This is more psychology than economics, but as I sat a breakfast this morning, a train of thoughts and reflections led me to the question: What makes us value people?

My immediate thought was that we value people based on their quality of friendship. Perhaps the length of friendship could be a signal of this (think of the saying – make new friends, keep the old; the first is silver, the other is gold). I don’t think length of friendship is, in itself, inherently a positive determinant of the quality of friendship. Perhaps it is instead the experiences you share, the times you’ve had that make you understand a person increasingly well.

But spending time together does not necessarily mean that one can always understand the other, nor does this all mean that a “stranger” cannot have greater insight on you within a very short amount of time [or does it?]. People are often attracted to the immediate – the one who seems to understand them in one conversation – and might perhaps value the person who can (seemingly) understand them in an instant. [How much can one understand another so quickly?]

Then I started to think that value is really just a function of the one person himself, and not so much the object/person in question. Is value inherent in anything? Probably not. Money, perhaps, is one thing we all value – it can generally be exchanged for just about anything. But in terms of objects – I can’t expect you to value my, say, running shoes … nor do I value your television (which you may love). And this will certainly sound obvious, but I don’t know if it occurs to everyone – we can’t be expected to value the same traits in people. Surely, most people value consistency, reliability, willingness to devote time and energy – but beyond that, and even those traits alone – is it enough to determine how much we value another?

Back to the person, the valuer (rather than object/person of value …) – I think we’re prone to value different things, traits, and people at different times … (again, another obvious statement, sorry) – and whether or not he appreciates something may be a function of his current situation more than the actual person/thing of questioned value.

Does this mean, then, that we can’t increase our own value in another’s eyes?

One thought I had, as well, was on “playing hard-to-get”. Does that increase how much someone values another, if the object is ever “achieved”? Does the feeling of “winning” something fade quickly, or has the person learned with time and experience that this person has enough value (?) that she will not give herself away so quickly? Or is it just that relationships that start this way are bound to be more lengthy and successful because the pursuer’s chase – and “hard-to-get” person’s eventual giving in – is a signal that the pursuer is so dedicated to making it work, and the other has found him more valuable than other potential courters? … Is it worth “playing hard-to-get”, from this perspective?

How else might we affect how we’re valued? Can we? Should we? Is this something that comes necessarily as time proceeds? (I’d argue otherwise, obviously).

Perhaps, like many other things, magnitude of “value” is somewhat irrational …