When my wife, a rational agent, is preparing to welcome our monthly visitor, she is confronted by a preliminary wave of unwelcome hormones. The proximate effect of these hormones is to make her a tad more grouchy than she normally is about otherwise mundane events. But because my wife is a rational agent, presumably she is able to forecast this effect and account for it. In other words, when she has the impulse to feel perturbed about some minor calamity she reasons that her impulse is likely an artificial response brought on by the fluctuating chemistry in her brain. And this reasoning would lead her to moderate her emotional response.
Indeed I have witnessed my dear wife execute exactly these calculations. When this happens, the household is always most appreciative. Sadly, it doesn’t always happen.
My theory therefore is that what is happening is not a uniform variation in the hormonal level, but rather a spike in hormonal volatility that forces my wife into a signal-extraction problem that is inherently prone to error. For example, when her absent-minded husband leaves the lights on in the kitchen and she detects, in response, an oncoming alteration in her mood, she must determine whether this minor offence is something she would ordinarily be upset about. My theory is that hormone volatility makes it hard to know exactly the current hormonal level and therefore difficult to back out the baseline appropriate degree of aggravation (in this case, i would argue, none at all.)
And thus hormones, an otherwise purely nominal variable, can have real (cyclical) effects.
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 8, 2009 at 4:55 pm
sandeep
no comment
April 8, 2009 at 7:31 am
Tomasz
Maestro!
April 8, 2009 at 11:26 am
дмитрий
awesome post.
April 8, 2009 at 11:26 am
kevindick
Very nice. I’m glad my wife isn’t terribly interested in economics so I’m not tempted to show this to her.
April 8, 2009 at 12:41 pm
hern
it is odd to say this but, because of the way economics has shaped my perception of life, my observations and conclusions have converged with yours.
much thanks for sharing your insight. it is relieving to know that there are others out there who think this way.
at least your wife acknowledges the need to moderate her emotional response. i am too afraid to tell women around me that doing this serves as a positive externality for everyone (and is probably worthwhile so long as the cost of compensation isn’t too burdensome).
April 8, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Katie
Don’t you think cognitive behavioral therapists beat you to this conclusion decades ago? Cute new terms.
April 9, 2009 at 10:14 pm
the wife
Well… I have to say that Jeff failed to mentioned that when my hormones are at their peak I simply cannot stand anyone and thus often will confine myself to solitude so that I won’t offend anyone with my mood swings. Any rational person will allow me to do this; however, he thought why would anyone want to be in solitude and not spend some quality time with her family. Well… I guess he likes a grouchy wife barking at everyone then peace and quiet. 🙂 Is it rational????
April 9, 2009 at 11:22 pm
guarachero
Prototypical problem of preparing for the known unknown. Is the solution not to anticipate the unknown?
April 11, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Josephine
well written, prof. and i say, good point, the wife. as with any economic model, one needs to assess what variables have been left out, then reformulate. add in the known element that hormonal storms need solitude. i submit another variable: a rational agent may put weight on having some outrageous emotional fun depending on how the month has gone. does that spoil your theory? 🙂
December 17, 2010 at 9:42 am
Me, My Wife, Spousonomics « Cheap Talk
[…] are doing a series on “Economists in Love” and based on my post on Hormone Neutraility, they assumed I was a sensitive guy and so they asked me a few questions like “Why are you […]
January 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Anonymous
Women, amiright?