All You Need Is Love—And a Little Irrationality

Just call him Adam, a 28-year-old male who just met Jane, a 25-year-old woman, online. With a date now on set, Adam booked a restaurant well beyond his budget, one he had carefully selected and picked, but never went to. Desperate to make a good impression, he spent hours in front of his closet, carefully selecting the right clothes, slipping on his most expensive shoes, and nervously putting on his special occasion perfume. What Jane knows about Adam doesn’t go far beyond his dating profile—he loves dogs, has a sense of humor, enjoys good conversations, and is an avid reader. What Jane doesn’t know is... a lot. Among his friends, Adam is well known for his temper. Not even six hours ago, he had shouted at his subordinates at work over a minor mistake. The photo on his dating profile is from four years ago—not drastically outdated, but enough to hide the fact that he now carries less muscle and a little more around the waist. In truth, Adam hardly takes care of himself. On most days, he skips the expensive perfume, and sometimes even deodorant, leaving behind an odor that his coworkers regularly joke about behind his back. 

But after their first date, Jane was still unaware of these unlovable qualities. All she sees is that he’s a sweet man with a soft spot for pets, someone who seems thoughtful and well read, as all he talks about are Novels and Books that Jane also finds interesting. She didn’t mind that he looked a bit different from his photos; after all, Adam had presented himself not simply as his true persona, but as someone near-perfect, someone who, to Jane, is comparable to Prince Charming.

The act carried on for the next ten dates. But what about the twentieth? The fiftieth? The hundredth? Eventually, Adam began to wear out. Pretending to be someone he wasn’t took its toll. Slowly but surely, the performance faded; surely there’s no such thing as a Prince Charming. The fancy dinners came to an end. Instead, he began planning their dates at simpler, more modest places. He stopped wearing his expensive perfume, and the scent of his natural body odor started to reek. Jane began to notice his temper. Whenever they faced a difficult moment, Adam would raise his voice and shift the blame onto her. Ultimately,  came the betrayal. Jane discovered that Adam hadn’t been faithful. Behind her back, he was still chatting with his ex, and, on more than one occasion, even meeting up with her. The mask had finally slipped, revealing someone Jane never truly knew.

It’s easy for us, readers, to say she should leave him and find someone better. But things are rarely that simple, especially for two young, passionate partners like Adam and Jane. More often than not, people cling to their relationships even when the signs are clear. Even when they know their partner has unpleasant body odor, is temperamental, lacks ambition, or even worse, has been unfaithful. And yet, they stay. They hold on, fully aware of the flaws, the unlovable traits. But why exactly? Well, the answer might be as simple as The Beatles once put it: “Love, love, love.”

Homo Economicus: A False Proposition 

There are thousands of Novels, hundreds of thousands of Poems, and millions of songs that try to explain what love is. Yet, mankind has never managed to agree on a universal definition of love. Even social studies has taken its turn in trying to unravel the world's greatest mystery, including the field of economics. For centuries, economists have sought to understand how people make choices when faced with limited options (Mankiw, 2007). In the context of love, then, the question becomes: why does Jane choose and continue to cling to Adam, rather than pursue a different alternative? 

For decades, economists have assumed that individuals are these self interest driven beings which they called as Homo Economicus or the “Economic Man”. What economists have long attempted to do is rationalize love. Gary Becker, for instance, in his seminal 1973 paper “A Theory of Marriage: Part I”, approaches romantic relationships through the lens of utility maximization. He conceptualizes marriage as a partnership in which two individuals jointly produce and consume “household commodities,” with the relationship enabling gains from specialization and the division of labor between spouses (Becker, 1973). He laid the foundation that a marriage market exists, and individuals are Rational Agents who seek spouses solely according to their objective qualities. Becker’s theory is that individuals tend to marry partners whose traits are complementary to their own (similar to themselves), or what Becker called “Positively assortative.” (Becker, 1973)

From this perspective, Jane’s affection for Adam stems from his desirable traits—his kindness, humor, and thoughtfulness (McKeever & Saunders, 2022).  That Adam and Jane, for one, are rational agents who both love one another solely because it is a fitting response to the qualities of their beloved. Love, then, is interpreted as a logical and appropriate response to these attributes. And maintaining a relationship with Adam is a decision that aligns with Jane’s best interest, as it maximizes her utility given the available alternatives (Bee & Desmarais-Tremblay, 2022). 

In this case, Becker’s theory might explain why Jane went on the second, third, or even fourth date. She saw in him the kind of qualities she wanted in a partner, traits that seemed to match and complement her own. But it fails to explain why Jane still stuck around for the 101st date. Not after finding out about all his unlovable traits. Not after learning he cheated. Not after realizing that Adam wasn’t the person she thought he was.

We stay. We forgive. We give more than we should. And sometimes, that’s not foolish- it’s Human

“She can kill with a smile, she can wound with her eyes

And she can ruin your faith with her casual lies

And she only reveals what she wants you to see

She hides like a child but she's always a woman to me” - Billy Joel

If Jane were a purely rational agent, there would be little doubt that she would leave Adam. And yet, in reality, that’s often not the case. Classical economic models struggle to explain why individuals who possess unlovable qualities like Adam still manage to find Love. Becker and other classical economics theories surely cannot explain the logical explanation behind many world's greatest love stories and songs. It cannot explain why Romeo and Juliet would willingly sacrifice their well-being, their families, and ultimately their lives, just to be together, as it is definitely against Juliet’s and Romeo’s self-interest to be with each other. Nor can it justify the sentiment behind Air Supply’s lyrics: “I can wait forever, if you say you'll be there too,” as it would be far more rational to move on and find a more available partner in the so-called "marriage market." And if humans were truly governed by reason alone, Billy Joel might never have written “She’s Always a Woman”, let alone stayed with the woman who inspired it.

What many economists often overlook is that humans are more Homo sapiens than Homo economicus. People are naturally irrational; they tend to rely on emotions rather than detailed calculations, especially when faced with limited information, time pressure, or cognitive constraints (Bee & Desmarais-Tremblay, 2022).It's not lengthy, logical reasoning that drives most decisions, but rather emotions, gut feelings, and cognitive biases that quietly steer the human decision-making process. That’s why classical economic theories struggle to explain why people fall in love or choose to stay with and forgive someone they love. Love, by its very nature, is irrational. To make sense of this great human mystery, it’s far more accurate to acknowledge that people are inherently emotional and erratic, rather than cling to the outdated assumption that we are cold, calculating, and socially detached beings. This is precisely what behavioral economists aim to do: to paint a more realistic picture of how humans make decisions.

Daniel Kahneman, for instance, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, explains that human decision-making operates through two systems. System 1 is fast, automatic, and effortless; it’s where intuition, gut feelings, and snap emotional reactions come from. In contrast, System 2 is slower and more deliberate, requiring effort. It handles complex calculations, logical (Kahneman, 2011). When making decisions, people tend to rely more on their System 1—fast, more emotional thinking—rather than the slower, more rational System 2. This explains why when someone falls in love, they might be willing to move to another city, quit a job, or make all sorts of seemingly irrational sacrifices just to make their partner happy. It also explains why, even when a partner lashes out in anger or cheats, we might still find ourselves forgiving them, not because we’re sure they were innocent or confident they won’t do it again, but simply because we were caught up in this Crazy Little Thing Called Love. 

Love just doesn’t make sense, and that’s exactly why it works

“Did you know that true love asks for nothing

Her acceptance is the way we pay

Did you know that life has given love a guarantee

To last through forever and another day” - Stevie Wonder

Ultimately, love just doesn’t make sense. As Stevie Wonder puts it, love is simply unconditional. It makes us tolerate things that, objectively, are unbearable. It drives us to make sacrifices without expecting anything in return. It leads us to forgive what might otherwise be unforgivable. Love indeed makes us a fool, but that’s exactly what makes it beautiful.

Millions of families aren’t built and sustained simply because both partners found “the right person.” Instead, it’s often their natural irrationality that convinces them they are with the right person. Love, by its very nature, isn’t rational; it’s wildly subjective. It makes us believe our partner is the most beautiful person we’ve ever met. It makes us feel they’re the most fascinating, the most charming, the funniest person to ever walk the earth (McKeever & Saunders, 2022). That belief makes any sacrifice feel worth it. It makes us overlook the body odor, forgive the temper, and stay even when logic might say otherwise. 

Love indeed makes us irrational, and sometimes it leads us to choices we may later quietly regret. But as the Beatles beautifully put it in “Till There Was You,” love has a way of awakening us to things we never noticed before. It brings color to what once felt dull and meaning to what once seemed routine. That’s the true value of love; it may not always lead us to the most rational decisions or generational wealth, but it allows us to feel in ways we rarely do. It’s what makes us human, preventing us from becoming what Amartya Sen once described as a “social moron.” 

Reference:

Bee, M., & Desmarais-Tremblay, M. (2022). The birth of Homo Œconomicus: The methodological debate on the economic agent from J. S. Mill to V. Pareto. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 45(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1053837221000535 

Becker, G. (1973). A Theory of Marriage: Part I. https://remote-lib.ui.ac.id:2065/stable/1831130?seq=1 

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin UK.

Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2006). Freakonomics rev Ed: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. WmMorrow. 

Mankiw, N. G. (2007). Principles of economics.

McKeever, N., & Saunders, J. (2022). Irrational love: Taking Romeo and Juliet seriously. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 30(3), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2022.2121895 

Pilat, D., & Krastev, S. (2024, August 27). Herbert Simon. The Decision Lab. https://thedecisionlab.com/thinkers/computer-science/herbert-simon