Psychological tricks rich people use to look generous without spending more
billmei.net
billmei.net
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.
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]
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluabili... (The rest of the article is actually still worth a read because it has a lot more explanation and nuance on the psychology behind it)
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.
In other words, it just comes off weird and likely hurts more than it helps any meaningful relationships.
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.
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.
Unless you have no other friends, this is enough. People keep okay tabs on how they spend their money if it's always disappearing.
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?
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 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.
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.
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?”
This is something I had not considered to be honest, but is a great point and something I shall take on board.
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.
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.
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.
Your friends are probably not mentioning it because it's a bit awkward and they don't want to make you embarrassed, because they care about you.
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.
You might be interested in Pre-suasion by Cialdini. Of special note is Cialdini’s ideas about ethical use of the techniques.
https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Suasion-Revolutionary-Way-Influen...
This sounds like a joke post based on how bad you are at human interaction but somehow studied psychology.
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.
> 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!
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.
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.
Marketing has driven, rather than responding to, the change in consumer goals.
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
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.
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).
I don't think we can be confident that social signalling is the major factor here.
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.
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.
LOL, what people would believe!
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?
"Outside farming and certain professionals nobody really needs a truck"
"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.
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.
Didn't he already explained he's against buying of trucks when there's no real need?
To everybody, naturally including them personally.
And none of the harms are based on distance driven. US-sized trucks are worse than smaller regular cars on those metrics for the same distances too.
>Please just admit the thing you really don't like is the culture associated with large trucks
One can dislike both you know.
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.
Just because you don't see it as equivalent, doesn't mean others don't
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?
Laws are not only an approximation of morals, but also a compromise among all stakeholders in a country.
As said, it may not be the same thing overall, but morally it can be perceived on a similar level.
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.
Sidenote - I'm finding my vocabulary pretty lacking now that so much stereotyping is done in images and memes.
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.
https://www.australianfrontlinemachinery.com.au/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-04/second-wind-for-ex-de...
O'wise we don't much bother with US style "trucks" | oversized SUV's.
People get upset at such blunt truths because it makes people look stupid, and we are, we humans are very stupid.
Translation: "I am smarter than other humans"
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I would have thought paying for the tour pays for the tour guide’s services.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Edit: spelling
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.
I didn't decide anything about billionaires anywhere. But if that's the story that keeps you being silly then so be it.
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.
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.
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.
As someone who tinkered unsuccessfully with zigbee stuff this weekend i feel attacked
I'm more devoted to conspicuous leisure, but waldt
and also no one cares as much as they do for .com etc.
Yeah, no. Harvard has a $50 billion endowment, other schools don’t.