firing neurons. our break-up was inevitable. my political science cohorts at michigan would often discuss relationships in terms of balance of power, who had it, who didn't. now that my frame of reference is organizational psychology, i have conversations like: "it was a benchmark date... i'll send you the best practices over email."

back in college, when i was steeped in microeconomic theory, i came up with a theory of my own. wanna hear it? i decided that promiscuity could not be determined by looking at the absolute number of partners, but rather, the ratio of partners to opportunities presented. therefore, someone who sleeps with the three people who made an offer is far more slutty than the person who slept with 5 out of 10 people. i should add this theory to my list of endorsements.