In a nostalgic dive into my digital archives, I stumbled upon a detailed analysis I penned years ago, dissecting the rationality of the protagonist in Carly Rae Jepsen’s iconic song, “Call Me Maybe.” As we embark on a new year, let’s revisit the insights of my 2012 self, who sought to defend the rational underpinnings of this undeniably catchy pop anthem.
Recently, a friend directed me to an intriguing analysis (and another insightful piece) of Carly Rae Jepsen’s chart-topping hit, “Call Me Maybe.” However, I found both analyses to be fundamentally flawed. As a genuine admirer of the song, I believe it deserves a more fitting interpretation. Thus, I present my own take on the matter, adhering to the blog post’s convention of treating the song lyrics as the definitive narrative, rather than the events depicted in the (albeit amusing) music video.
My primary contention with the aforementioned analyses lies in their application of game theory, rather than individual decision theory. Initially, this might seem counterintuitive. Isn’t the scenario inherently about at least two rational individuals, where the outcome hinges on the choices of both? Such situations are typically the domain of game theory, as opposed to individual decision theory. Both linked analyses appear to subscribe to this notion, framing their approach around determining Carly’s optimal strategy based on their perceived payoff matrix within the song’s narrative.
However, “Call Me Maybe” doesn’t actually delineate a payoff matrix. While we gain a clear understanding of Carly’s desires, our knowledge of the person she’s attempting to contact remains remarkably limited. We glean that he is male (indicated by the reference to “other boys”), emotionally reserved (taking time to call and initially offering “nothing at all”), prone to intense staring (“stare was holding”), and casually dressed (“ripped jeans, skin was showin'”). This scant information hardly provides a basis for constructing a definitive payoff matrix for this enigmatic figure. The situation is further complicated by the ambiguity surrounding the rationality of the second agent. Carly herself labels her actions as “crazy,” while the man’s behavior is characterized by emotional detachment and prolonged staring. Given the well-documented challenges game theory encounters when dealing with non-rational actors, and considering the informational deficit – neither Carly nor the analysts possess sufficient data to formulate a payoff matrix for the man – I argue that employing game theory to model this interaction is fundamentally misdirected.
Carly Rae Jepsen Call Me Maybe Music Video
Alt text: Carly Rae Jepsen performing in the “Call Me Maybe” music video, showcasing her energetic and playful stage presence.
This is not to say that the scenario cannot be effectively modeled using decision theory. In fact, I believe a straightforward decision-theoretic model elegantly explains the logic underpinning Carly’s actions and sheds light on some of the song’s more cryptic lyrics.
Despite the vague setting – Carly herself admits she’ll “never tell” the specifics, though the line “pennies and dimes for a kiss” hints at a club or bar – Carly has encountered a man who has captured her attention. Lacking substantial information about him (“I just met you”), she nonetheless feels a strong attraction (“I took no time with the fall”), likely fueled by his physical appeal (“It’s hard to look right at you baby”). Driven by this attraction, she contemplates exchanging contact information, hoping he will reciprocate her interest with a call (“Here’s my number // Call me, maybe?”). However, the realities of romance, particularly with unfamiliar individuals, introduce an element of risk. Carly must consider a crucial question: if she initiates contact, is there a possibility this person might be undesirable – a “jerkface,” to put it bluntly? If he were to be unpleasant, she might prefer to avoid any interaction altogether. This apprehension about potential negative outcomes, I contend, is the root of her hesitant “Call me, maybe?” refrain.
To simplify the spectrum of undesirable traits into a binary of “nice” versus “not nice,” we can construct a decision table that elucidates Carly’s dilemma:
| He is Nice | He is Not Nice | |
|---|---|---|
| Give him her number | Best Case Scenario | Worst Case Scenario |
| Don’t give him her number | Meh Scenario | Meh Scenario |
It’s unnecessary for Carly to dwell on the scenario where she withholds her number when making her decision. If she chooses not to engage, his character becomes largely irrelevant to her outcome, resulting in a neutral “meh” scenario regardless of his nature. Therefore, her concern about his character only becomes pertinent if she decides to proceed and give him her number. Consequently, her decision hinges primarily on the first row of the table.
Assuming that the best and worst-case scenarios hold equal weight in her consideration compared to the neutral “meh” scenario, standard decision theory suggests that Carly’s decision boils down to a simple probability assessment: is he more likely to be nice or not nice? If she believes niceness is more probable, giving her number increases her chances of achieving the best-case scenario. Conversely, if she anticipates unpleasantness, she risks the worst-case scenario. Thus, the rational strategy emerges: proceed with giving her number if he appears nice, and refrain if he doesn’t.
This framework allows us to interpret the song’s narrative, even its more ambiguous lines, as reflections of her internal deliberations on this very matter. For instance, her repeated references to interactions with other men (“All the other boys try to chase me” in the chorus) can be understood as Carly contemplating the historical frequency of positive versus negative outcomes in similar encounters. (From a frequentist interpretation of probability, this historical data becomes particularly relevant). Another lyric, “I beg and borrow and steal,” highlights Carly’s proactive efforts to gather information about the man. She even explicitly acknowledges – and praises – her own judgment in assessing character with the line “Have foresight and it’s real.”
Ultimately, she concludes that, despite acknowledging it as “crazy,” she will indeed give him her number. Our final task is to decipher why she perceives this action as irrational. We can dismiss the possibility that she has definitively determined him to be nice. If she were certain of his niceness, giving her number wouldn’t be considered “crazy.” Therefore, the “This is crazy” line can be interpreted in two ways, depending on whether we ascribe rationality to Carly’s final decision.
The first, less generous interpretation suggests that after deliberation, Carly concludes that he is more likely to be unpleasant than pleasant, yet she still decides to give him her number, fully aware of the potential irrationality. She labels her action “crazy” because she recognizes its deviation from a purely rational calculation. This interpretation could also explain her “beg and borrow and steal” behavior – perhaps attempts to impress someone she perceives as a “bad boy.” Similarly, his emotional aloofness (“You gave me nothing at all”) could be a manifestation of the “jerkface” archetype – someone indifferent to the feelings of their romantic interest.
However, I find this interpretation less appealing. It portrays Carly as irrational, a characterization I’d prefer to avoid. Furthermore, there are philosophical complexities in understanding how we could ascertain Carly’s preferences in a way that justifies this irrational portrayal. Finally, her subsequent happiness with the relationship and expression of gratitude (“Before you came into my life I missed you so bad… and you should know that”) suggest a more positive initial motivation. Thus, I favor a second, more charitable interpretation that preserves Carly’s rationality.
This second interpretation, admittedly more intricate, unfolds as follows: Carly feels compelled to make an immediate decision (“he is ‘in my way'”) due to time constraints or situational pressure. This immediacy precludes further information gathering. Unfortunately, she feels she lacks sufficient information to make a confident judgment. Therefore, possibly invoking the principle of indifference, she assesses the probability of him being nice as equal to the probability of him being unpleasant. In this scenario of equipoise, giving him her number becomes just as rational as withholding it. She then takes a chance, employing a form of randomization – perhaps unconsciously – to lean towards the optimistic course of action and offer her number. Loosely, she describes this as “crazy.” Strictly speaking, it’s a perfectly rational act given her limited information and desires, but the chorus “Hey, I just met you // and this is a rationally permissible but non-obligatory action// here’s my number // so call me, maybe?” lacks the pop-music appeal. Moreover, we can easily understand her sense of exhilaration as she takes this leap of faith – venturing into the unknown, embracing romantic risk after rational deliberation has reached its limits. This romantic interpretation, I submit, is a more fitting understanding of the song’s enduring appeal.
Alt text: Lyric visual for “Call Me Maybe” by Carly Rae Jepsen, highlighting key phrases like “Hey I just met you” and “Call me maybe,” capturing the song’s catchy and memorable lines.
