Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ben Mordecai's avatar

This is such a great concept. I've seen some of the same factors apply with dating/marriage. People find it icky to think of marriage as being transactional - you do this for me I do this for you, presumably because it seems objectifying and selfish, but I think the truth is that all great relationships (besides between man and God) are transactional first. The biggest hurdle for most relationships is to first grant that both parties of the relationship actually benefit from the other.

An employee may want to have a great relationship with his coworkers, but before that is possible, he must be able to bring value to the company and feel adequately rewarded.

So many dating/marriage relationships flounder because one or both parties consider themselves to be the prize, and when you take away, "You get to be with me," they have literally nothing to offer.

There is a similar pattern in politics. The most wholesome politics are actually transactional - you vote for me, you get others to vote for me, and I take care of you and try to make your life better. Whereas the more ideological and high-minded will just blow smoke and betray the people they can more successfully manipulate.

Transactions are good!

Expand full comment
Thumbnail Green's avatar

You hooked me in with the last paragraph.

What I like about this thesis is it is (potentially or optionally) a fiat bypass system. The fact you’ve measured it doesn’t make it icky it makes it honest.

Leverage is felt in your bones and you can resonate with the feeling of when you are β€˜owed’ or β€˜taking the piss’.

How much of each relates to value creation and can be offered across multiple domains. Level of service. Quality of character. Ease of interaction, etc.

Good food for thought brother.

Here’s my value offering. It’s niche so low fungibility but whatever

https://open.substack.com/pub/thumbnailgreen/p/on-a-watch-list?r=nv8me&utm_medium=ios

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts