> [1] The scarf/coat example is from this LessWrong article, based on the original paper Christopher K. Hsee, “Less Is Better: When Low-Value Options Are Valued More Highly than High-Value Options”
Yep, somehow knew it had to be LessWrong the moment the post mentioned "social value". That scarf/coat experiment and really the entire concept sounds like exactly the things that some EA folks would get hyped up about.
yeah, classic example of thinking so hard about something that you miss the obvious explanation. I already have a decent coat, so I'm not going to wear the shitty one you gave me. I already have a decent scarf too, but if you give me an especially nice one, it might become my new favorite. unless I'm planning to go straight to the store and return it, I don't really care which option cost more.
I think the psychological effect is probably real, but the framing is telling.
The OP at least admints that it's sort of an asshole move to exploit this, while LessWrong straight up recommends people to do this - and in fact goes a step further and insists it's a virtuous thing to do if you value your friendships:
> If you have a fixed amount of money to spend—and your goal is to display your friendship, rather than to actually help the recipient—you’ll be better off deliberately not shopping for value. Decide how much money you want to spend on impressing the recipient, then find the most worthless object which costs that amount. The cheaper the class of objects, the more expensive a particular object will appear, given that you spend a fixed amount. Which is more memorable, a $25 shirt or a $25 candle? [1]
I am not “rich”, but a psychological trick I use when I’m out with one or two friends is that I always make sure I buy the first drink, or first entree etc. Basically I just make sure that I provide the first “gift”. The reason being that I know that I will most likely get back in return favours that far exceed what I initially fronted up with.
The most recent example of me doing this was Friday night. I paid $6 for my friends drink, and then in return, he bought me dinner, and then also paid for me to go bowling. So in return for my $6 spent, I got about $50 of value in return.
I been doing this since I was a kid. I grew up in poverty, and I think it’s like a behavioural adaptation I acquired because it was a way for me to get things I needed. I knew as a kid, that adults valued generosity. I didn’t have a lot to give because I was poor, so what I would do instead was craft handmade gifts, pick flowers for people, write nicely worded letters to people, or I would do chores for random people without being asked, and often I found people would return the favour by providing something in return.
It wasn’t until I studied social psychology as an elective in my first degree that I realised I was using the rule of reciprocity to gain an advantage. Since realising the social convention behind it, I still do it to my advantage, but I would say now days, I do do it with more intention - therefore there are times where I do not exploit this human vulnerability because I know I am actually socially more advantaged than the other person.
When I am in social situations where I know someone is far wealthier than I am, instead of offering them tangible gifts like buying a drink, I actually prefer to stroke their ego’s, and make them feel interesting and important, and I also am happy to allow them to feel socially superior to me. I don’t care if they view me as lower in the pecking order, because as long as they think that I admire them, they’re more likely to provide gifts, like buying me drinks etc… again, it’s an adaptation of the reciprocity thing, and something I learned to do as a kid.
I'm not sure this is as clever as you think. the other people in your stories almost certainly notice what you're doing. decent people tend to look for ways to help out their less fortunate companions. in this situation, it is totally normal (though not necessarily expected) for the recipient to offer something of token (ie, lesser) value in exchange. it helps everyone avoid overtly acknowledging the disparity in means.
what they may not realize is that you are being intentionally manipulative. I'm sure they would be very disappointed to learn that you perceive this as winning some sort of game while they are being intentionally generous with you.
It sounds like you have figured out a way to get what you want materially. It seems to be working well for you.
However, like the other commenter pointed out, it does seem like a transactional way to view things. It sounds like such a view was very helpful to you in your childhood, which - as you mentioned - was in poverty, and I can imagine that this makes one focus their efforts and attention intensely on gaining material benefits. The question now is - is your life still demanding this narrow focus, or is it possible to relax this and start to enjoy the more intangible things in life? “If all one has is a hammer…” - you know how it goes :)
Instead of seeing someone else’s generosity as a way to gain material benefit, can it be appreciated for just the generosity alone? Can the act of buying someone that “first gift” be enjoyed for the look of joy and surprise in their expression? It feels great to make someone’s day, and this is only possible when one’s attention is not focused on expecting something in return.
A tangential thought:
Sometimes people are not used to receiving gifts and they might be “overgenerous” in return because they got flustered at receiving a gift so suddenly. It’s not a positive feeling for them and the act can start to feel like “ransom” for them after some point. This is not your problem of course :) but one can become sensitive to such things only when one’s attention is not focused on “what will I get out of this transaction?”
I hated receiving gifs when I was broke/poor with passion.
It basically works like this:
1. I receive a gift of 50$ usually spent very sub-optimally.
2. Now I have to spend ~50$ buying a gift in turn.
The end result: someone buying me gift for 50$ is equivalent to forcing a bad 50$ purchase upon me OR forcing me to feel bad and potentially be perceived as ungrateful/unreciprocating.
This reads like some Patrick Bateman self-styled narrative. I suspect in reality this behavior is extremely obvious and off-putting. About as effective a psychological trick as the kid who just finished reading "How to Win Friends & Influence People" repeating your first name twenty times in a conversation.
In other words, it just comes off weird and likely hurts more than it helps any meaningful relationships.
The behaviour is extremely obvious and off-putting if you're not good at it and you're forcing it.
Or if you start doing it when you're halfway through life lived as a stingy bitter asshole (by no fault of your own necessarily, you just grew up in poverty with people made of same cloth), your attempts most likely will feel awkward and unnatural.
Since the person has practiced these strategies since early childhood, he would do these things naturally and flawlessly.
You wouldn't be able to tell if it's genuine or not, because he has ALWAYS done this, you wouldn't know a different version of this person, or catch them being anything but, because they always have bought the first drink, have always been nice and a good conversationalist (which 90% of the time means, shut up and attentively listen to other person and 10% of time asking questions to make the other person open up about their passions and interests), and would always remember everyone they meet by their first name
regardless of their statute or position.
The behavior becomes a genuine, well oiled habit, a natural. You can only catch a "fake" if it's situational and your behaviour completely changes depending on who you interact with or well... if you tell people on the internet about it.
Social relations and human behavior is transactional regardless if you're aware of it or not.
People really do like to bury their head in the sand and pretend that it isn't though and that there's some sort of special magical fairy dust going on in social relations.
> You can only catch a "fake" if it's situational and your behavior completely changes
I can't word this without being insulting, you can catch many "fake" behaviors, especially when it requires the social intelligence of a normal, young kid. I don't mean to directly insult or insinuate things about OP, but I don't know how else to contextualize that this is not some advanced social strategy or set of maneuvers that slip by people.
It's assuredly very, very obvious if not awkward for other people to deal with.
>Social relations and human behavior is transactional regardless if you're aware of it or not.
Most people would use the word reciprocal. Which has all the same presumptuous benefits of being transactional, but it means a lot more. It implies longer term, more involved commitments that generally, equally benefit both parties in a holistic manner.
Saying social relations are transactional is not profound, it's actually reveals a certain ignorance about how you view literally everyone else on this planet.
Reciprocal behaviour is what allows us to get along with other humans and behave pro-socially.
But I think it’s a bit naive not to recognise that it is still somewhat transactional in nature. There are some situations in which we’re honest about the reciprocal agreement (ie, you provide me with 8hours of work, and in return, I’ll pay you for your efforts) and there are other times where the reciprocal agreement is implied and not specified but still understood (ie, your child is invited to a birthday party at a fancy playland, so you should provide the birthday child with a nice gift - no one ever tells you you have to buy a present, but it’d be socially awkward not to).
The transactional nature of reciprocity is also why I don’t participate in gift giving at Christmas. I hate that the expectation is to show our nearest and dearest we care about them by participating in mindless consumerism. I will spend time with my family, cook dinner with them, do games, be part of the festivities but gifting is not part of the equation.
This is wrong. Manipulating friends with actual physical items never goes unnoticed as we attach those to our closest relations subconsciously.
To think that someone can scam you without you knowing because they always scam you is hilarious when talking in the context of a close friend taking from you.
Ohhh so you think people are actively keeping tabs on what they give and then what they receive in return in the context of their social interactions?
That’s really interesting that you think that, because to me that would suggest that you think if you provide a friend something like a drink, you expect you should get something in return.
Also, do they do it twice? How do you know? Have you constructed a concept of how the social interaction happened in your mind and made some assumptions?
The subtle yet powerful force of reciprocity in the context of social interaction is no joke and people have made a lot of money writing books on it, it’s why successful sales companies teach their sales people to use it on prospective customers, it’s why big corporations pay money to “support” politicians etc…
I’m willing to bet that your brain has spent so much time in “auto-pilot” that there are countless times where you would have reciprocated with no conscious awareness of the fact that you even did. And the fact that you think you can’t be fooled is exactly what makes you vulnerable.
And with that said, I’ll leave you with this quote:
“Click, run” - Robert Cialdini.
I dunno why but for me, people don't seem to reciprocate anything nice I do for them (or buy for them).
To be clear I don't expect the favors I do to be returned to me in a transactional manner, but I'd love to experience a random act of thoughtfulness out of the blue from the people I did nice things for.
Different circles act differently. In grad school every student was stringy and would take and never return. After I worked in tech everyone was quite generous.
Funnily enough, I don't think it's a money issue - I think that people have adopted such a consumerist, transactional mindset, that they can't distinguish the difference of services provided to them by the system at the swipe of their credit cards and the things other people put effort into (who are under absolutely no obligation to do so).
It's the same transactional mindset view of 'what can you do for me' that's outlined in the top comment.
Which is a foolish way to view the world imo, as friendships are much more difficult to acquire than money, but it is what it is.
That's just tricking your friends and being a bad friend. Most normal friends swap the roles so that next time you buy the meal and they grab the drink.
This sounds like a joke post based on how bad you are at human interaction but somehow studied psychology.
Not really, it skips over utility based shopping entirely.
Everything in the article (after the bit about utility vs signalling) assumes the thing you're buying is primarily meant to increase social capital (as a gift or a display piece [which may still have utility]) and then explains how to get the most for your money in that case specifically.
Consider clothing, which is a large class. The primary utility of clothing as such is known, but consider secondary utility. Some clothing improves safety (firefighter clothing). Some signals to others one's social role (police uniform). Some preserves cleanliness (a chef's uniform). A suit worn by a lawyer signals respect for the justice system and those participating in it, including oneself. All these have utility. Even signaling wealth is utility of some kind. Aesthetic considerations could be understood in a utilitarian way as well, as the utility is in the pleasure the beauty of a garment provides.
Less than skips over, utility based shopping is explicitly derided:
> The narrative that you just told me [about utility shopping] is “I am a very analytical person who only has book smarts and no emotions”. And that narrative is boring!
It’s a classic example of the either/or fallacy. You either buy for status or you’re an emotionless robot min/maxing through life. As if that’s a problem when you’re buying a tool like a light truck or minivan.
The piece just reminds me of stuff I would have said as a teenager, before I had life experience and opinions about how I wanted to live.
Outside farming and certain professionals nobody really needs a truck, including families with kids (which e.g. in Europe manage to get just fine with a regular car, not even a SUV).
Maybe they just like it. The assumption seems to be that if they didn't have anyone to impress they would buy a Honda Fit because it is better (by some definition of better). Even if they are just buying it to impress people, who cares? Let them do what they want.
> if they are just buying it to impress people, who cares?
The buyer cares. And if the buying is detrimental to more than the buyer himself (eg wastes resources, harms the environment, overtaxes infrastructure), then it makes sense for others to let that buyer know how they actually feel.
But I agree with your suggestion that it is entirely possible for a truck buyer to have reasons other than those supposed by the author.
So fine then with a huge, shiny, lifted F-350 that the owner drives 5km once per week to the ice cream shop? Or is your largest issue perhaps "redneck culture"?
Yes, and then explained precisely the harms being caused to them personally - all based on distance driven. Please just admit the thing you really don't like is the culture associated with large trucks. No one "needs" anything, least of all any kind of vehicle.
Let's say someone purposefully spits on you. How much compensation, should you personally receive from that hypothetical situation?
Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This is especially true about things economists call "externalities", which includes the damage to the environment and things outside direct economic dealing.
This is an incredibly flaw analogy. Spitting on someone is a direct assault. Legally owning something unliked by various random people worldwide is not morally equivalent to spitting in someone's face.
Certainly, people can come up with all manner of perceived injustices. Spitting on someone is considered a crime in many jurisdictions however. It is not the same thing as someone legally owning a vehicle that you do not like.
Perhaps focus on arguing against gp’s conclusion rather than against the analogy.
Meaning, respond to this:
> Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This conclusion is applicable regardless of the analogy’s aptness. You obviously don’t like the conclusion. But can you argue against it?
Also, as you seem to be focused on the “buying” rather than the “driving” of a truck, would you be ok with a tax or some other disincentive aimed solely at truck drivers rather than truck buyers?
And anyway, US trucks are just a peculiar form of luxury car. Case in point the Toyota Hilux, which is Toyota's famously sturdy workhorse truck, is not even sold in the US. Instead they have the Tacoma, an entirely different construction.
It is built around consumer comfort features and impressive specs instead of being rugged, easy to repair and inexpensive.
Anecdotally the Tacoma is huge, and horrible off-road. There are other tradeoffs, like softer suspension, which you want in a passenger car for comfort, but not in a vehicle used for hauling and going on difficult terrain.
>US trucks are just a peculiar form of luxury car
No, not really. You can get one fully loaded, or get a bare bones work truck. Thing is there are no "luxury" makes for trucks, but more often there are trims of different models. A F-150 Raptor is certainly a luxury model for status signaling (or just to have the nicer thing for those who can afford it). The XL Model is far from a luxury vehicle.
As far as I recall the most expensive two purchases a family makes are the house and car. So while nobody needs a truck, that statistic might reflect the relatively lower disposable incomes in the EU. Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen.
I don't think we can be confident that social signalling is the major factor here.
>So while nobody needs a truck, that statistic might reflect the relatively lower disposable incomes in the EU
Nah, people with higher disposable incomes don't buy trucks either. Not to mention in the US tons of regular working class people buy tracks, when people with 2x to 10x their income in Europe don't.
>Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen.
> Nah, people with higher disposable incomes don't buy trucks either.
Sorry I've missed a step. In your first comment I thought you meant buying a truck was people status signalling that they were affluent. If you don't think that, what do you think is being signalled?
Above I'm answering to the propose explanation that basically "Europeans don't buy them because they can't afford them", so my comment should be read as:
"nah, it's not that, as people with higher disposable incomes *in the EU* don't buy such trucks either".
I just left out the "in the EU" there, to be implied by the context I was replying to.
That said, I didn't mean to imply that "buying a truck was people status signalling that they were affluent" in the US.
Just that they think (or made to think) they need it, and that they culturally like the extravaganza - same way many in the US think they need bigger cars and sneer at European sized cars.
I think the biggest reason is that trucks are less practical in Europe.
European streets are often narrower and parking spaces smaller. Many trucks that are popular in the US are so heavy that you may not be allowed to drive them with a standard license. You need a truck license, which may be valid only for a few years and have stricter standards. And due to the climate, you are more likely to have to protect the cargo from the elements, which shifts the balance towards vans. But vans are not very convenient in daily use.
I think this is an area that highlights one of the huge differences between Europe and the US that isn't obvious at first to most Europeans. Outside of commercial messaging that you may see in TV show, or Country Music vehicle, it's not that common for people who have a truck to use it as a status symbol any differently than they would with a car.
In practice, a lot of working age Men own a light duty pickup (f-150, Silverado 1500 or smaller types like the Ranger or Colorado) when you get outside of the Cities for the utility. It's basically needed if you live in the country and want to be self-sufficient. While you may see these on a farm, more than likely a farmer would need something more heavy duty to pull anything serious.
People with Boats can usually get away with hauling it with a light duty truck, whereas people with RV's usually will have something more heavy duty.
They are far from status symbols, and often people will have old trucks (beaters) that are paid off and will use when it's practical.
I'm a software engineer and I have a Tacoma. I've found it useful for hauling things to and from lumber stores (I also do wood working and most of my own house projects). It was incredibly useful during PNW winters when it snowed or iced over roads completely; one was so bad my partner got stranded on our metro train and I had to go get her. Going across the mountains in my truck has also been quite nice compared to when I had a hybrid sedan.
The alternative is that for every delivery of goods I would need to pay an $80 fee (and I do these with pretty regular frequency; that's about 2x what it takes to fill up my tank). We'd need to be more careful of not going out during storms or when there's even moderate risk of winter storms. I would need to plan trips across the mountains much more in advance. There's a lot of other things that'd probably change too, including how we do road trips.
I'm a bit judgy of people who have a truck that clearly don't do truck things with it, but of all my friends that have trucks I don't know anyone who isn't. All that to say, I roll my eyes when I see statements trying to steelman who should morally own a truck.
Tacoma's have a reputation for being the stereotypical choice for actual recreation or practically though haven't they? Relatively small, reliable, pragmatic if you're already in a position to use it.
Do you think you'd feel the same if someone in approximately your situation got something like a 2024 Silverado with a laughably large grill, much larger and more expensive? To me there's practically I wouldn't even second guess, and then there's everything beyond that, but I'd be curious what a truck owner thinks.
My grandfather's always had a truck, but it's always been something the size of a Canyon or Tacoma, and with that he's never struggled with any of the relatively large crap he hauls around.
I think most people are just reacting to "redneck" culture. I don't really like it either, but I think people should be able to do what they want. Including buying a truck they don't need or taking an unneeded trip to Paris to visit museums and art galleries.
I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think people are responding to the "redneck in a pick-up" stereotypes as much as that "pavement princess" owner trying to "cosplay" truck culture stereotypes.
Sidenote - I'm finding my vocabulary pretty lacking now that so much stereotyping is done in images and memes.
I've heard this sentiment before. My truck has a rack on it and I've never needed to weigh it down to navigate icy or wet terrain. Maybe that applies to full size trucks more than Tacomas?
Unlikely it's a huge truck problem, as it was also true of small pickups used as company vehicles in Northern Europe -- in the wintertime, they'd keep bags of sand in the back, or the rear would slide around.
To be fair, a Tacoma is the closest you can get to a Hilux in the US, which is a completely practical vehicle around the world. The OP seems to be going after the oversized full size pickups.
The world is a big place with billions of people each living their own unique life. Only one of those is yours. If you find no use for a truck, then by all means don't own one.
The article literally shows two examples of ads for trucks, one advertising utility and one signalling...
The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling. It doesn't imply that is the only reason, just that it's an increasingly _common_ one.
> The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling.
Marketing has driven, rather than responding to, the change in consumer goals.
I think specifically the criticism was leveled at the F150, given the comparison to a significantly smaller less-impressive looking truck yet still had the same size truck-bed in it.
>The bed in the F150 is shortened to make room for a second row of seats.
F150's come with multiple cab/bed options depending on the year. Yes, some have short beds with cabs, others have Long/standard beds with cabs (enough to put a 4x8 piece of plywood in the back). Some come with short beds and no cab. Long beds with no cabs.
That and the F150 isn't even a big truck, it's literally classified as "light duty". If you're trying to signal for _excess_, you aren't buying a F150.
Where I'm at, this is true. The F-350 is for signaling, F-150 is a decent utility vehicle (that allows for decent city driving). People actually use the all-in-one hauling, towing, and off-roading-in-comfort F-150 & Tundra here.
If we're talking about what I assume you mean to be beefy utility vehicles (Utes, we call them in Au, Americans seem to call them trucks from what I've heard).
I mean let's be honest, more often than not, if you're not buying a ute with a bog standard metal tray and little extras, it is for signalling.
Because the more "luxury" ones, with a hard top, with a thick plastic, painted body kit, and bullbars - compromise heavily on actual usability, and are way less useful than a standard ute with a tray
I thought a “Ute” was specifically a unibody vehicle with an open area in the back for cargo. Most typically the Ute is adapted from a sedan or coupe. There have not been many Utes in the states. Notable exceptions include the recent Subaru Baja and earlier Chevy El Camino. Some trucks have started to use unibody chassis but this is a relatively new development: Honda Ridgeline, Ford Mavericks and Hyundai Santa Cruz.
Maybe I’m just old fashioned and have an appreciation for imported Commodore Utes. It seems language has changed:
Traditionally, the term referred to vehicles built on passenger car chassis and with the cargo tray integrated with the passenger body (coupé utility vehicles). However, present-day usage of the term "ute" in Australia and New Zealand has expanded to include any vehicle with an open cargo area at the rear, which would be called a pickup truck in other countries.
The title seems misleading, it should just be 'better ways to buy things/spend your money' or similar.
I do like the ethos that you should carefully consider/choose the things you own, and then look after them, repair them etc. They then carry the story of their ownership, and become much more valuable to you (witness the 'I repaired my broken mug' story on HN this last week). Our current semi-disposable fast-fashion money-go-round mode of consumption needs to stop.
I get more social value from the scarf by being seen as more generous, without actually spending more money, so I can pretending to be rich while being a cheap asshole!
Um, not necessarily. This assumes the receiver has no concept of the giver’s budget, which is rarely true. And also assumes the receiver cares about the cash value of the gift receives, instead of either the motivation for giving or the utility of the item.
This whole post stuck me as borderline disordered. Is this really the way rich people think? Sounds miserable to go through life being so calculating about everything. I’m “rich” by many measures (but nowhere near senior FAANG engineer rich) and I’d much rather just enjoy the life I’ve fallen into.
A friend of mine was a rafting tour guide for a summer and one day Warren Buffet and family rode on his raft. Mr. Buffet did not leave a tip.
I’m in a well off place, maybe similar to you, but I think that some ultra rich people fundamentally view money differently than us. It seems that saving money or making money is more of a game to them than the actual utility provided by the money. Somewhat like how even rich celebrities are caught shoplifting.
I’m not sure if (lots of) money does that to people or people who have those impulses are more likely to have money due to being willing to use cut-throat tactics. Maybe if everyone here chips in a few hundred-thousand for a science (me) we can find out.
The guides are pretty poorly paid. The companies are banking people who love the sport will do it for cheap, and they do. It’s similar to a ski instructor setup. Sometimes the position will come with room and board to help offset the meagre wages.
When I was a broke college kid I tipped my tour guide $20 (in 2005 dollars). The guide will tell you on the trip to tip them. It would be hard not to know.
Most places where tipping is greatly appreciated take into account things like “didn’t bring my wallet on the raft” and will do things like make sure to say goodbye to the group after the come out of a locker room at the end (for example).
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an accident. If you were in this situation there are plenty of ways to correct the course.
> If you were in this situation there are plenty of ways to correct the course.
I don’t like the framing of this. The correct course is for the labor seller to request the amount of money they want from the labor buyer. If you want more money for your labor, just say it up front before the tour starts.
It is unfair to spring a surprise charge on someone after you provide a product/service. I would not do it to any of my customers, since I do not want it done to me. Upfront, transparent pricing is how a proper business works.
I feel you’re deliberately missing the point of my story because you personally don’t like tipping.
It’s not a surprise it’s *expected* in that industry. It’s common knowledge. I provided evidence of this above that you’ve chosen to ignore.
It is somewhat funny that in a story with a billionaire and someone struggling to make a living wage, to you, the person being treated unfairly is the billionaire.
> It’s not a surprise it’s expected in that industry. It’s common knowledge. I provided evidence of this above that you’ve chosen to ignore.
We will have to agree to disagree. In general, I think it is unfair to judge anyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status, for abiding by the explicit terms of a business transaction.
If neither party is under duress, then the seller needs to state their price upfront before providing a product or service, otherwise, it seems stupid to judge a buyer for agreeing to the price.
- buy the company and pay the guides a living wage
- complain to the owner about the tipping policy
- complain to the tour guide about the tipping policy
- explicitly ask about tipping before engaging in a leisure activity using a service economy
- tip anyway but demand the company owner pay back that amount
A galaxy of things that aren’t simply “don’t pay and walk away.” I appreciate your position on tipping but don’t thing Mr. Buffer was applying some higher minded philosophy to the situation (unless you have evidence to the contrary).
>If you were in this situation there are plenty of ways to correct the course.
He is correcting the course. The course of the silliness required to expect people to tip for everything because your contract with your employer is bad.
You’ve chosen to miss the point of my story to go on a personal rant against tipping. In the process you’ve also decided that the billionaire needs defending more than the person struggling to make a living wage.
You’ve invalidated my reason for sharing the story in the first place. It feels that you’ve done it intentionally, but I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt. Here’s how I could have shown up and validated your viewpoint instead of arguing because I felt mine wasn’t heard:
Before you go on a tangent try validating what the other person said before. “I can see how really rich people view money differently. As a tangent, I really dislike tipping culture and wish that Warren had bought the rafting company and decided to pay them a living wage instead of doing nothing and not acknowledging the problem”
If you’re struggling you can lean into non violent communication:
- Observe: I see you’re talking about tipping
- Emote: it makes me disgusted that regular people are taken advantage of
- Need: I wish all tipping was abolished
-Request: I want my position to be heard.
> I didn’t decide anything
But your words, lacking this additional context I’ve laid out here do speak to my interpretation because that’s the part of the story I care about, it’s why I shared it and it’s why I labeled the implications of your words as I read them.
>wish that Warren had bought the rafting company and decided to pay them a living wage instead of doing nothing and not acknowledging the problem”
Warren Buffett is probably the most outspoken rich person to advocate for the government to increase wealth redistribution via increased taxes. He also has probably donated some of the biggest sums in the history of the world to objectively benefit poorer people.
Yet here you are, concluding that Buffett does not acknowledge excessive wealth gaps from the fact that he did not donate money to a specific worker working for a business he paid to receive a service for, or that it was somehow Buffett's responsibility to buy the whole business as a form of charity.
I don't care about your story, that's why I only commented on one sentence alone.
If you don't understand why I am talking about that sentence, then ok?
You seem to care a lot about other people knowing your poor employee and employer arrangement is silly. You shouldn't. Dumb people do things through tradition.
> Smart fridges, smart lightbulbs, and smart toothbrushes are also about precision: you gotta be a smart human to operate anything more complex than a can opener these days.
As someone who tinkered unsuccessfully with zigbee stuff this weekend i feel attacked
Yep, somehow knew it had to be LessWrong the moment the post mentioned "social value". That scarf/coat experiment and really the entire concept sounds like exactly the things that some EA folks would get hyped up about.