At every socioeconomic level there are choices set out for us.
At lower income or entry-level socioeconomic tiers there are choices like these:
Should I buy Tide detergent? Or should I buy All at a 40% lower price point?
Should I buy regular chicken or pay double for organic, free-range, cruelty-free chicken?
As you work your way up the socioeconomic ladder, the questions change shape a little bit:
Should I buy another Honda Civic, or am I ready to step up to a BMW? Or am I the kind of distinctive person who drives an Audi, or a Jaguar?
At still higher socioeconomic levels you can ask yourself things like:
Should I live in Summit, NJ or am really a Basking Ridge kind of person?
Should I send my child to private school? Should I consider Hotchkiss or Choate?
Should I consider the Rolex? Or am I ready for the Patek Philippe?
No matter how high you go, these aspirational questions never end.
Should buy a pied-à-terre in SoHo, or on the Upper East Side?
Should I winter in Miami? Or Turks and Caicos? Or Buenos Aires? After all I'm quite an international person.
It shouldn't surprise us to find aspirational tiers for megayachts, private jets and major professional sports teams. Remember: billionaires like Larry Ellison and Paul Allen are status-signalling primates too.
As you read though this post, it’s entirely possible that these choices quickly begin to sound ridiculous to a person who happens to be far removed, socioeconomically speaking, from the upper tiers.
Then again: do you think a wealthy person cares about the type of detergent they buy? These "games" appear ridiculous from both angles.
And yet people still believe they need to make whatever choices there are at their level. And, worse, as we move up the ladder (if we are fortunate enough to do so), we effortlessly start to make decisions that used to seem ridiculous, but somehow don't any more because our brains adjust so easily to new levels of wealth, comfort and status.
Now, if you play the money game right and save and invest properly over the course of your life, rest assured: you will be facing decisions at tiers far above where you are now.
The question is, will you make these decisions from a place of self-awareness? Will you understand the greater game being played around you that structures these endless signals, these endless aspirational products? Or will you be a checkers player, obediently and enthusiastically choosing the Patek Philippe watch when it's your turn to do so?
Eventually, if you’re lucky, you’ll recognize that a system has set out the frame, the structure, of these choices across your whole life. This system "allows" you to make a series of choices from a series of pre-set menus.
Once you realize these are all pre-chewed choices that aren’t really choices at all, you escape the system. You start avoiding making these decisions at all, saving you time, mental effort... and an absolute shit-ton of money. Ironically, this simply accelerates your move up the socioeconomic ladder.
The only way to win this game is not to play.
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Showing posts with label virtue signalling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virtue signalling. Show all posts
The Perfect Question to Ask Before ANY Purchase [For Anticonsumerists Only]
Readers, I've found the perfect question to ask yourself before making any significant purchase. It clarifies everything about your real reasons to buy. Here it is:
If you could tell no one, would you still buy it?
If your answer is yes, then you are probably buying it for the right reasons. However, if your answer is no, you're not buying the item for you. Its purpose is to impress others. And buying things to impress others is a checkers move. [1]
Now, there's a lot going on in the question above, much more than it might appear at first, so let's work through a practical example and unpack what happens psychologically. Let's say you're considering buying a high end watch. If you were to ask yourself would you buy it and tell no one--and no one would ever see it, know about it or hear about it--what would be your likely answer? Be honest.
Your answer would be no, you wouldn't buy it. Simple. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd want to have others see your purchase. Therefore you're buying it for them, not for you! It is a purchase made solely for the purpose of identity construction. Since you don't enjoy playing checkers with your life--you'd much rather play chess--you know you can safely avoid buying this product. It's incredibly helpful and clarifying to know this.
Now, why is this question for anticonsumers only? Because a consumerist will quickly and effortlessly rationalize it away. "Of course I'm buying this $50,000 Patek Philippe watch just for myself. Obviously I would still buy it even if I could never show it to anyone. Plus I'm just not the kind of person would buy something just to show off. I never status signal. That's crass behavior."
I hate to generalize, but I'm going to anyway: In stark contrast with consumerists, anticonsumerists tend to have a deeper understanding (and a deeper humility) about human nature. We are primates. Which means signalling behavior is a structural and foundational part of who we are, and nearly everything we do plays a role in establishing our place in various social hierarchies. Thus to say "I never status signal" is delusional. It's far more accurate to say we are never not status-signalling. [2]
So, after hearing the confidently-stated rationalization above, it's instructive to consider the following two-part question 1) will this person buy the watch, and 2) will he never show it to anyone?
The likely answer: Yes to the first, and a painfully obvious NO to the second. Of course he will show it off. This is why this question doesn't work for consumerists. It's too easy to rationalize away and then, later--after you've forgotten all about the question and your answer--act inconsistently with what you said.
But if you're aware of both your ego and your propensity to rationalize (and more importantly, your propensity to rationalize without thinking you do), the question works. Flawlessly. People with healthy egos know they signal, but they also try their best to avoid buying things to impress others. And they try their best to avoid deceiving themselves about their real reasons for buying things.
Thus thinking about whether you'd never show a new potential purchase to anyone clarifies these reasons. Suddenly, certain purchases seem… off. Ridiculous even. You can safely put your wallet back into your pocket and go on living your life, rather than living to impress everyone else.
READ NEXT: When It Comes To Banning Soda, Marion Nestle Fights Dirty
AND: Oppositional Literature: The Key Tool For Achieving True Intellectual Honesty
Footnotes:
[1] Once someone said to me, "But I like playing checkers!" Not in this metaphor you don't.
[2] Paradoxically, even the act of not status-signalling can be a form of status signal, depending on the nature of your social group. I'll kick your ass in frugality bro!!
I borrowed (okay, stole) the seed idea of this post from Wall Street Playboys, a provocative blog if there ever was one.
***********************
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
If you could tell no one, would you still buy it?
If your answer is yes, then you are probably buying it for the right reasons. However, if your answer is no, you're not buying the item for you. Its purpose is to impress others. And buying things to impress others is a checkers move. [1]
Now, there's a lot going on in the question above, much more than it might appear at first, so let's work through a practical example and unpack what happens psychologically. Let's say you're considering buying a high end watch. If you were to ask yourself would you buy it and tell no one--and no one would ever see it, know about it or hear about it--what would be your likely answer? Be honest.
Your answer would be no, you wouldn't buy it. Simple. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd want to have others see your purchase. Therefore you're buying it for them, not for you! It is a purchase made solely for the purpose of identity construction. Since you don't enjoy playing checkers with your life--you'd much rather play chess--you know you can safely avoid buying this product. It's incredibly helpful and clarifying to know this.
Now, why is this question for anticonsumers only? Because a consumerist will quickly and effortlessly rationalize it away. "Of course I'm buying this $50,000 Patek Philippe watch just for myself. Obviously I would still buy it even if I could never show it to anyone. Plus I'm just not the kind of person would buy something just to show off. I never status signal. That's crass behavior."
I hate to generalize, but I'm going to anyway: In stark contrast with consumerists, anticonsumerists tend to have a deeper understanding (and a deeper humility) about human nature. We are primates. Which means signalling behavior is a structural and foundational part of who we are, and nearly everything we do plays a role in establishing our place in various social hierarchies. Thus to say "I never status signal" is delusional. It's far more accurate to say we are never not status-signalling. [2]
So, after hearing the confidently-stated rationalization above, it's instructive to consider the following two-part question 1) will this person buy the watch, and 2) will he never show it to anyone?
The likely answer: Yes to the first, and a painfully obvious NO to the second. Of course he will show it off. This is why this question doesn't work for consumerists. It's too easy to rationalize away and then, later--after you've forgotten all about the question and your answer--act inconsistently with what you said.
But if you're aware of both your ego and your propensity to rationalize (and more importantly, your propensity to rationalize without thinking you do), the question works. Flawlessly. People with healthy egos know they signal, but they also try their best to avoid buying things to impress others. And they try their best to avoid deceiving themselves about their real reasons for buying things.
Thus thinking about whether you'd never show a new potential purchase to anyone clarifies these reasons. Suddenly, certain purchases seem… off. Ridiculous even. You can safely put your wallet back into your pocket and go on living your life, rather than living to impress everyone else.
READ NEXT: When It Comes To Banning Soda, Marion Nestle Fights Dirty
AND: Oppositional Literature: The Key Tool For Achieving True Intellectual Honesty
Footnotes:
[1] Once someone said to me, "But I like playing checkers!" Not in this metaphor you don't.
[2] Paradoxically, even the act of not status-signalling can be a form of status signal, depending on the nature of your social group. I'll kick your ass in frugality bro!!
I borrowed (okay, stole) the seed idea of this post from Wall Street Playboys, a provocative blog if there ever was one.
***********************
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Are You An Al Gore Environmentalist?
Al Gore Environmentalist: noun; Someone who tells everybody else how to save the environment from his air-conditioned 10,000 square foot mansion.
*************************
Over the past few months I've been paying closer attention to virtue signalling behavior. And in the domain of environmentalism we see lots and lots of it.
There are studies for example, that show that people make green purchases primarily to signal their status and "morality" to others. Or worse, when people feel they're being observed, they are significantly more likely to buy an environmentally-friendly or green product, but when not watched they default to a standard product. And worse still, they make their environmentally wasteful and consumerism-based purchases quietly, at home, online, where nobody can see.
True virtue is practiced in private, out of sight of others. Virtue practiced in public is always compromised, at least to some extent, by the fact that you get credit and status by your "virtue" being seen. And of course this becomes pure pseudo-virtue if you practice contrary behaviors when you think no one's looking.
Al Gore's problem lay in the fact that it's awfully tough to conceal a gigantic mansion. Or the fact that at one point he had the single highest residential electric and gas bill in the entire state of Tennessee, at some $30,000 a year in power usage. Practicing pseudo-virtue at this level is extremely risky: eventually someone's going to discover the inconvenient truth and point out the yawning chasm between what you preach and what you practice.
Al Gore-ism is perhaps the worst form of hypocrisy. But even more galling is the implicit truth that some people get to make the rules, but rules that are somehow totally optional for them. Not for us though.
Read Next: Peat Village: A Parable
*************************
Over the past few months I've been paying closer attention to virtue signalling behavior. And in the domain of environmentalism we see lots and lots of it.
There are studies for example, that show that people make green purchases primarily to signal their status and "morality" to others. Or worse, when people feel they're being observed, they are significantly more likely to buy an environmentally-friendly or green product, but when not watched they default to a standard product. And worse still, they make their environmentally wasteful and consumerism-based purchases quietly, at home, online, where nobody can see.
True virtue is practiced in private, out of sight of others. Virtue practiced in public is always compromised, at least to some extent, by the fact that you get credit and status by your "virtue" being seen. And of course this becomes pure pseudo-virtue if you practice contrary behaviors when you think no one's looking.
Al Gore's problem lay in the fact that it's awfully tough to conceal a gigantic mansion. Or the fact that at one point he had the single highest residential electric and gas bill in the entire state of Tennessee, at some $30,000 a year in power usage. Practicing pseudo-virtue at this level is extremely risky: eventually someone's going to discover the inconvenient truth and point out the yawning chasm between what you preach and what you practice.
Al Gore-ism is perhaps the worst form of hypocrisy. But even more galling is the implicit truth that some people get to make the rules, but rules that are somehow totally optional for them. Not for us though.
Read Next: Peat Village: A Parable
Virtue Signalling
"I only eat organic."
"I wanted a Tesla because it's important to drive an emissions-free vehicle."
"I'm a vegan/vegetarian."
"Are those eggs cruelty-free and cage-free? I only eat cruelty-free, cage-free eggs."
It's fascinating to observe the modern era's various forms of conspicuous consumption. We don't just buy stuff any more, that's not enough. Now, we can broadcast our ethics with what we buy.
Even when just meeting someone for the first time, people may do things like bluntly advertise their veganism or vegetarianism*--uh, or their Tesla ownership--early on in a conversation. Why? Is it really that important to drop conspicuous virtue bombs onto people we just met?
Without a doubt--because it reflects well on us. Thorstein Veblen could add an entirely new chapter to his book.
Virtue signalling doesn't only happen around our food and diets, of course. In politics, one of the reasons we take obvious pleasure in pointing out any cruel-sounding or dumb-sounding policies of our political opponents is because, you guessed it, it's a way to virtue signal.
If you observe objectively how politics are typically brought up in conversations or on social media, the position is usually stated in the context of "Look at how mean those Republicans are with XYZ policy!" He may not realize it, but the person saying this is signalling "I'm not mean. On the contrary, I'm a good person, because I'm pointing out how mean those other people are with this mean policy."
And just to make sure we observe the equal time rule, let's consider an example from the opposite side of the political spectrum: "Look at how dumb those Democrats are with XYZ policy!" which signals "I'm not dumb. On the contrary, I am very smart because I'm pointing out how dumb this policy is."
Whether intended or not, both of these are blatant acts of virtue signalling. I bet you'll never think about political statements the same way again, will you?
They say that a true test of your character is what you do when no one is watching. Think about that for a moment. When you signal your virtue, are you really being virtuous?
Or to put it another way: what does it say about the nature of your virtue if it needs to be seen?
"In our culture, undue emphasis has been placed on appearances. Here, I am referring not only to physical appearances, but to all the ways we attempt to represent ourselves to others. Looking good has become a national way of life.
...Another disadvantage of appearance being highly valued is that it distracts us from seeing what is real. What is actually occurring in current reality occurs independently of our perception of it. Current reality does not disappear just because it may go unrecognized."
--from The Path of Least Resistance
by Robert Fritz
To put Robert Fritz's quote in blunter terms: no matter how much virtue signalling you engage in, no matter how many external signs and signals you give off, you're still the same underlying person. Aren't you?
Which takes us to one last question to consider. Is virtue-signalling the same as practicing actual virtue? Your answer will say a lot about what kind of person you are.
* A note for new readers: this post is not criticizing vegans or vegetarians (or even Tesla owners!) in any way. In fact, we celebrate vegetarianism and veganism here at Casual Kitchen, although we do not practice either diet exclusively. Further, most of the recipes at this blog are either vegan/vegetarian or can be easily modified to be made so.
Read Next: “The Piles of Cash Were Fake”
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com
via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
"I wanted a Tesla because it's important to drive an emissions-free vehicle."
"I'm a vegan/vegetarian."
"Are those eggs cruelty-free and cage-free? I only eat cruelty-free, cage-free eggs."
It's fascinating to observe the modern era's various forms of conspicuous consumption. We don't just buy stuff any more, that's not enough. Now, we can broadcast our ethics with what we buy.
Even when just meeting someone for the first time, people may do things like bluntly advertise their veganism or vegetarianism*--uh, or their Tesla ownership--early on in a conversation. Why? Is it really that important to drop conspicuous virtue bombs onto people we just met?
Without a doubt--because it reflects well on us. Thorstein Veblen could add an entirely new chapter to his book.
Virtue signalling doesn't only happen around our food and diets, of course. In politics, one of the reasons we take obvious pleasure in pointing out any cruel-sounding or dumb-sounding policies of our political opponents is because, you guessed it, it's a way to virtue signal.
If you observe objectively how politics are typically brought up in conversations or on social media, the position is usually stated in the context of "Look at how mean those Republicans are with XYZ policy!" He may not realize it, but the person saying this is signalling "I'm not mean. On the contrary, I'm a good person, because I'm pointing out how mean those other people are with this mean policy."
And just to make sure we observe the equal time rule, let's consider an example from the opposite side of the political spectrum: "Look at how dumb those Democrats are with XYZ policy!" which signals "I'm not dumb. On the contrary, I am very smart because I'm pointing out how dumb this policy is."
Whether intended or not, both of these are blatant acts of virtue signalling. I bet you'll never think about political statements the same way again, will you?
They say that a true test of your character is what you do when no one is watching. Think about that for a moment. When you signal your virtue, are you really being virtuous?
Or to put it another way: what does it say about the nature of your virtue if it needs to be seen?
"In our culture, undue emphasis has been placed on appearances. Here, I am referring not only to physical appearances, but to all the ways we attempt to represent ourselves to others. Looking good has become a national way of life.
...Another disadvantage of appearance being highly valued is that it distracts us from seeing what is real. What is actually occurring in current reality occurs independently of our perception of it. Current reality does not disappear just because it may go unrecognized."
--from The Path of Least Resistance
by Robert FritzTo put Robert Fritz's quote in blunter terms: no matter how much virtue signalling you engage in, no matter how many external signs and signals you give off, you're still the same underlying person. Aren't you?
Which takes us to one last question to consider. Is virtue-signalling the same as practicing actual virtue? Your answer will say a lot about what kind of person you are.
* A note for new readers: this post is not criticizing vegans or vegetarians (or even Tesla owners!) in any way. In fact, we celebrate vegetarianism and veganism here at Casual Kitchen, although we do not practice either diet exclusively. Further, most of the recipes at this blog are either vegan/vegetarian or can be easily modified to be made so.
Read Next: “The Piles of Cash Were Fake”
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com
via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
