Ring by Spring Theory
Greetings my friends. Welcome to my roll on life. Which as
of late has turned into Dear Tim: Counseling Services for the Relationally
Impaired. This is the blog where all walks of Christian relationships come yearning
for my advice.
I made a deal with my president of marketing, Isaac Schultz,
to continue this blog as long as the views reached a certain amount. My last
post reached satisfactory views, but I continued to retirement. As of late, it
has left a bad taste in my mouth. This could be due to the exorbitant amount of
Air Heads I have consumed in the past few weeks. All joking aside, I need to
properly end my career with an uncovered topic essential to finalizing my
relationship portfolio.
After this post is complete, I will say my farewell to this
blog. The Schultz Agreement is over. Graduation is upon me and this will be the
end. Pause for emotional moment.
Allow me to take a quick break in the flow of the blog to
wrap up a tradition unlike any other, the shoutout. I need to toot my own horn briefly.
Of all the people I have given shoutouts, their relational performance receives
an instant boost. This only applies to male shoutouts, unless taking the Sadie
Hawkins Dance approach, because the men are the ones asking the women. Josh
Swore, Rob Reynolds, and Kassidy Cook all have moved on from the single ranks
shortly after receiving shoutouts. Ellis Libby and Isaac Schultz are the others
who have received shoutouts. I cannot comment on their current status but at
the lowest 60% is remarkably high. There seems to be a statistical correlation
between the shoutout and the relationship, so I am taking most of the credit.
Enough blasphemy for one day. My final shoutout is a statistical outlier. The
relationship enigma: Joshua E. Balzer son of Nate. Rabbi Balzer is about to be
the second most eligible bachelor in the working world behind Tim Tebow.
Congratulations on taking the job at MFRA: MF Rick Associates (MF abbreviated
for censorship). If this shoutout preludes a relationship within the next few
months without any rhyme or reason, I will take full credit.
Over the years, I have successfully navigated my audience
through the necessary elements of relationships: General advice in 101, How to
Read Men Like a Book in 102, The Single Games, Tips for Women in 103. What
could I have possibly been missing? Tips for men? How to read women like a
book? Regrettably, no advice will fix the smelly, nasty, immature, and uncaring
man. As for reading women like a book, women cannot even read women, so I rest
my case. What was this empty void crying out to be solved? Answer: the science
behind everything. A theory explaining the nuances.
I absolutely love economics and its theories. Perhaps this is due to my ability to grasp theoretical complexities easily. After all, it is
hard to enjoy a subject not easily understood. Need not to worry. I have
combined relationships and economics to form the Ring by Spring Theory.
I am almost certain that Plato, Aristotle, Adam Smith, or
possibly even Zeno of Citium (my favorite philosopher) would have come up with
this idea first. However, I bet I have been closer to a relationship than these
men. I will give my greatest attempt to explain this theory in the simplest
fashion so everyone can share in its wisdom.
Get in a comfortable position, possibly use the restroom
quick (if you aren’t already there), and grab something to eat or drink because
like all theoretical writings this has some girth. I have already eclipsed 600
words and I have not even started the meat of the blog.
I can already hear it. Someone frustrated with me after
reading this post saying I am objectifying women and men. I promise this is not
the case. Remove all emotions for the time being. Think rationally. I have
attempted to put items in quotations to hopefully avoid the issue.
If there is one thing that is an absolute deal breaker, it
is desperate women. I cannot speak for the women, but I have to believe this is
true on their end as well. I coined the phrase “Stage 5 Cling-On” (Klingon for
my Star Trek readers will also suffice) my freshman year to describe them. The
Saint and I were riding together in the RCA-mobile a few weeks ago. To my
dismay, I cannot quote the speaker on the radio verbatim. She said something
along the lines that men can spot a desperate woman from a mile away. She was
spot on and was the spark to my Ring by Spring Theory.
I will honestly admit I am cold
and heartless at times, but on the bright side logic and rationality decipher
how I make decisions. When I see a very attractive girl in relationship with a
tool, I struggle to feel sorry for her. On that same note, when I see a really
cool guy with a girl he clearly settled for, I laugh. If only there was a
theory out there to explain how this could happen.
This theory will hold true based on five highly logical and
reasonable assumptions.
For theory sake, I am assuming that each individual has a
market value. Market value refers to the worth of a good or service determined
by the price people are willing to pay for it. (Here come the haters I warned
about. Women are not to be seen as something that can be bought or sold. Tim
you are an awful person) I will argue that even in a vacuum some people will
naturally have a higher market value. In a perfect world this would not be the
case, but in a perfect world socialism would work. Carrie Underwood’s market
value is going to be greater than Fran
Stalinovskovichdavidovitchsky. For women, [insert insanely hot man]’s market
value will be greater than Quasimodo. The good news is all Christians should
hold a higher market value than the world.
The second assumption I have to
make is based on one’s decisions you can increase or decrease your own market
value. In the free market this is a reality. For example, if the United States
government began printing money uncontrollably, there would be rapid inflation
and money would begin to lose its value. If the United States government slowed
its money production, deflation would occur and money would gain value. Simple
enough right? This reality probably goes unrealized when talking about
relationships and your personal market value. Thus, the ingenious Ring by
Spring Theory.
Hopefully I haven’t lost you
already. Not to worry if I have. I will provide a picture and more explanations
to follow.
Based on the intelligence of
this audience, I am sure some of you have figured out the theory already. Feel
free to discontinue reading. However, I promise the next few minutes finishing
this blog will have a greater opportunity cost than anything you may try to do
in the same amount of time.
The third assumption is the
supply of men/women is relatively elastic. A relatively small change in price
will cause a relatively large change in quantity. In laymen’s terms, a small
change in the availability of an individual has great impact on the quantity
demanded. I will explain this in greater detail later.
The fourth assumption is the
demand of men/women is relatively inelastic. A relatively large change in price
will cause a relatively small change in quantity. Simply put, if the price of a
relationship skyrocketed the amount of relationships would remain basically
unchanged. Gasoline is a common tangible example of relatively inelastic
demand. If gas was $5 a gallon people would still buy gas.
The fifth and final assumption
is all men/women are or will be demanded for a relationship. This assumption is
truly the backbone to everything. The theory will crash and burn without it.
Market value hinges on this concept. Because the stakes are so high, I will
debunk any thought you could be this person. For this assumption to be false
there has to be no man/woman EVER to have interest in a relationship with you.
Even if you are unaware of this interest, it still counts because they have
subconsciously addressed the market value situation. It would be a statistical
anomaly for someone like this to exist.
With those assumptions in mind,
let’s continue into the theory. There are two angles to take on with this
theory. I already alluded to the first with my “Stage 5 Cling-on” comment.
Being desperate, increasing your supply, reduces your market value. The second
angle is high confidence, decreasing your supply, increases your market value.
Confidence is the opposite of desperate in this situation. Less confident
individuals settle for less than others with high confidence. This is the
intuition behind why desperate is a turnoff. No matter the sex, confidence is
an attractive trait. Let’s take them in order.
As part of the third
assumption, being more available decreases the quantity demanded. This seems
backwards, but let me explain further. Conventional wisdom may indicate wanting
to be supplied in higher quantities. More supply equals more opportunity to be
purchased. A girl may wish to be “purchased” by a lot of men. However, if many
men are able to “purchase” a woman, her asking price is too low. She has over
supplied herself (made herself too available) and become a commodity. In
economic terms, a commodity has no real proprietary value. She has become just
like millions of other women. In the eyes of men, she is no different. The
opposite effect also holds true. If no man has shown interest, your asking
price is too high. Increase supply in miniscule amounts to test the market.
Without a solid understanding
of economics, it may appear that a high asking price is a signal of low demand.
Actually, the opposite is true. A high market price indicates low supply, or
high demand. Exhibit A. Jack and Jill go to the same college. Jack is always
talking to girls. Jack is desperately trying to find “the one” but each
relationship seems to slip through the cracks. Jill always thought Jack was
good looking. Yet, when Jack asks her on a date his senior year, Jill turns him
down. The moral of the story is Jack over supplied himself. The good news is he
can recover his market value. Time is his ally if he wishes to regain it.
The second angle says
decreasing your supply increases your market value. Men/women should strive to
be supplied in low quantities. This would mean your value is very high.
Economically this is known as a luxury item. Lamborghini’s supply is much lower
than Toyota’s. I would call the CEO of Lamborghini a nutbar factor 6 if he
increased the supply to that of Toyota. The car would lose value.
Exhibit B. Jack and Jill go to
the same college. Jack has a huge crush on Jill. Jack is an average man, but
Jill is a fox. Jill’s market price is paramount to her other classmates. Unless
Jack believes his market value is equally high (aka confidence), he will not
attempt to ask Jill on a date. Why is this the case? Jill is in high demand,
but her asking price is also high warding off those of lesser value.
If you have not seen the movie
Frozen yet, you have to do it. Great movie and it also has a lot of Biblical
principles behind it as well. Why am I bringing up a random movie? What does
Frozen have to do with the Ring by Spring Theory? Do you suppose Anna over
supplied herself a tad? What happened to her? I was sitting in the theater
thinking to myself, there is no way Hans is sincere. He cannot be all about
that Stage 5 Cling-on. Sure enough – different motives. I have no problem with
the speed of the relationship. My issue was her mindset before even stepping
outside the gates. “Maybe I will meet the
one.” With no apparent communication
with any men ever, she set out to find him. Her decisions and motives were
based on emotions. Shrek could have proposed to her that day and she would have
said yes. I know this is a Disney movie, but her desperation level is nothing
new. Classic example of the Ring by Spring Theory.
I am well over 1000 words
already, and I promised a picture to explain the theory.
Price is on the vertical axis
and quantity on the horizontal. S is the supply curve and D the demand. As
depicted in the graph, decreasing your supply, S to S1, (shifting to
the left) increases your market value. The opposite direction holds true as
well. Starting at S1 and increasing your supply (shift to the right)
will result in a lower market value. Also notice how the quantity changes as
well. Increasing value causes a reduction in quantity and vice versa.
Am I off my rocker for not
explaining why this is called Ring by Spring Theory? Perhaps I do not need to
do so because the light bulb has already triggered. Just in case, I will
complete the jig-saw puzzle.
The Ring by Spring Theory explains
how to get the coveted ring by spring. Do you want a rock on your finger?
Increase your supply and lower your standards and you will find yourself headed
towards a ring (or purchasing a ring). The best of both worlds cannot be
achieved. If you want to reach for the perfect 10, desperation is not the
answer.
Have you ever heard this, “soon
as you stop looking for a relationship, you will find one?” Let’s assess this paradox
from the basis of the Ring by Spring Theory. A reduction in your supply occurs
because you ‘quit looking for a relationship.’ This comes across as increased
confidence. After some time, your market value increases and you are sought
after in higher demand. Funny how this works. It truly is this simple.
There is one loophole when the Ring by Spring Theory must not be used and applied. I would be doing a disservice to my audience if I did not inform you of this loophole before finishing. Once mutual interest has been identified, restricting supply does not work to increase market value. At this point, restricting supply comes across as lost interest. Any interest that was present will quickly fade. Relationships transcend the theory of economic markets. This fact is due to the way relationships work. Relationships are about giving. As soon as one partner feels/thinks they are giving a lot more in the relationship it is going to have some problems. Unconditional love is not rational. Self-interest is found among the single ranks. At its core, the desire for singleness is extremely selfish. In a way, the Ring by Spring Theory also explains why extremely rational individuals have such a hard time with love. So much application, so awesome.
I am not asking for everyone to completely rid themselves of all emotions. That would be impossible. It would be a nice change for people to be more rational so perhaps some of these Jack and Jill scenarios never take place. I am disturbed every time I see people (especially women) make irrational decisions when it comes to relationships because in the end (just like in Frozen) the girl pays for it not the man. For it is my belief that if they had a little more information and knowledge they would make the right choice. Economics is all about personal decisions and how it affects the whole market. The purpose of my relationship blogs have always been to educate and influence personal decisions to create the best market possible.
There you have it folks. The Ring by Spring Theory: perhaps one of the greatest relationship theories in the history of western civilization. My ultimate hope is people would apply this theory. My intentions have always been to better the relationship world dating all the way back to 101, despite how much of a jerk I may have come across as. Everything I have ever said I meant with full sincerity. That is the beauty of this blog. Entertainment and truth combined to form the Utopia of blogs.
Effective immediately as of May 7, 2014 I am retiring from the blogging world. The Schultz Agreement is over. I did have a previous agreement with @UNW_DatingTips to give them a shoutout in return for advertising my blog. I refrained from giving them a shoutout, thus leaving the decision up to them if they wish to advertise it or not. I am opting out of all other legal obligations I may have been subject to.
The 101 started it all
Next reading men if you recall
A couple failed blogs sprinkled in
Relationships, the blog’s linchpin
A fake retirement came and went
The Single Games, a news event
Ideas were no longer mine
The audience was my pipeline
Shoutouts stuck for tradition sake
Better than a Salisbury steak
Continuing Schultz’s Agreement
300 views, my appeasement
A relationship advisor
If only I were far wiser
The journey has always been great
We knew retirement was my fate
This blog is no more like Lot’s wife
So long to Yahtzee’s Roll on Life
Effective immediately as of May 7, 2014 I am retiring from the blogging world. The Schultz Agreement is over. I did have a previous agreement with @UNW_DatingTips to give them a shoutout in return for advertising my blog. I refrained from giving them a shoutout, thus leaving the decision up to them if they wish to advertise it or not. I am opting out of all other legal obligations I may have been subject to.
The 101 started it all
Next reading men if you recall
A couple failed blogs sprinkled in
Relationships, the blog’s linchpin
A fake retirement came and went
The Single Games, a news event
Ideas were no longer mine
The audience was my pipeline
Shoutouts stuck for tradition sake
Better than a Salisbury steak
Continuing Schultz’s Agreement
300 views, my appeasement
A relationship advisor
If only I were far wiser
The journey has always been great
We knew retirement was my fate
This blog is no more like Lot’s wife
So long to Yahtzee’s Roll on Life
