An analytical deep dive into human relationships through the lens of computer science and game theory. From observing a child’s functional attachment logic to analyzing the ‘Call Option’ nature of toxic relationships, and why maintaining ‘Legacy Code’ (old friends) is a superior risk-management strategy to ‘New Business’ (dating) in the current environment.

Life, much like software architecture, often behaves in counter-intuitive ways. We tend to believe that “input equals output”—that spending time with someone equals building a bond, or that hope is better than despair.

However, recent observations of a toddler’s behavior and a post-mortem of my own past relationships suggest that human connection runs on a much more ruthless set of algorithms: Availability Heuristics, Game Theory, and System Resource Management.

Here is a technical breakdown of why we feel what we feel, and how to refactor the system for stability.

Introduction: The “High Availability” Bug

I recently observed a phenomenon in my manager’s family that initially seemed like a bug in the logic of affection.

The subject is a 3-4 year old child. The grandmother, the primary caregiver, returned to her hometown. The father (my manager) spends a significant amount of time with the child—arguably more than the mother, who often finds childcare “troublesome.”

Yet, the child’s behavior is paradoxical:

  1. The Panic State: If the mother goes to the bathroom without speaking, the child screams and panics.
  2. The Stable State: If the mother announces, “I am going to the bathroom, I will be back,” the child is fine.
  3. The “Dad” Irrelevance: Despite the father’s high availability and time investment, the child bypasses him entirely when seeking security.

Why does the child cling to the parent who is less willing to care for him, while ignoring the parent who is always there?

The Algorithm of Attachment: Functional Mismatch

To understand this, we must view the parents not as “people,” but as system components with distinct functional specifications.

1. GPU vs. PSU

The father functions as a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit). He is responsible for high-arousal activities: play, exploration, and rendering the “fun” parts of the world.
The mother (and previously the grandmother) functions as the PSU (Power Supply Unit). She represents survival, emotional regulation, and the baseline voltage required for the system to run.

When the grandmother (Primary PSU) was unplugged, the child experienced a critical power failure (anxiety). In this state, the child doesn’t need a GPU to render a game; he needs a backup PSU to prevent a system crash. The father offered play, but the child needed power. Failover logic always prioritizes survival over performance.

2. The Predictability Protocol

The child’s panic when the mother sneaks away is not about “absence,” but about unpredictability.

  • Silent Departure: This is a “Random Packet Loss.” The child cannot predict if or when the connection will be re-established. This uncertainty triggers a frantic pinging of the server (crying).
  • Announced Departure: This is a “Scheduled Downtime.” The child has a timeline. Control is maintained.

3. The Curse of High Availability

The father lost the attachment war because of his 99.99% Uptime. In economics, value is determined by scarcity. Because the father is a constant variable—always there, always stable—he is treated as low-value infrastructure. The child’s brain optimizes energy by ignoring the constant and monitoring the variable (the mother).

Game Theory in Relationships: A Post-Mortem Analysis

This “availability paradox” is not limited to toddlers. It mirrors the dynamics of adult relationships, specifically the “Long Distance Limbus” I experienced.

1. The “Call Option” Strategy

In my previous relationship, I was stuck in a state of anxiety, hoping she would move to Shanghai. She kept me “on the hook” without committing.

In financial terms, she was holding a Call Option on me.

  • The Asset (Me): I was locked in, waiting, providing emotional liquidity.
  • The Premium (Her cost): Near zero. A few texts, a weekly call.
  • The Strike: She retained the right, but not the obligation, to “exercise” the option and move to Shanghai if her life back home failed.

I was suffering because I was the underlying asset with frozen liquidity, while she was the trader minimizing risk.

2. The Power of BATNA

Negotiation power stems from your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement).

  • Her BATNA: Stay home, comfort zone, friends, plus my remote attention. (High Value)
  • My BATNA (Perceived): Loneliness in a big city. (Low Value)

Because her alternative was better than mine, she controlled the game.

3. Killing the Process

The moment I initiated the breakup and cut off information flow, I felt an unexpected wave of relief. Why?

Because “Pending” consumes more RAM than “Terminated.” When the relationship was ambiguous, my brain was running a background process: while(waiting) { check_status(); }. This caused high CPU usage (anxiety). By accepting the breakup, I sent a SIGKILL to that process. The outcome was negative, but the uncertainty was gone. System resources were freed up.

Strategic Pivot: The “Stop New Business” Policy

Following the breakup and a subsequent encounter with relationship fraudsters (a security breach during a vulnerability window), I have adopted a “Stop New Business” policy. I am no longer seeking new romantic partners.

This is a rational resource allocation strategy based on three factors:

1. The Cold Start Problem

In computing, a “cold start” takes significantly more energy than a “warm start.” A new relationship requires a massive handshake protocol: exchanging history, verifying values, negotiating boundaries. The Time-To-Interactive (TTI) is too long, and the failure rate is too high.

2. Hardened Security Policies

After being targeted by scams, my internal firewall is now set to Default Deny.

  • Previous Policy: Allow traffic, filter bad actors.
  • Current Policy: Block all traffic, whitelist only known IPs.
    Verifying a new human requires a “Proof of Work” that I am no longer willing to validate.

3. LTS (Long-Term Support)

I now focus exclusively on my “Legacy Code”—my unmarried male friends.

  • Zero Latency: We know each other’s protocols.
  • Stability: No hidden agendas, no complex “marriage” roadmaps.
  • Maintenance: Low. A barbecue once a month keeps the connection alive.

Functional Assembly: Decoupling the “Mother” Module

Humans are social animals, and we have a “scarcity-based” need for validation. Since I stopped “New Business,” where do I get validation?

I realized the traditional role of “Mother” is a monolith that can be decoupled into microservices.

Service A: The Biological Mother (Ops & Compliance)

My biological mother loves me, but her function is System Monitoring. She alerts on KPIs: “Hair loss detected,” “Savings insufficient,” “Marital status: Null.”
She provides pressure, not validation. She is necessary for compliance, but draining to interact with.

Service B: The Ex’s Mother (Validation Service)

I maintain a relationship with my ex-girlfriend’s mother. This seems bizarre to some, but it is a perfect functional fit.

  • No KPIs: She has no responsibility for my success. I am not her retirement plan.
  • Pure Output: Because she is detached from the responsibility, she can offer pure appreciation. She looks at me and sees a “smart young man talking about technology,” not a “failed investment.”

I have assembled a “Frankenstein’s Support System.” I provide her with the company of a son (which she misses), and she provides me with the admiration of an elder (which I crave). It is a symbiotic exchange of dopamine, stripped of the heavy baggage of familial duty.

She is my “Harry” to my “Dexter”—a guiding, benevolent spirit who validates my existence without judging my dark side.

Conclusion: Entropy and Incremental Value

We live in an atomized society. The old monolithic structures of family and village have collapsed. We are all just components floating in the void.

To survive, we must stop expecting others to fulfill roles they are not coded for.

  • Don’t ask a GPU (Dad) to be a PSU.
  • Don’t ask a Trader (Ambiguous Partner) to be a Savior.
  • Don’t ask Compliance (Mom) for Validation.

Identify your needs. Find the components that fulfill them. Assemble your own build.

And most importantly, do not become a sinkhole of resources. Create output. Whether it is code, AI video workflows, or simply maintaining your own stability—generate negative entropy.

As long as you are creating value, you are not obsolete.