Uncle Mark (rocking slowly on the porch, sipping lemonade):
Nate, you look like a man who just discovered women are more complicated than math.
Nate (grinning, holding his iPad):
Uncle Mark, I just finished mapping out the entire modern dating crisis using game theory. It’s all here—Nash equilibria, control matrices, and payoff grids.
Uncle Mark:
Good lord, son. Back in my day, we just called it heartbreak and wrote sad songs. Now you’re telling me love needs a calculator?
Nate:
No, not love—relationships. Big difference. Most people think they’re after love, but really, they’re in it for control. Security. Predictable outcomes. It’s a game, Uncle. And the incentives are rigged.
Uncle Mark (raising an eyebrow):
So what’s the prize for winning this so-called game? A mortgage and quiet resentment?
Nate (laughs):
Pretty much! See, people come to the table either wanting “true love”—you know, mutual growth, sacrifice, the kind of thing they make Netflix dramas about—or they want a trade. “You give me this, I give you that.” It’s a deal. Like, you be pretty, I’ll pay rent.
Uncle Mark:
Ah, romance by spreadsheet. I always suspected Tinder was just Wall Street with better lighting.
Nate:
Exactly! And when someone looking for love ends up with someone playing the “control” game, it ends in what I call a red pill or blue pill breakup. The romantic gets blindsided, and the controller cashes out.
Uncle Mark (pauses):
That’s just plain sad, Nate. But you’re not wrong. Folks used to call it “falling in love.” Now it’s “leveraging emotional assets.” Can’t say I like it better, but I do see your point.
Nate:
And it’s not random, either. Social class plays a big role. People at the top or bottom of the ladder? Way more likely to seek control. The rich marry for alliances. The poor, for survival. Only the middle class really has the luxury to marry for love—two people with just enough stability to not need anything from each other but each other.
Uncle Mark (chuckling):
So love survives in the suburbs? That explains a lot of poetry.
Nate:
More like the mall parking lots of middle America, yeah. But seriously, Uncle, most folks don’t even realize they’re playing different games. One person’s showing up for Titanic, the other’s playing Monopoly.
Uncle Mark:
And the board gets flipped when rent’s due or someone gains ten pounds?
Nate:
Pretty much. See, when a control relationship hits turbulence—say someone loses a job or gets sick—the whole thing crumbles. It was never about love, just about what each side was getting. And when they stop getting, they start leaving.
Uncle Mark (sighing):
Son, you just described three of my divorces—and I was only married once.
Nate (laughs):
There’s actually a perfect model for this: the Prisoner’s Dilemma. You know it?
Uncle Mark:
Do I know it? Boy, I lived it. Two crooks in two rooms hoping the other keeps their mouth shut. It’s trust under pressure. Like marriage, but with orange jumpsuits.
Nate:
Exactly. The best outcome is both sides cooperate. But the safer choice is to betray—because no one wants to be the fool left holding the bag. So most people play it safe, and love loses.
Uncle Mark:
So what’s the fix, Nate? We all just marry our tax bracket and hope for the best?
Nate:
Sort of. If you’re a romantic, find another romantic in your own class. That’s where the odds of actual love are highest. Don’t chase someone trying to climb up or pull you down. They’re not looking for love. They’re looking for leverage.
Uncle Mark (smiling):
Son, that’s the smartest thing anyone’s said on this porch since your aunt tried to sell Tupperware using Bible verses.
Nate:
Thanks, Uncle Mark. I just want people to know—love is real, but the game has rules. And if you don’t know them, you’ll keep losing.
Uncle Mark:
Well, if love is a game, I say we cheat—but with kindness. You bring the brain, I’ll bring the bourbon. Now scoot over and show me that fancy diagram of heartbreak you drew on your iPad.
EXTRA CREDIT
© 2025 insearchofyourpassions.com - Some Rights Reserve - This website and its content are the property of YNOT. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt the material for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
