Carly Rae Jepsen’s “Call Me Maybe” isn’t just a catchy pop tune; it’s a cultural phenomenon that has inspired countless sing-alongs and analyses. While some dissect its romantic dynamics through the lens of game theory, a deeper dive reveals a more nuanced interpretation rooted in individual decision theory. This analysis revisits the song’s enduring appeal, moving beyond strategic interactions to explore the rationality behind the main character’s seemingly impulsive actions in the face of romantic uncertainty.
Several analyses have attempted to decode “Call Me Maybe” using game theory, suggesting that the song presents a strategic interaction between two individuals. These interpretations often focus on outlining the optimal strategy for Carly Rae Jepsen’s character to maximize her chances of a favorable romantic outcome. However, such approaches may miss a crucial point: the song’s narrative doesn’t provide sufficient information to construct a typical game theory payoff matrix.
Game theory thrives on understanding the payoffs and potential moves of all players involved. In “Call Me Maybe,” we gain insight into Carly’s desires – she clearly wants the object of her affection to call her. Yet, our knowledge about the other person is limited. We know he is male, not immediately expressive, prone to staring, and dressed in “ripped jeans.” This sparse description hardly provides a foundation for assigning a concrete payoff matrix to his actions and motivations.
Furthermore, the song itself casts doubt on whether the interaction involves two fully rational agents, a core assumption of game theory. Carly describes her own behavior as “crazy,” and the man’s actions are characterized by emotional distance and prolonged staring. Given the complexities game theory encounters when dealing with potentially irrational actors and the lack of sufficient information to define the other person’s payoffs, applying game theory to model this romantic encounter appears to be a misstep.
Instead of game theory, individual decision theory offers a more insightful framework for understanding the logic of “Call Me Maybe.” This approach focuses on Carly’s individual decision-making process under conditions of uncertainty. We can construct a simple model that illuminates the rationality behind her actions and clarifies some of the song’s seemingly obscure lyrics.
Imagine Carly encounters a man in a vague setting (perhaps a club, suggested by the line “pennies and dimes for a kiss”). She acknowledges the limited information she has (“I just met you”) but feels an immediate attraction (“I took no time with the fall”), likely driven by his physical appearance (“It’s hard to look right at you baby”). Faced with this attraction, she contemplates giving him her number, hoping he will call (“Here’s my number // Call me, maybe?”). However, she is also aware of the inherent risk in pursuing romantic connections with strangers. There’s a possibility he might be a “jerkface,” someone undesirable for a relationship. This apprehension about potential negative outcomes is, arguably, the underlying reason for her hesitant “Call me, maybe?”
To simplify the decision-making process, we can categorize the man’s potential character into two states: “nice” or “not nice” (a “jerkface”). This leads to a simplified decision table:
| He is Nice | He is Not Nice | |
|---|---|---|
| Give Number | Best Case Scenario | Worst Case Scenario |
| Don’t Give Number | Meh Scenario | Meh Scenario |
Carly’s decision boils down to whether she should give him her number. If she chooses not to, the outcome remains neutral regardless of his character. Therefore, her concern about his character only becomes relevant if she decides to give him her number. She primarily focuses on the first row of the table.
Assuming that the best and worst-case scenarios are equally extreme compared to the “meh” outcome, standard decision theory suggests Carly’s decision hinges on a simple probability assessment: Is he more likely to be nice or not nice? If she believes he is more likely to be nice, giving her number offers the potential for the best outcome. Conversely, if she suspects he might be “not nice,” giving her number risks the worst outcome. Thus, she should give her number if she perceives him as potentially nice and refrain if she doesn’t.
This decision-theoretic model sheds light on various aspects of the song, including seemingly puzzling lyrics. For instance, the repeated mention of “all the other boys try to chase me” in the chorus can be interpreted as Carly reflecting on past experiences with men. She’s implicitly considering the frequency of positive versus negative outcomes from similar romantic pursuits. This aligns with a frequentist interpretation of probability, where past experiences inform present decisions. The line “I beg and borrow and steal” suggests her proactive efforts to gather information about the man, trying to assess his character. Even the line “Have foresight and it’s real” highlights her confidence in her judgment, her ability to discern whether he is likely to be “nice” or not.
Ultimately, she decides to give him her number, despite acknowledging it as “crazy.” The question then becomes: why “crazy”? One interpretation, less charitable to Carly’s rationality, is that she assesses him as more likely to be “not nice” but proceeds anyway, recognizing the irrationality of her action. This could explain the “crazy” label and even rationalize lines like “I beg and borrow and steal” as attempts to impress a “bad boy.” Similarly, his emotional aloofness (“You gave me nothing at all”) could be seen as a manifestation of a “jerkface” personality.
However, a more generous and arguably more fitting interpretation preserves Carly’s rationality. Perhaps “crazy” doesn’t denote irrationality but rather the inherent risk and uncertainty involved. Carly might feel pressured to make an immediate decision (“in my way”), unable to gather more information. Lacking sufficient data, she might apply the principle of indifference, assuming an equal probability of him being “nice” or “not nice.” In this scenario, both giving and not giving her number are equally rational choices. She then takes a chance, a “crazy” leap of faith, opting for the optimistic path and handing over her number.
In this light, “crazy” becomes a colloquialism for taking a risk when rational calculation reaches its limit. It’s a perfectly rational act in the face of uncertainty, yet the excitement and vulnerability of taking a romantic risk make “crazy” a more emotionally resonant descriptor than “rationally permissible but non-obligatory action.” There’s a romantic allure in embracing the unknown, taking a chance on love when pure reason can no longer guide the way. This interpretation, emphasizing the rational risk-taking inherent in romantic pursuits, provides a more compelling and nuanced understanding of “Call Me Maybe”‘s enduring appeal.
