Psychological tricks rich people use to look generous without spending more

by Kortaggio • 2 years ago

95 116 2 years ago

Quinzel6• 2 years ago

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.

mycologos• 2 years ago

Having this transactional a view of interactions doesn't sound fun. Is it something you're trying to change?

etrautmann• 2 years ago

I agree. I enjoy buying a friend a drink or a meal because giving something to someone is both nice and fun and makes you feel good as a result.

jwilber• 2 years ago

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.

russelldjimmy2• 2 years ago

“Your compliment was sufficient, Louis” ;)

Johanx642• 2 years ago

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.

russelldjimmy2• 2 years ago

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?”

Quinzel6• 2 years ago

sometimes people are not used to receiving gifts and they might be “overgenerous” in return because they got flustered…”

This is something I had not considered to be honest, but is a great point and something I shall take on board.

ryanwaggoner• 2 years ago

This is a wonderful response, both non-judgmental and wise.

torginus3• 2 years ago

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.

tsunamifury2• 2 years ago

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.

geysersam• 2 years ago

In my experience people do notice if they're spending more than their friends when buying beers and dinners and such.

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.

whoknowsidont2• 2 years ago

There is zero chance they don't realize what you're doing.

leetcrew2• 2 years ago

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.

fragmede• 2 years ago

People aren't idiots and can do the math for themselves. They're not calling you out on it because you grew up poor and think you still are.

adolph2• 2 years ago

the rule of reciprocit

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...

seoulmetro10• 2 years ago

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.

jc6• 2 years ago

This stuff their assistants do for them. To understand how they use signalling be aware of The Theory of the Leisure Class.

readthenotes1• 2 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

I'm more devoted to conspicuous leisure, but waldt

SnorkelTan• 2 years ago

Surprised a 3 letter username is still available on hn…

azq• 2 years ago

why? 36^3 = 46,656

and also no one cares as much as they do for .com etc.

osigurdson11• 2 years ago

Author assumes the only reason people buy a truck is for "signalling".

coolbreezetft24• 2 years ago

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.

WillPostForFood• 2 years ago

The bed in the F150 is shortened to make room for a second row of seats. It is just a tradeoff between carrying people and carrying stuff.

jabbany2• 2 years ago

Where do they imply that?

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.

dragonwriter• 2 years ago

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.

jmprspret• 2 years ago

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

adolph2• 2 years ago

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle)

coldtea7• 2 years ago

Which for the most part is true.

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).

roenxi2• 2 years ago

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.

osigurdson11• 2 years ago

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.

oooyay4• 2 years ago

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.

jaredhallen• 2 years ago

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.

seoulmetro10• 2 years ago

You're right. People get upset if you mention that the main use (percentage) of cars or houses is about status.

People get upset at such blunt truths because it makes people look stupid, and we are, we humans are very stupid.

torginus3• 2 years ago

Yup, 100% true.

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.

five_lights3• 2 years ago

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.

taneq• 2 years ago

Ironic, given how often drivers of those giant tanks don’t indicate. ;)

pavel_lishin• 2 years ago

This seems to be more about how to spend less while shopping, rather than psychological tricks or generosity.

jabbany2• 2 years ago

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.

moate• 2 years ago

Idk the author’s cultural background (syntactical clues imply non-US), and I am also not rich, but this all seemed very foreign to me.

lcampbell• 2 years ago

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!

lo_zamoyski• 2 years ago

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.

xg152• 2 years ago

[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.

leetcrew2• 2 years ago

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.

xg152• 2 years ago

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]

[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)

deadbabe• 2 years ago

A neat trick is to “pledge” to make some large donation then never really get around to it.

alistairSH2• 2 years ago

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.

schneems6• 2 years ago

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.

lotsofpulp4• 2 years ago

I am unaware of tipping customs for a tour guide. I wouldn’t even have cash on me while rafting.

I would have thought paying for the tour pays for the tour guide’s services.

seoulmetro10• 2 years ago

This post is trying to be smarter than it is. But there are huge "plot" holes in the events that basically make this just a neat napkin trick.

Havoc• 2 years ago

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

credit_guy• 2 years ago

A brand is totally dematerialized—Harvard is not the buildings and libraries—every school has those.

Yeah, no. Harvard has a $50 billion endowment, other schools don’t.

jacknews• 2 years ago

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.

Psychological tricks rich people use to look generous without spending more

Related Stories