Recently I bought some stuff from ebay. It is fun.
Ebay is a true marketplace. You can find a variety of products from all brands and non-brands.
Sometimes, it is hard to see the difference between expensive brand products and lower priced non-brand products. A tie from a well-known Italian house, priced $147, and a dirt cheap import from China, priced $2.99, can look equally good. That makes me wonder what really determines the value and price in a market.
When everything competes in an efficient market like ebay, the justification I give to myself can be very arbitrary.
When I look for something but don't have much time, sometimes I just rely on the brand's name. But if I have time to look at many products, it is an opportunity for education. I come to realize what I like by going through many. I am acquiring education and experience virtually. I can move from being naive to having my standard very quickly. And it is good.
Some time ago, I heard a theory that many people apply the same process to people. To them, other people are a service or a product. Although it does not sound ethical or good, I see the point in the theory. The theory fits well to another more accepted "incentive theory", which is saying many people ask "what's in it for me" in order to make their decision.
If you see it that way, dating service websites and job matching sites are basically ebay for people. We tend to try to differentiate ourselves. We want to be "good" or valuable in the market in a certain way. All this personal branding is effort to increase his/her value in the market.
The problem is, you cannot be good at everything. That's why we use strategies, consciously or not, to increase our value. A usual strategy is to choose a market, or set up your own standard and limit your competition in the market of your choice. Introducing inefficiency to the market you are in, so to speak. For example, if you cannot beat a guy in a boxing match, just don't box with him. So you can effectively avoid competition with him in the "boxing" market. Do something else that you can do better.
I see there will be a desire to counter this trend. A desire for equality and anonymity. Many religions cater to the desire by claiming "all men are equal before God". I am certain the claim is soothing to many, especially to the people who strongly feel they are not very competitive in the general market. They would like to interpret the claim as there is no need for market competition, or the winning or losing there does not matter.
This line of thought may explain, at least in part, why a large segment of religious people are the poor, the weak, the old, the ordinary, the under-educated, the unsuccessful and the losers. They are tired of the competition in a general market (where they don't win), and they choose to operate in a new market, namely in their church/temple, where they are evaluated only by how well they follow their religious teachings and dogmas. Success or failure in the general market does not matter there. The standard, the rule of the game, is different there. This may also explain why some religious people are so eager at enforcing their religion and their rules to others. It is with vengeance and it is personal. Phew.
Above is just a hypothesis that applies only to a segment of people. Unfortunately I cannot tell you how many people fit to the theory. Most likely they don't want to admit it even if it is true to them. Also, this hypothesis can be controvertial enough, and I don't really wish to confront heated or angry argument at this moment (or any time). I will leave this hypothesis to the people who find it interesting.
