by Dan Ariely
Either way, bringing the topic up will be a bit uncomfortable in the short run, but in the long run, it could save your friendship.
Money, Friends, Giving
ON MARRIAGE AND ECONOMIC MODELS
“It wouldn’t be fair for us to get married until gays can be legally married, too. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
An economist friend once said to me that marriage is like betting someone half of everything you own that you’d love your partner forever. Do you agree?
—SHANE
Economists have a lot of interesting ways to look at human behavior. Some of these are deeply misguided but even when these models are wrong, they are often interesting and sometimes useful. Framing marriage as a gamble is a great example of an economic perspective that is both misguided and useful. Describing a deep social and romantic bond as a bet one would place at a casino table leaves much of human relationship by the wayside (the misguided part), but it also emphasizes the large potential for loss, which people often don’t take into account when they decide to get married (the useful part). Overall, I suspect that this particular perspective on marriage is more wrong than helpful, but here are three things I am sure about:
First, while describing marriage as a bet could be a useful tale of caution, it is not the way married people think about their joint life, their kids, their commitment, and their future plans. Second, I am also sure that while it might be fun and interesting to think about other people’s marriages in terms of bets, we shouldn’t be tempted to think about our own relationships in this way. And finally, I am also sure that we shouldn’t even mention this perspective to our significant other.
Relationships, Expectations, Predictions
ON SOCIAL NETWORKS AND SOCIAL NORMS
“Lazy? I’ve been social-networking my ass off.”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
What is the function of the “Like” button on Facebook? Why doesn’t Facebook have options for “Dislike” or “Hate,” for example?
—HENRY
Facebook’s “Like” button is much more than a way for us to react to other people. It is a social-coordination mechanism that tells us how we can, and should respond. It subtly gives us instructions on what is OK (and not OK) to post and it gently tells us how we can and can’t behave on Facebook. Adding buttons such as “Dislike” or “Hate” would change our mindset when we read different posts; it would prompt us to have more negative reactions and I suspect that very quickly it would destroy this social network’s positive atmosphere. And for what it’s worth, my preference would be to add a button for “Love.”
.........................
Dear Dan,
I graduated from college a few years ago. Since then my social life has been limited to Facebook. And it is far from satisfying.
—JAMES
Facebook has many wonderful aspects but I agree with you that it is no substitute for face-to-face human contact.
While you were in college you probably had a vibrant social life, but you probably also accumulated student loans. Now the social part is over, and all you have left are the student loans. Maybe it is time to change the game—when you next think that nobody really cares whether you’re alive or dead, try missing a couple of student loan payments. You will quickly get a lot of attention.
Social Media, Emotions, Social Norms
ON KOPI LUWAK COFFEE
“Yes, it was tested on rabbits and they simply adored it.”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
During a recent trip to Los Angeles, I stopped by a coffee shop offering a very expensive coffee called kopi luwak, or civet coffee. I asked about the steep price, and the barista told me the story of the special process required to make this coffee: A catlike Indonesian animal known as a civet eats coffee cherries and then poops out what are basically beans. People then collect these “processed” beans and use them to make a highly unusual brew that’s said to be smoother than its journey. It can sell for hundreds of dollars per pound. I was curious but not interested (or brave) enough to buy it—let alone drink it. Can you explain why are people willing to pay for this?
—CHAHRIAR
First, I think you made a mistake. You should have paid up and tried a cup—in part because you are still clearly curious about this unique and unusual coffee, and in part because it would have made a much more personal and interesting story (and what are a few dollars compared to a good story?). So next time you pass by a coffee place with kopi luwak, try it—maybe even get the double shot with hair and all the add-ons.
As for civet coffee’s quality: The promotional material that I found says that civets know how to pick the best coffee beans and that their digestive systems ferment the beans, reducing their acidity and providing a much better coffee. (I have no idea how this works exactly, but the story is interesting.)
And the big question is, why are people willing to pay so much for civet coffee? One reason is that they are paying for the novelty and the story. Another reason is based on the amount (and type) of labor involved. This particular process of production is clearly much more complex than your average cup of java and, in general, we find that people are willing to pay more for something that required more effort to produce—even if the product itself is not better—and civet coffee sounds like a prime example of this effort-based-pricing principle.
Finally, I wonder how much people would be willing to pay had the beans passed through not an Indonesian animal but an American human. My guess is that despite being a very good story and despite the amount of effort that would likely be involved, this particular version of a brew would be too strong for us.
Food and Drinks, Value, Experiences
ON WEDDING RING WOES
“If you’re going to go down that road, be prepared for two-way traffic.”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
My wife-to-be really wants to get a two-carat ring, but I’d rather get a smaller ring and use the rest of the money for future expenses—house, wedding, etc. Her view is that most of her friends have big rings, plus she’s been dreaming about this for a long time. What do you think about this irrational behavior? Any advice?
—JAY
First, there is a difference between irrational and difficult to understand.
One way to view this desire for diamond rings is that women like these things exactly because men hate shopping for them. If you purchased something for your loved one that you actually enjoyed shopping for, this would be nice—but having to overcome your aversion to shopping for something you don’t want is a much stronger signal of your love and care.
For example, let’s say you purchased something for your loved one that you enjoyed shopping for or that you personally wanted—a new SLR digital camera, for example. While this would certainly be a wonderful gift and I am sure it would be highly appreciated, the problem is that it would be hard to tell how much of your effort is due to your romantic love and how much is due to your selfish desire for the gift itself. On the other hand, if you purchased something that you didn’t like shopping for and even hated both the process and the product, your action would make it crystal clear that you are doing this solely because of your deep, romantic love and commitment to your significant other. This is why it is important to buy something you dislike and don’t understand its value as a true signal of your love and care.
So, this year, when you are shopping for jewelry or flowers for your soul mate, remind her what a pain it was for you. And if you want to prepare for next year, you should start broadcasting how much you hate SLR cameras and how agonizing and time consuming the shopping process is for one of these useless products.
Relationships, Giving, Signaling
ON SOCIAL VIOLATIONS AND TATTLE-TELLING
/> Dear Dan,
I was the whistleblower for a very large corporate disaster. Since my whistleblowing, I have been shocked at the vitriol and social exclusion I have suffered as a result of speaking the truth. What is it about whistleblowers that makes society want to exclude us? Any insights and guidance would be most welcome.
—WENDY
From what I understand, the backlash you are experiencing is very common among whistleblowers.
As I was reflecting on your question, I started wondering why I want my kids (ages twelve and nine) to solve their problems themselves, without involving the higher authorities (their parents). For some reason, even with my kids, I view tattle-telling in a very negative light. Of course, sometimes my kids have legitimate grievances that require an intervention from the authorities, but my negative reaction to tattle-telling suggests that I’m willing to accept some violations of family justice in order to have their issues resolved internally.
Perhaps the friends and colleagues of whistleblowers see them as outliers of the social fabric—since they’ve shown willingness to seek external authorities when conflicts emerge. Maybe this social exclusion is due to a belief that when problems will emerge in the future, whistle-blowers will again look for an external authority. If you were Tom Sawyer, you could cut your hand and mix your blood with that of your friends to symbolize your connection and loyalty to the group, but given that this might not work for your age and social group, perhaps you need to find a related ritual that will demonstrate and solidify your deep commitment to your social group.
Workplace, Family, Rules
ON VARIETY AS A MEMORY ENHANCEMENT
Dear Dan,
My best buddies and I have a tradition of going on a one-week ski trip once a year. We’ve been doing it for most of the past decade. The idea is that it’s just us guys on the mountain, enjoying good company and snow. We cherish these moments and can’t wait for the week to arrive every year. The problem is that once we land at our ski destination, time seems to go by at light speed. The week ends amazingly quickly and when we look back at our time together it seems even shorter. I know that “time flies when you are having fun,” but is there a way to perceive the week as longer?
—AVI
Given the way you phrased the question, the answer is simple: Take your wives with you. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
But more to the point: I suspect that one of the reasons your vacations seem so short, both as you experience the week and in your memory after the fact, is that the days of skiing are so similar to each other that they tend to blend together into one long experience rather than seven separate days of vacation.
On your next trip, try to make the days more different from one another. Try snowboarding one day, take a day off from skiing in the middle of your trip, take a ski lesson on another day, go sledding, or maybe even just change your ski equipment. The point is that even if some of these activities end up being less enjoyable in the moment relative to your regular skiing, they will help you categorize your vacation as a series of distinct experiences instead of one prolonged episode of skiing. This way, you will get a larger variety of experiences and more appreciation for all that you accomplished during your amazing week with the guys.
Travel, Time, Experiences
ON THE BENEFITS OF A CROWDED SPACE
“Fine. Sit there and check your messages. Perhaps it will give you something to contribute to the conversation.”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
Why do young people on dates go to loud, crowded places? The noise in these places must prevent the potential couple from talking to each other and it virtually eliminates any possibility that they will get to know each other. So what’s the point?
—AMANDA
Have you considered the possibility that daters who go to bars, clubs, and other noisy places are not really interested in getting to know each other? Maybe they have a different goal?
More seriously, noisy and crowded places might seem an odd choice for a date, but in fact these environments might help daters in multiple ways. First, noisy environments can help socially clumsy interactions by masking awkward silences. Second, if the could-be-couple runs out of topics from time to time, they can have the illusion that the silence isn’t due to their inability to keep up a lively conversation and can, instead, chalk it up to the difficulty of talking over the music or to their fascination with the music being played.
A third benefit of such venues is that the noisy surroundings can give the couple an excuse to get physically closer to each other in order to be heard. A particularly loud bar may even give them permission to talk directly into their date’s ear. (Permission to softly blow into the other person’s ear is optional.)
Finally, music and crowds have been found to be very effective in increasing the general arousal level. Yes, arousal. With noise and people all around them, daters are likely to feel a much higher level of arousal, and, most important, they may misattribute this emotional state to the person they’re with. (Social scientists call this “misattribution of emotions.”) To the extent that people confuse the emotions created by the environment with the emotions created by the person sitting next to them, going out to loud, busy places could be a winning strategy. Just imagine leaving a bar after two hours where, during the entire time, the person with you was certain that the strong emotional feeling that he/she experienced was all stemming from you.
I hope this explains the mystery—and inspires you to start going on dates in noisy places.
Relationships, Sex, Emotions
ON HIRING A GOOD (AND FREE) ADVISOR
Dear Dan,
What is the best way to inject some rationality into our decision-making?
—JOE
I am not sure about the best way, but here is one approach that I use from time to time and maybe it will be useful for you as well. When we face decisions, we often see the world from an egocentric viewpoint. We are trapped within our own perspective, our own special motivations, and our momentary emotions.
One way to overcome this perspective and look at the situation in a cooler, more rational, and more objective way is to switch our perspective and consider what advice we would give to our best friend if they were in the same exact situation.
For example, in one experiment we asked people to imagine that they have been treated by the same doctor for the past ten years, and that this doctor just recommended a very expensive treatment for them. We then asked them if they would seek a second opinion. Almost everyone said “no.” We asked another group to imagine that a friend was in the same exact situation, and we asked if they would recommend that the friend seek out a second opinion. Most advisors said “yes.”
These results suggest that when we have a longtime commitment to a particular doctor, it’s hard to ignore this relationship and our feeling of obligation. But, when we think about giving advice to other people, we can disengage from our emotions to some degree, look at the big picture, and recommend a better course of action—such as getting a second opinion.
Taking this “advice approach” may not be the best way to inject rationality into our decision-making (and it’s certainly not the only way), but I find it useful to imagine what advice we would give to another person, particularly someone we care a lot about.
P. S. This discussion on advice makes me wonder what advice I personally should take from these pages . . .
Decisions, Emotions, External Perspective
ON THE GARLIC EFFECT
Dear Dan,
My daughter recently persuaded me to start eating two cloves of garlic every day. As a result I now feel more energetic and less stressed. Is it the garlic, or is it a placebo?
—YORAM
I am not sure about the real power of garlic but have you considered the possibility that the reason you feel so much better is that the people around you are now leaving you alone?
Food and Drinks, Healt
h, Other People
ON GIVING TO THE POOR
“Spare a little eye contact?”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
I was recently approached by a panhandler who asked for 75 cents. I was late for my train, so I gave him the change I had in my pocket and hurried along. Only later I started wondering why he chose 75 cents. Do you think the 75-cent request could be a “market tested” amount, one that yields a higher overall level of donations than asking outright for a buck or more?
—BRAD
I am not sure if the panhandler came up with this strategy after substantial research or just based on intuition (if it was based on research, then he deserves more credit than most Fortune 500 companies), but for sure this strategy is interesting.
One possible reason this approach could work is that by making this unique request, the panhandler could be trying to separate himself from the competition, causing passersby to stop for a few seconds, look at the beggar, think differently about him, and maybe give him some money. Another possibility is that by stating an exact amount, the panhandler was able to change the inferences you were making about him and his situation. The idea here is that the granularity of the way we express ourselves communicates important information. For example, when someone tells us to meet them at 8:03, we come to a different conclusion about how serious they are about meeting at an exact time compared to someone who tells us to meet them at 8 or 8-ish. In the same way, a request for exactly 75 cents may carry with it a set of inferences about how seriously the person needs the money. This very specific request may lead us to think that there is a particular reason for the request—like getting money for bus fare—and we are more likely to help when the need is specific.