We’ve been discussing this theory, first introduced to me by my friend, Ajay. It is a model for the differences between the way males and females separate “friends” and “potential mates”. We’ll limit the discussion to heterosexual relationships for simplicity — I don’t know how it may apply to gay relationships.
According to the model, girls have two “ladders”, one to rank male friends, the other to rank male potentials. When she meets a new boy, she will put him on one of the ladders. As she gets to know the boy, he may have the opportunity to move up some rungs.
So a boy makes the effort to get closer to a girl he’s interested in. He thinks, “This is great! I’m moving up the ladder!”, and when he thinks that he’s in a good position, he makes all the right moves. But BAM! He is crushed to discover that he’s on the wrong ladder. (Or, as Ajay puts it, the girl has been getting the benefits of a confidant and companion but the boy will not get the *ahem* physical benefits of a relationship)
The persistent boy tries to make the leap from the “friends” ladder to the “potential” ladder. Be careful, though! Too many boys who have attempted this manouevre have fallen into the black Abyss between ladders. Also, when leaping from one ladder to the other, even if you make it, you invariably land on a rung lower than your previous position. How frustrating.
The model goes on to say that boys have only one ladder — all girls are “potentials”. You just need to be on a high enough rung.
Now, I’ve just made some sweeping generalisations here. Maybe there is a kernal of truth or two. Maybe boys themselves will tell me so. But I’m sure some of my more complex (that is, not simple) male friends have at least two ladders. I cannot imagine how it could be otherwise.
Today, I found out that one of my engineering friends actually does a double degree with psychology. I presented this theory to him and he was delighted. We tried to apply the model to hypothetical situations.
“Meng, what would you do if the girl at the very top of your “potentials” ladder shows no interest but someone a few rungs lower is chasing you? Do you keep chasing your dream girl?”
“Well, Joan, if the boy is smart, he’ll use this opportunity. He should spend some “quality time” with the lower girl. This will definitely catch the attention of the top girl. Jealousy is a powerful motivator!”
HAHAHAHA, that’s brilliant! I love it. Thanks, Meng.
This is an intriguing theory… I would like to think that I am a “complex” person (benefiting from both real and imaginary parts). I think I definitely have two ladders, but to make things complicated, I don’t believe mine are quite mutually exclusive. In fact, I think its more like… “potentials” are a subset which is wholly contained in the “friends” category. People in my “friends” but not “potentials” category do occasionally cross over (and with no ill-effects on their “ranking”) and vice versa. Perhaps females, being the more naturally ruthless of the species, prefer to keep these two sets disjoint.
The point about using jealousy is an interesting one and rests on many somewhat flimsy premises. A zero-sum game theoretical approach would be the best way to analyse this I think…
Daniel Yeow
Yes, I proposed a similar model using Venn diagrams. But then Damjan pointed out that there are ‘random crushes’ that are on the Potentials Ladder but would not be on the Friends Ladder after you get over the crush. “What was I thinking?” sort of thing.
I think that the two ladder theory applies at the lower rungs but I think my ladders may merge towards the top. So someone who works hard on the Friends Ladder may find they are on the Potentials Ladder eventually. Then again, this is all a bit arbitrary and speculative. But what fun!
There’s no mention of jumping (falling?) from the “potential” ladder to the “friends” ladder! I’ve been thinking about this recently — I think it’s hard to travel from “potential” to “friends” without falling quite a few rungs (if not off the ladder entirely even). For me, I find this is because when I demote someone from the “potential” ladder, it’s because I’ve discovered some dire, intolerable “fault” with them. As with every rule, there have been exceptions, but this seems to be the general trend…
vera
Vera, I think you’re right! Going from Potential to Friend is even more hazardous, especially from top Potential. A demotion would almost certainly be involved (well, if you’re at the top, the only way is down).
I hate to say it (ok, who am I kidding, I enjoy saying it) but I am forced to agree with beldar in that females are multitask-ingly challenged. Anyone who has been in a car with manual transmission while a female is trying to parallel park will know what I mean. Having said that, I must say that I know of an instance where a top “potential” became a top “friend”… so I guess that’s a proof by counterexample to the potential to friend loss of altitude theory. Maybe this ladders thing isn’t a good analogy after all…
Daniel Yeow
I can barely parallel park with automatic — but I think it’s because I have poor depth vision, rather than I can’t multitask!
I can hum, eat, read and listen to the TV at the same time. I’m like a Windows operating system, only more stable 🙂 And I have cool wallpaper.
I don’t think the ladder is meant to model much except for the jump between Friend and Potential. Lately, I’ve been thinking that maybe the one ladder theory could work if it is thought of as a continuum. Friend down the bottom, slowly morphing into Potential up the top. This implies that a Potential is a very, very good friend plus an extra X factor.
Over to you complex people, now.
“Let X be ….”
oohh… have you seen this?
http://www.laddertheory.com/