= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on How To Have Things Correctly - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (218)
I think I might be the same way. It almost seems weird to be any other way.
If you want to become this way yourself, here's a possible way to do it. Next time you're moving, as you're packing your stuff, decide, for each item, whether you ought to keep, sell, or trash it. (Keep in mind that most of the things you own you could buy anew pretty easily, so selling something amounts to converting it to a more convenient form of wealth (currency) for a certain overhead cost.) I used to experience a lot of cognitive dissonance when I did this, because I'd find myself wanting to hold on to stuff that had negligible market value and no obvious use cases. Then I made the connection with the endowment effect, realized I was irrationally overvaluing the stuff just because it was mine, and became way more willing to throw stuff out.
Or read this essay. Or watch this video.
If you place positive value on the fact of ownership the endowment effect isn't irrational.
But it is worth reexamining this particular terminal value and see if it is indeed terminal. If there is an answer to "I value owning things because..." beyond "because the mere fact of owning things gives me warm fuzzies", then maybe there is a better way to get those warm fuzzies.
OK, I'm not an expert on the endowment effect. But from what I recall, behavioral economists have found that if you randomly give a gift to half of a classroom, then offer everyone the option to sell their gift if they have one or buy one if they don't, very few transactions take place. This is considered odd because you'd expect naively that everyone values the gift according to a certain dollar amount before any gifting happens, and you'd expect to see lots of cases where people could gain by selling/buying a gift.
It sounds like maybe the way you're using the word "rational", anything that anyone does can be considered "rational" just by postulating the right utility function. I don't think that approximates the standard usage of the word.
If you prefer to place value on the fact of ownership, I recommend you avoid reading the GP, as it was directed at people who wanted to hack themselves to no longer place value on the fact of ownership. If you prefer not to, knowing that economists consider your impulses odd and not very useful (in a certain technical sense) might help.
No, they actually have to have that utility function. That my actions would be rational if I did value something doesn't mean they actually are. However, in the case we're discussing it seemed you were stipulating just those people - people who value possessions qua possessions.
I'd say it's usually that there's a small, immediate negative effect of losing the object, but a larger-over-time positive effect of not living with clutter. I suspect most people run in to up-front-costs issues, and also don't realize how much of a negative effect clutter can have ("it takes an extra 2-3 seconds to find any utensil while cooking; therefor cooking is less fun; therefor I cook less often" style chains seem fairly common)
I'm not saying that most people do value ownership. I'm simply pointing out that JohnMaxwellIV's advice was aimed specifically at a group which did.