Стратегия семейной жизни. Как реже мыть посуду, чаще заниматься сексом и меньше ссориться

by Paula Szuchman, Jenny Anderson, Пола Шуман

Устали от споров со своей второй половиной? Изнываете от домашних забот, взаимонепонимания, недостатка секса? Заметили, что ваш спутник жизни - совсем не тот человек, каким был в начале отношений? Прислушайтесь к советам Дженни Андерсон и Полы Шуман, которые считают, что "кратчайший путь к счастливому браку - экономика". В то время как многие люди полагают, что любовь и товарно-денежные отношения несовместимы, авторы этой книги уверены: каждый брак - это бизнес двоих людей, основанный на ограниченных ресурсах, которые должны быть правильным образом распределены. К решению наиболее распространенных семейных проблем Андерсон и Шуман подходят, вооружившись экономическими законами. И на примерах из реальной жизни показывают, как разделение труда, спрос и предложение, выгоды и издержки и многие другие экономические явления - вплоть до мыльных пузырей! - могут влиять на атмосферу в семье. Эта мудрая, местами смешная, книга-исследование поможет вам использовать законы экономики в каждодневной жизни - и вернуть в дом мир и любовь.

Genres: Nonfiction, Economics, Relationships, Marriage, Self Help, Psychology, Family

352 pages, Paperback

First published February 8, 2011

Reviews

[David Rubenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I have read a few books about maintaining relationships, this book is quite different. It draws upon the principles of economics to inform the reader how to deal with issues in a marriage. Many of the basic principles of economic-behavior theory are described here; supply and demand, loss-averse behaviors, game theory, cost-benefit analysis, moral hazards, incentives, signaling, asymmetric information, and many more. For each of these principles, the authors tell an anecdote from the business world that illustrates the principle. Then they show how the principle applies to spousal relationships, concretely with anecdotes.

The authors tell their stories with fantastic humor and straight-forward bluntness. This made the book a lot of fun to read! Some reviewers--especially women--take offense at some of the advice, but as a man, I see the advice as taking economics principles to their logical, realistic conclusion in spousal relationships.

Just to give an example of how different this book is from other marriage advice books, consider the following dilemma. The standard advice about how to get more sex from your marriage partner includes things like: have more foreplay, go on a romantic vacation, talk about it, and rekindle the mystery. This book shoves all of this advice aside, and instead recommends, "make sex more affordable". Well, the meaning has nothing to do with paying cash for sex, but to ... well, I won't spoil the details here.

I didn't read this book; I listened to the audiobook. The narrator, Renée Raudman, does an excellent reading, and made the book all the more enjoyable.

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has some seriously good concepts and ideas that are easily taken out of economics and into a marriage. Marriage is full of transactions, and as such, economic theory can be applied in some interesting ways, and this book translates them well.

[Joel · Rating 2 out of 5]

To review this book (Spousonomics)I have to reference another book I just started reading:

I just picked up Jared Diamond's book "The World Until Yesterday" about traditional societies. Right in the beginning is a striking point - the vast majority of "studies" we read are from societies he calls W.E.I.R.D. (Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic.) Not only that, but even more specifically tons come from studying kids in Psychology majors.

The problem with this is that there are lots of different ways that societies, and in this case marriages, can work. But the authors of this book feel like they did even LESS digging than most books. Basically every single relationship is between two stock traders or hedge fund managers. It just comes across as really shortsighted, and annoying.

They even specifically talk about "confirmation bias" in this book - seeking out things and selectively listening to research or advice that confirms what you already think. I can't think of a worse example of this than only testing all your little marriage/economic theories on such a small set of people pulled from a pool with which you are utterly familiar.

Anyway, probably not worth your time. There was one useful thing I gained from the book which is why it has two stars and not one - choosing and dividing chores based on competitive advantage. That chapter is worth a read. You can skip everything else.

[Ann · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not finished yet, but I wanted to put down my thoughts while my baby is sleeping(!) and I have the time. So far the book is interesting enough for me to keep reading it, but also a fairly large disappointment. The tone is a little too...smug?...shallow?...glib? Something annoying anyway. I like popular science books and appreciate that they are qualitatively different from more hardcore science works, but at the same time, I sometimes felt like the anecdotal case studies were only a step or two away from a women's magazine article.

And that is probably my biggest fault with the book: it is clearly written for women. There is only the vaguest token effort to occasionally throw in a male perspective, otherwise the authors - both female - are obviously speaking to a female audience. With that in mind, it is curious that so far most of the anecdotes are about how the woman had to change her behavior drastically in order for the marriage to work. Even the one chapter so far where the man is clearly at fault (he's a total slackass free-loader) the problem is framed largely as the wife enabling him and what she needs to do to fix that. The women in the sex chapter all are frigid people who need to just have sex already, the "sleep on it" example features a woman portrayed as a harpy, and there are several women shown to be chronic naggers. Some of the anecdotes feature the couple working together towards a solution, but if one partner is giving in or giving up, it's always the woman. (And were there no same sex couples interviewed for the book?) In a book aimed at women, you would think that there would be less negativity. Maybe the second half of the book will be more balanced, but I'm not counting on it.

It also somewhat upset me that that the authors were "quite pleased" to see that the majority of respondents had sex when they were not in the mood - for reasons such as "feeling guilty" or "earning goodwill". Umm, whatever happened to respecting your own body? I understand the point they were trying to make about sex and inertia, btu at the same time it makes me a little uneasy that the chapter could have been subtitled "Not in the mood? Suck it up and put out!"

[Paige · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted more out of this book, a lot more. I found it to be sexist in that the female spouse is usually the one to make the sacrifices and/or find the solution to fix the marriage problems. Disappointing.

[Tatyana Naumova · Rating 4 out of 5]

В целом полезное чтение, если не считать главы про использование секса в воспитательных целях (гвозди бы делать).

[Caroline · Rating 3 out of 5]

Notes from book:
Loss Aversion

Loss aversion is why the average consumer tends to notice price increases more than decreases. When have you ever noticed that a gallon of gas was cheaper than it was the last time you refuelled? Yet the minute gas goes up a tenth of a penny, you're outraged....

If you're like us, now that you know what loss aversion is, you'll start to see its dirty fingerprints all over your life - and that includes your personal life. Because here's the punch line: Loss aversion is messing with your marriage. When loss aversion kicks in, you're liable to stay up all night arguing because you don't want to lose a fight. You'll refuse to compromise because it means giving up what you want. You won't apologise because you don't want to lose face. And you'll fail to appreciate the good stuff that's right in front of you because all you can think about is how much more fun married life used to be....

Or take Lehman Brothers. Remember them? The gold-plated investment bank was worth billions in 2007 and then collapsed in a toxic heap less than a year later. At the time, there was a lot of blame going around, and much of it fell on the firm's overexposure to real estate. As home owners and office tenants started defaulting on their mortgages, Lehman's investments deteriorated in value.

But part of what brought Lehman to its knees in those final months was simple loss-aversion. Starting in the spring of 2008, when it became clear that the firm was in trouble, the company's CEO, Richard Fuld, scrambled to staunch the bleeding. Behind the scenes, he looked for buyers, discussed mergers, and raised capital to pay off debts. Buyers were interested, but at prices Fuld considered too low - accepting such offers would be too great a loss. In September, Lehman went bankrupt and Fuld lost a bundle - hundreds of millions in Lehman stock, the firm he had helped to build, and what was left of his reputation.

We can never know for certain, but many now say things could have gone differently had Lehman admitted its losses, taken the necessary, albeit painful, write-downs, and secured a buyer before it was too late. Lehman might have survived, the recession might have been mitigated....and millions of unblinking Americans might have lived happily ever after in their exurban subdivisions.

Sleep on it.

Amazing to think that such an old-fashioned solution - sleep on it - could address a modern problem like losing millions of dollars.

Or losing a fight. After the hundredth late-night -scream-a-thon with Jose, Amy decided something wasn't working. Even when she felt she had valid reasons to be upset, her anger only seemed to make things worse: "I would start out feeling so confident that I was right and that Jose had to see that, and then hours later I was still screaming.

On her mother's advice, she decided to invoke something she called the twenty-four hour rule. Whenever she got mad at Jose and her desire to win kicked into high gear, she kept it to herself for at least twenty-four hours. Her goal wasn't to bottle up her emotions - she couldn't have that type of personality even if she tried - but to see how those emotions registered twenty-four hours after they first cropped up. If a day passed and she was still fuming, she'd broach the subject...if she wasn't quite so upset, she'd drop it altogether and ride the wave.....

A few months later, the twenty-four-hour rule had greatly diminished both the frequency and intensity of their arguments. Amy challenged some very ingrained ideas she had about conflict resolution - namely, that to resolve things you need to have conflicts. She also put aside her fear of losing a disagreement....in favour of a more measured approach.

Here's where economists and psychologists might agree "A time-out is a great idea," says clinical psychologist and family therapist Gerald Weeks, especially when couples "cannot deal with each other rationally."

The Endowment Effect

This is where we put an irrationally high value on our own stuff. It's a behavioural quirk that stems from our aversion to loss - when something's ours, we endow it with more meaning than things we don't own. And so we'll go to extremes not to lose it.

The endowment effect is why we'll charge $5 ...for a used economics textbook at our yard sale, but we won't pay a penny more than $2 for the same textbook at a yard sale down the block.

Very often (when we have arguments), we just don't want to lose. And that aversion to loss can be triggered by the high value we place on things that are dear to us.

Pro social motivation

Economists have discovered that all sorts of incentives backfire, even the ones long-considered fail-safe. For example, money. Not Wall Street bonus-type money, but regular amounts of money. It turns out paying people sometimes makes the not want to do things, like volunteer or get good grades. That's because the money "crowds out" the innate incentive to do good simple for the sake of doing good. In one recent experiment by a pair of Swedish economists, only 30% of women who were offered compensation for giving blood chose to donate, while 52% of women who weren't offered money donated anyway....

Sometimes the incentives that seem the weakest or the least likely to work - like telling people they're doing a great job, acknowledging someone's hard work, and trusting your partner, friend, or employee to not let you down - can be the most effective incentives of all.

Trusting

Trust someone to do the right thing, and odds are, if they aren't psychopaths or serial killers, they'll do it....

The fact is, we are far more likely to give when we feel trusted, and that has huge implications for marriage. In our survey, people said praise was twice as effective as nagging in incentivizing their spouses to do something they didn't want to do.

The Lemon Problem

Economists have a name for the too-good-to-be-true scenario: "the lemon problem." (It) refers, in part, to markets in which one person has more information than the other...and to all the bad stuff that can happen as a result.

Without information, we can't make informed decisions. And when we can't make informed decisions, we either make uninformed decisions, which can lead to disaster...or we opt out entirely....

To economists, information is essentially a good thing. The more we know, the more equipped we are to make smart decisions....

The same holds true of your marriage. A constant exchange of information is vital to keep your little economy humming. That's why you always call when you're running late, so your spouse knows to hold off on dinner. And that's why you never fail to speak up when your feelings are hurt, so your spouse knows to apologise.

Game Theory

As the economist Thomas Schelling says of game theory (and which could easily be confused with a definition of marriage): "Two or more individuals have choices to make, preferences regarding the outcomes, and some knowledge of the choices available to each other and of each other's preferences. The outcome depends on the choices that both of them make...The is no independently 'best' choice that one can make; it depends on what the other do.

With that in mind, here are three general strategies game theory offers for improving the outcomes of potentially sticky spousal situations.

1. Think ahead. How will he react to what I'm about to say or do? And how should that reaction influence my behaviour.

2. Learn from the past. How did she react the last time I did this? How can I do things differently now to avoid the same outcome?

3. Put yourself in his shoes. This doesn't mean considering what you would do if you were him, but what he would do if he were him, which he is.


The Mixed Strategy

You don't want to aim for the ideal outcome, you want to aim for the acceptable outcome. And you need to think what strategy can you suggest/put in place to make the acceptable outcome possible.

[Arukiyomi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Context: Finished this off on the bed with Shiraz for company.

Review:

Get two women together. One wants to write a book about economics and the other a book about marriage. The result is this curious arrangement. While it does contain some good tips here and there, I felt overall that some of the advice was a bit idealistic.

Each chapter is focussed on a different aspect of economic theory (bit yawny) and, using well-illustrated real-life example of marital issues, they then apply this theory to demonstrate how it can help to solve issues that couples run into. While some of this may well work for some couples, as I said, I thought some of the application was a bit idealistic. We are after all living, changing beings. Solutions that might work at one point in our marriage, may well cause problems at others.

Even worse, and this is where the book really falls down for me, we’re not rational rule-bound objects like pounds and pence. We’re anything but, especially at a time of conflict in a close relationship like marriage. For all sorts of reasons, we behave in ways that do not make sense economically because, when push comes to shove, it isn’t economy we’re motivated by. And when you’re in the deep end and thrashing to get out, someone explaining the technical theory of breast stroke from the side of the pool is only going to make you feel worse.

What I thought this book lacked was any admission that we are broken beings and always will be. There will always be conflict, within ourselves, with our spouses, with the world in general. The book didn’t seem to say to me, try this and, if it doesn’t work, know that you are in company. That makes sense. I mean, you don’t sell books by admitting that the advice your giving probably won’t work in most cases. But without the empathy such an admission brings, I felt the book was clinical and a bit cold. Dare I say ivory tower?

So, in the end, although it was an interesting idea, I felt that the book was a bit too simplistic. We can all attempt to follow patterns of behaviour that, ideally, will solve everything. In reality though, things don’t usually work out that way. At least that’s my reality. Habits are hard to break and even harder to form. At best I think this book will provide an idea or two for couples to try out and, if it works, good luck to ‘em. At worst, I think this could set some couples up for a fall as they take ideal solutions and apply them to less than ideal realities.

OPENING LINE

Who should do what?

99TH PAGE QUOTE

If you’ve got it, why not use it?

No reason, unless you care about something called “moral hazard” the danger that people with insurance will behave differently – sometimes taking greater risks – from those without it. Look at you, you had no qualms about racking up thousands in doctor’s bill (for a stomach ache that, let’s face it, was never gong to kill you) because it wasn’t your money you were risking.

In contrast, your friend Dina, a freelance art therapist who coincidentally had a mysterious stomach problem but had no insurance, went to a walk-in clinic, was prescribed an endoscopy, found out it would cost her $2,000 and decided to try lemon-ginger tea instead. Dina's problems didn’t go away immediately, either, but like yours, hers got better with time and a concerted effort to eat better and reduce stress. Total out-of-pocket expenses for Dina? Just $3.50 a week in teabags.

CLOSING LINE

If you look hard enough, there’s usually a Plan C that can resolve any battle of the sexes – whether it’s two vacations a year, sex in the afternoon, or the book you’ve just finished reading.

RATING

Key: Legacy | Plot / toPic | Characterisation / faCts | Readability | Achievement | Style Read more about how I come up with my ratings

[Anusha Jayaram · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was entertaining, but needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Because marriage isn't economics. I’d say it's probably closer to behavioral psychology. Nonetheless, neither is an exact science.

Putting stuff like this into frameworks can sometimes can be useful, and also entertaining. I know because I'm guilty of indulging in such speculations myself.
I remember I was discussing something quite similar with my husband several months ago – about patterns of decision making in a marriage. We realized that so many of the commonly-exercised marital behaviors actually ended up being to the obvious detriment of the couples involved.
And I remember mentioning that marriage is the ultimate illustration of game theory in an endless loop. The participants can either keep playing their cards with the objective of maximizing their combined benefit, or keep playing to minimize their individual loss.

Having said this however, there is an innate problem with trying to organize and compile all these analogies.
You could find frameworks to explain various phenomena or behaviors, but taken as a whole, many of them might end up contradicting one other, thus rendering the whole thing a purely academic (albeit entertaining) exercise without any real takeaway.

To list down, in no particular order, some of the contradictions that this book was rife with:
1. Demand-Supply curves vs. Veblen goods: while the authors argue that reducing the “cost” for any desired behavior / activity is likely to lead to an increase in demand, there is the equal and opposite puzzle of figuring out which goods/ services fall under the “Veblen” category in each marriage (and this would, naturally differ, on a case to case basis), and how to tackle those.
2. Information asymmetry vs. Partial Transparency in communication: the authors argue that information asymmetry (or a communication gap, as normal people would call it) is the cause for many unnecessary misunderstandings in a marriage (or anywhere, for that matter). In a subsequent chapter, they argue the merits of partial transparency of communication in a marriage, without sharing TMI (too much information).
3. Insurance in marriage vs. (ahem) Insurance in marriage: the authors spend an entire chapter extolling the virtues of “insurance” in marriage – the fact that you have someone to fall back on, for better or worse and all of that. In another chapter though, this very same insurance is bedeviled as the cause for certain people taking their spouses for granted. Again, an issue of negotiating and setting boundaries.

Agreed, there is a case to be made for balance in life, but when you start putting these things into frameworks, your argument starts to fall apart.
Bottom-line is that everything depends on where you draw the line on all these behaviours which, in real life, fall on a spectrum. And no economic theory is capable of explaining the quirky, fickle thing that is the human nature. And sometimes, the best advice is to just keep a calm head and play things by ear, rather than over-complicate it by writing hundreds of pages.

The good part is that the writing flows lightly and it is humorous. But after a point, all the stories seem to be more of the same. The couples all seem interchangeable, the same banking, trading, free-lancing, e-selling professionals.
Not to sound dismissive, but almost all of the "couple problems" presented in the book are not really problems at all. They're almost entirely First World Problems (FWPs), and again, are almost entirely created by the protagonists themselves. I cannot recall any case of a couple facing genuine adversity in their life, which is presented as a problem that they surmounted.
Also, I cannot believe the level of immaturity of some of the protagonists featured in the case studies. I assume of course, that the authors have ramped things up a bit to add spice to their narratives. But even after discounting half of the stuff they write, most the couples come off as either immature or shallow, or a combination of both. There, I’m sounding judgmental as hell, but I suppose the authors do have a point there - stories of more balanced couples might not make for entertaining reading.

As an aside: I initially found the reference to the authors’ “Exhaustive, Groundbreaking, and Very Expensive Marriage Survey” quite funny at first. But by the 200th repetition, the term started to lose its charm a bit, as far as I was concerned.

Overall, this book is a good read to flip through for some light reading. But I would recommend that no reader go into it looking for solutions, or “actionable advice”.

PS: The part about division of labour depending on each person’s competitive advantage was interesting in the logical point it makes, but I assume most couples figure this out within the first couple of years of marriage, anyway.

[5H3MS · Rating 5 out of 5]

Оригинальный тейк, разобрать семейные отношения с точки зрения рыночной экономики. Интересно было бы посмотреть коммунистический подход к семейным отношениям, особенно с учетом выражения “в СССР секса нет”)
В общем, неплохо. Стоит почитать.
ПС. Плюсик в карму переводчикам

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Saw this on a friend's to-read shelf, then it jumped out at me at my next library visit. I couldn't resist picking it up, I love the books applying economics to real life. Mostly, I liked this one.
The economics is pretty basic. No real novel stuff here. Relies on quite a bit of game theory, and even some not-so-reliable economics. Why on earth anyone would want to put Keynes in a book on marriage is beyond me, and if I were writing a book on economics he'd just be in the endnotes. :-) So this is a rather mainstream-towards-left economic interpretation. Another odd thing for me is that all the couples were pretty much yuppie types--most of them fairly young, city dwellers, with ginormous high-profile, high-pressure jobs. There were not a lot of typical Midwestern middle-class couples with normal jobs. Also there seemed to be little, if any, religious influence on any of the couples profiled, except the one couple out of the book that ended up getting divorced. The language was occasionally bad, always self-consciously trendy, and the sex discussions were a lot franker than I liked.
Also, while I'm happy to see discussions like this for "on the margins", the little details of how to solve small problems, I'm a little unsettled by using this as a GENERAL approach to marriage. It seems to me that focusing on common values and commitment and genuine, sacrificial love is a lot better basic foundation, although deciding who will do the dishes might benefit from an "economic" approach. I guess I'm a little troubled by the authors' tone of "If you want your husband to do x, then just have sex." That seemed to be the prescription for rather a lot of troubles.
I guess I'd love to see this general idea treated again, but instead applied to couples more like me--the kind who did things a bit more traditionally. We do still exist. :-)

[Natalie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read the "It's Not You, It's the Dishes" edition of this book. Usually I eschew self-helpy relationship books as I despise with a great and searing passion the whole notion of Mars vs Venus BS. (I view evolutionary psychology with a great deal of skepticism peppered with contempt for the MASSIVELY overreaching theories that seem to keep spinning out of that field.) THIS book however does not presume that your chromosomal distribution dictates anything other the occasional need for Midol or a jock strap. What it does do is assume that 1) You are in a relationship with a generally well-adjusted person who wants to work with you to create the best possible relationship for you both(do not use this book to make relationships with crazy dead-beat losers of either gender work. You will not change them.) 2) That you subscribe to the Rolling Stones theory of relationships- you can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need and 3) you and your partner are generally rational (big assumption sometimes). It's a great book, full of fabulous advice and should be issued to anyone in a committed, long-term relationship. Because it is based on the interaction of two individuals who are trying to achieve the best possible relationship given the possibilities, gender isn't as important so would apply pretty well to same-sex relationships as well.

The ONLY bone I have to pick with it relates to a non-essential example of the theory of moral hazard and their choice of health care and health insurance as an illustration. Poor example and just wrong, but not relevant to the point of that chapter.

I might actually give it a second read (which I NEVER do) just to be sure I haven't missed anything the first time around. Highly recommended for anyone who is seeking to improve their ability to be the best partner possible and to find a happy equilibrium with someone they love.

[Youghourta · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب يستعرض أهم المشاكل التي تتخلّل أيّة حياة زوجية وتحاول اقتراح حلول لها من نظرة اقتصادية بحتة.
الكتاب مبني على عشرات اللقاءات مع أزواج مُختلفين (بما فيها الكاتبتين وزوجيهما) تستعرض مُختلف المشاكل التي تواجه الأزواج، وتحاول بناء حل من نظرة اقتصادية مبنية على دراسة 3 أزواج مُختلفين يُعانون من نفس المُشكل.

ستجد في هذا الكتاب استعراضًا لمبادئ اقتصادية، مثل مفهوم "العرض والطلب"، نظرية الألعاب، تحليل التكلفة والفائدة، بعض من جوانب الاقتصاد السلوكي وغيرها. قد تعتقد بأن الحياة الزوجية أبعد ما تكون من مثل هذه المُصطلحات، لكن يبدو بأن مؤسسة الزواج لا تختلف عن غيرها من المؤسسات الاقتصادية (أو غير الاقتصادية) وتُعاني من مشاكل مُماثلة، يُمكن حلّها بالاستعانة بالنظريات والحلول التي أثبتت نجاعتها في عالم الاقتصاد.

فعلى سبيل المثال لا الحصر، هل تذكر الأزمة التي عصفت بالاقتصاد العالمي سنة 2008 وتسببت في أزمات في مُختلف البلدان؟ تبين الأمر أن العديد من المُستثمرين كانوا يعتقدون بأن السوق سيستمر في النمو بشكل دائم رغم المؤشرات العديدة التي كانت تُشير إلى غير ذلك، وأنه يجب على الجميع الاستثمار في سوق العقار حينها، إلى أن وقعت الكارثة وانفجرت تلك الفقاعة وعصفت بالكثيرين. يبيّن الكتاب بأن أمرًا مُماثلًا يحصل للأزواج عادة، حيث ما يقع العديد من الأزواج في مغبّة الاعتقاد الزائف بأن زواجهم بصحّة جيّدة وأنه في تحسن مستمر، لكن جميع المؤشرات التي تشير إلى عكس ذلك (مؤشّرات يتم تجاهلها عن قصد أو عن غير قصد) إلى أن يقع الفأس على الرأس وتقع الكارثة.

مثال آخر، وهذه المرة مع نظرية الألعاب، حيث يستعرض الكتاب أمثلة مُختلفة لكيفية استخدام بعض مفاهيم نظرية الألعاب للوصول إلى حلول ترضي الطرفين بشكل أفضل لما لا يكون تنفيذ ما يرغب فيه أحد الطرفين مُمكنًا.

قد يكون استعمال بعض النظريات الاقتصادية في بعض الحالات التي وردت في هذا الكتاب مُتكلّفة بعض الشّيء، إلا أنه بشكل عام يعرض أفكارًا وحلولًا ربما لم تفكّر بها من قبل (أو تبدو مُخالفة للمتوقع) لمشاكل زوجية كثيرة.

الكتاب سيكون مُفيدًا -في نظري- للمُتزوّجين حديثًا أو قديمًا أو حتى للمُقبلين على الزواج على حد سواء.

[Gena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don't base your decision to read on my rating. My husband and I have been friends since elementary and best friends for years before dating. I say we are best friends with benefits. Do we have our conflicts? Absolutely. But we talk them through like mature adults, we don't fight, we don't lie or sneak, no childish games and we are a team in everything we do.

I read this book because I was nerdy curious about the economic parallels and I wasn't disappointed in the way logic was applied to emotional situations. The approaches in the book are ones I already practice the explanations behind them were slightly different as it was from an economic approach.

Alas, not being the full target demographic while also being curious about the approach I land on a 3.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

My girlfriend and I are planning to move in together soon. She suggested that we could read a couple of books to try to have some proactive rather than reactive ideas about how to avoid conflicts. A friend suggested two books to her. This is one of them. I do not recommend it to you.

That's not to say I took no value whatsoever from the book. I think there were times where it presented some basic ideas that I hadn't really thought of, such as: Dividing all chores 50/50 is actually inviting conflict because it sets up keeping score about who does more or who does chores better, and that it's best to have an idea of which person is good at (or less bothered by) what chores so that they don't add so much stress to either person.

I think the target audience for the book was more along the lines of couples who have been married for 10-20 years, have kids, and are vaguely or specifically dissatisfied with aspects of their marriage. The gimmick of the book is that each idea is explained via some principle of economics. In practice, this takes a transactional approach to relationships that to me seemed extremely sad.

This is particularly but not exclusively evident in those times where it brings up the idea of some night where the husband wants to have sex and the wife doesn't. There is no concept of "No means no" here; a man reading the book is not encouraged to accept the boundary, nor to confront a feeling that he has some entitlement towards having sex just because he wants to have sex; and a woman reading the book is not empowered to set a boundary. Sex is talked about in terms of supply and demand, in terms of marginal costs and marginal benefits, and so on. Maybe there are people out there where this is what they need to hear, but to me the fact that the book completely glosses over discussing where these attitudes might cause a real problem is not great.

There are other things that are less serious but also more continuously grating, like the fact that the writing is so droll that this is annoying rather than charming - a clear affectation rather than a genuinely expressed attitude.

In the very last chapter, the authors use themselves and the writing of this book to illustrate an example of one of their principles. They are friends, and they write that one of them wanted to write a relationship book and the other wanted to write an economics book... so they compromised with this relationship-economics book. Neither of them got exactly what they wanted but they still got to spend time writing a book with their friend, and that's OK, they say. I agree with the idea that for friendships and relationships it's not a bad thing to find these compromises that aren't exactly what either person wants but still leaves them mostly happy. But when it comes to the writing of a book where two topics that have little in common are being blended together, I don't know if that's a recipe for a successful book. Certainly not to this reader.

[Gregg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes! This frames problems in the form of economic theories—to which I can relate. Then it shows you how to apply the economic solutions to achieve optimal results in your relationship. Recommended for thinkers that trend towards the logical end of the spectrum.

[Marie Johnston · Rating 2 out of 5]

Anecdotal stories are the core of this book, which in the realm of self help books I actually find to be the least helpful. Sure a story to illustrate the economic principle is helpful to ground the idea into real life. But there are on occasion up to 3 stories for one idea. I would have preferred a more in depth description of the concepts themselves. The tone of the writing also at time feels condescending towards the reader but perhaps this is the voice of the audiobook spoiling it.

[Tiffany Seelye · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book! A must read for anyone in a long term relationship. Great advice for all types of couples.

[Diana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Много практически полезной и применимой информации. Особенно понравилась аналогия брака с теорией игр.

После этой книги снова веришь в счастливый и долгий брак.

[Jessica (Books: A true story) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spousonomics is a marriage book that appeals to the logical side of your brain, written with a lot of sarcasm and humor to make it fun to read.  I liked that it didn't go into "feelings" and crap (and thank heavens there was no personal quiz/workbook at the end).  It focuses on practical ways to solve common marriage problems with economic principals.  It doesn't seem like economics should be applicable to marriage, but economics is the study of allocating scarce resources and marriage is full of scarcity.  Not enough time, energy, mental capacity, money, sex etc.  It talks about weighing the costs and benefits of solutions.  Trading with your spouse.  In fact, I think taking emotion and feelings out of the problems helps you actually solve them.

Here's an example from the book.  A couple is having a "game of chicken" to see who will break down and go to the grocery store first. The book compares this kind of argument to the Cold War between President Kennedy and President Khrushchev:

Now replace Kennedy and Khrushchev with Joel and Lisa.  And replace the nuclear missiles with Joel and Lisa's refrigerator, which has been empty for three days.  Husband and wife are in a standoff, neither one backing down.  They're been ordering in from Gino's Pizza every night this week, and they're never had such indigestion in their lives.  But god help Joel if he's going to go to the supermarket..

-Locations 4460-5171, Kindle Edition

So what's the economic solution to that argument? Answer: Collusion.  Collusion means giving up the information you've been withholding so you can make an actual compromise.  Collusion is actually illegal to do in the business world, but it can work out really nice in a marriage.  If each side shares honestly why they won't go to the grocery store, then they can compromise.  Most marriage books would point out that yeah, they need to compromise.  And then talk about how important your husband's feelings are blah blah blah.  I like this solution better. Much more practical.

Each chapter discusses an economic principal and how it applies to marriage.  Then there are three specific examples, called Case Studies, of how those principles can solve a problem.  I found myself relating to a lot of these stories.  The burnt out housewife.  The house chores no one wants to do.  I felt like the case studies gave me ideas instead of preaching to me.  Marriage books can be so preachy.

The authors gathered tons of data to write this book because economics is all about making decisions based on data.  It's like Freakonomics for your marriage.  I like that it challenged traditional solutions and gender roles.  If you want a fresh, interesting way to look at your marriage with creative solutions to common problems, you should check out Spousonomics.

[Jamie Kline · Rating 3 out of 5]

My opinion: Usually I don't read books on marriage help, thinking I've got everything all figured out. I admit now I was wrong; thanks to this book, I have learned a lot of tips and tricks to make my marriage better. The authors use common terms and concepts normally used in economics and apply it to marriage. Better yet, they throw in case studies of couples that used these approaches with great results. It helped to cement the fact that although some of these ideas seem small, they can have a big impact. Such as, when approacing the concept of chores, it's more efficient to assign tasks based on who does which chore better (quicker); this was the concept of specialization. It might not be the chore you enjoy the most, but the quicker these unpleasant tasks get done, the more time you have to spend with your spouse. Another concept I found very interesting was loss aversion. People hate losing and most arguments turn into who can win, and lose the bigger picture of why they're even fighting. They point out that it is best to "sleep on it". If it still bothers you in the morning, confront your spouse; if not, then let it go. I guess you could also call it "picking your battles" or "don't sweat the small stuff". A lot of sections of this book had me chuckling to myself and in a lot of the case studies I could relate to some of their struggles. The economics portions were quite boring to me, but it is obviously essential to the book, relating ideas in economics to marriage, and the authors did explain all of the concepts very thoroughly so that even someone with no economics knowledge (for example, ME!) could understand. All in all, this book was very informative, witty, and definitely brought up some good points. I will definitely be using some of these tips and tricks to better my marriage (guess I'll be doing the laundry from now on, even though I hate it...hey if it means more time with my hubby it's worth a shot!)

My rating: 3/5 stars

[Katherine · Rating 2 out of 5]

This could have been a really interesting, useful, and informative book in the hands of someone like Jonah Lehrer, but sadly it was written with a really annoyingly cutesy wink wink tone, like lots of "oh look how clever we are for learning all this gosh darn difficult economics terms!!" Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I felt like somewhere along the way, either the writers or their editors or whatnot thought, "economics = math and women are scared of math, yet we expect this to be mostly read by women, so let's dumb it down and make it Approachable." Ugh, I didn't have the patience for that at all while reading this book.

In some places there was too much on the economic theory and not enough on the useful application of the concept to relationship, while in others there could have been a lot more done to talk about contradictions between advice they've given in previous chapters. Not very good at helping you synthesize it all, unlike in How We Decide. Some good ideas here and I did learn a few things but mostly I'm irritated about it falling so far short of its potential.

[Michelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has the potential to be really great but I felt that the authors tried too hard to make it a girly-cute-get-a-glass-of-wine-and-gab-with-your-friends kind of book. I really did like the premise though and if more people looked at their marriages as more of a business arrangement than perhaps more marriages would actually work out ... There always has to be give and take and breaking down these situations made the material more accessible.

I enjoyed the beginning of the book a lot more than the second half and felt very good about my personal relationship after reading the chapter on the division of labour - especially when I realized that my boyfriend and I have actually had a lot of these conversations very early on and were in a good place in that department.

The authors made a point of referencing how to fix some relationship aspects so that way there was a lot less "fighting" and a lot more sex - and maybe they are on to something. Perhaps, this is the perfect book for those married friends that don't seem to be on the same page and could use some comic relief along with this marriage therapy ;)

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was a book about the economics of marriage. It is not. It is about using economic thinking to help our marriages.

1. Division of Labor- Ricardo: each does what he/she is good at for optimal outcome
2. Loss aversion - ignore sunk cost when considering options. Just because one has invested in a postgrad program, may not mean it worthwhile to complete it if studies are affecting our marriage.
3. Supply and Demand- lower the cost of sex and we can have more of it
4. Moral hazard - don’t let your spouse free-ride
5. Incentives - material incentives do not last; love and affection do
6. Trade-offs - pick your battle
7. Asymmetric information - be open about your feelings; your spouse can’t mind read
8. Intertemporal choice- let small mistakes slide
9. Bubbles- honeymoon year is a bubble; be prepared for the crash
10. Game Theory - opposite of Prisoner’s dilemma; do collude with your spouse for optimal outcome

It’s a nice book, and the Writers had commissioned a ‘comprehensive, large and very expensive’ study, including questionnaires and couple interviews to arrive at this book.

[Sharon · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not great. The economic theory is basic and the applications to marriage are tenuous at best. The authors never account for their own confirmation biases or the limitations of their own survey (What was the subject population? How do you account for self-selection? What were the controls?) and the "case studies" they offered were laughably bad in their attempts to show how "really knowing about [this one bit of economics] changed everything for this one couple, aha!" Correlation is not causation, data is not the plural of anecdote and so forth. There's also no attention paid to the limitations of the studies that they cite. (One of my peeves with these "layman's terms" type books is that they rarely delve into how often findings in studies are culturally bound. There's a recurrence to "But Science!" that is very shortsighted.) The tone was also a weird mix of overly chummy, smug, and super heteronormative. I would not recommend this book.

[Christina · Rating 1 out of 5]

I slowly got 60% through this book. I went in expecting a Malcolm Gladwell or Freakonomics tone but instead this was all drawn out drivel. The length could be cut in half if they shortened all the anecdotes, which have a recurring theme of women who don't have enough sex with their husbands, mainly because they are too tired from the disproportionate amount of work they do at home. I didn't even realize this book was written by two women until I decided to stop reading, after an anecdote of a woman who didn't want to sleep with a guy too soon for fear of being what the book literally spells out as a "s-l-u-t." There was so much misogyny between the lines that I thought this was written by a man. I should have stopped reading 50 pages earlier when there was a story about a couple where the husband said he wanted more blowjobs (surprisingly not spelled out with dashes between each letter) and less backrubs.

[Tony · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've been wanting to read this since its publication. I wish I hadn't. It's all about applications of formal models, but superficially and sometimes in tortured ways. I was hoping for a literature review on marital research by economists, which is a rich field.
If you don't already know your microeconomics 101, this might be an interesting read for you, but not generally recommended.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was funny and thought-provoking and addictive. I enjoyed that nearly all the couples were introduced with the stories of how they met, so it's not just unrelenting tales of woe and economic theory. Instead, it's, "This is what these people were like when they were adorable and newly in love...and this is how it all went awry...and this is how economics saved the day!"

I can't tell you yet whether the book is going to have any impact on my own marriage, but it was at least fun food for thought.

[Jenna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Altogether, a very informational and relate-able book. It highlights a lot of important aspects of marriage that are points of contention, and it tells us how we can bring in economics to fix them. The only thing I did not like about it was that there was a lot more numbers and economics facts in it than actual relationship facts and studies. It got confusing at times with its statistics, but I definitely enjoyed Spousonomics and will definitely recommend to other couples.

[Leezie · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's rare that a book manages to cover two seemingly different genres so seamlessly and make it eminently understandable. This book does this in spades. I so enjoyed this book and I think everyone in a committed relationship should read it because I guarantee that everyone at some time has encountered the problems they outline and then solve using economics.