Hacker News Reader

Comment by jemka | Hacker News Reader

>Let's not let our preferences (and that's all they are, preferences, not empirical facts) dictate how we think about and relate to other people.

I don't understand why people get so caught up in something they literally had nothing to do with other than giving their money away to achieve.

While the products we buy have value, the consumer played no role in that value. You didn't invent it. You didn't make it better. You didn't do anything but buy it.

I guess the fact that people put value where no value exists is a testament to the power of marketing.

View on HN

Here are some rational reasons why consumers might publicly and self-interestedly advocate for products they have already purchased:

1) If the product maintains a good reputation, early adopters will have been seen to have good taste or perception, which is socially valuable.

2) If you have developed expertise in a product that grows in popularity, you have the potential to be a resource to late adopters. Whether that potential is exercised or not, it represents a certain amount of social, and in some cases professional, capital.

3) If your product becomes disfavored, it may become unsupported. This means that you likely have a shorter usable lifetime for the device, fewer support options (official, 3rd party, and community), and fewer future options for peripherals and software. Each of these network-value losses means less personal wealth.

Also, there's some evidence (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect) that people often overvalue past purchases even beyond the level that rational assessment would indicate.

"why people get so caught up in something they literally had nothing to do with other than"

Or, they derive entertainment value and therefore add to your list:

4) Same reason that people get caught up with supporting sports teams or athletes (that don't do it simply because they bet on sports teams or do fantasy sports).

All are examples of why one might defend their preference, which isn't the issue. I quoted the issue; why one would allow their preference to "dictate how we think about and relate to other people."

I'm not sure I understand--isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people?

If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here. All of these people have professional stakes which are in play in a heated debate they're having with a very small number of other people who also have professional stakes. But I'm sure Gruber and Topolsky and others go home and have lots of relationships with people that do not involve any of this.

I feel similarly about "think about": as heated as this language is, I don't know that we can easily characterize what Topolsky thinks about Gruber and Siegler overall.

>isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people?

I took that quote and that post to refer to the negative implications of treating people differently based on personal preferences.

>If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here.

Not all encompassing "all", but it happens quite a bit. Many a "flame war" have stemmed from something as trivial as personal preference. The very example we have is a public example, which is good for outlining the issue, not defining it. I understand these people have professional reasons to pick one over another. I understand why one would defend their preference aggressively. But as the article implies, there are ways of doing so without putting down the other person for a difference of opinion. That is the overall lesson.

> I don't understand why people get so caught up in something they literally had nothing to do with other than giving their money away to achieve.

They get caught up because they gave away their money. It's a matter of opportunity cost and rationalization at some level. Because these platforms are usually non-cross-compatible, "buying into" a specific platform entails a commitment of irreplaceable capital. When I was a kid, my parents got me a Super NES. Regardless of where you stand on Sega Genesis -vs- SNES, you were sure to defend the system you had, because, well, it's the one you have.

If you've invested years upon years of time and money in a particular pursuit, it seems natural to want to defend it.

Defending your preference is not the same as letting your preference "dictate how we think about and relate to other people."

This is the entire point of branding.

They are, however, building some amazing bikesheds around those products

exactly. people like to believe their choices are stellar in order to feel validated in their existence. They will jump at every opportunity to re-iterate why their phone/computer/car is a superior. i've stopped being baited long ago into such discussions and usually when someone asks why i am buying some phone that is not an iPhone i merely point out that i don't like iTunes, and 9 out of 10 times they politely fuck off.

amen

Reply on news.ycombinator.com