I find it hard to come up with a deeper meaning for the original statement, so yeah.
Besides, it’s not hard to come up with a deeper meaning behind what the responders are saying; in pointing out that an object specifically designed as a bookmark makes a better bookmark than a dollar bill, they’re making a statement about more than just dollar bills and bookmarks, but about specialization in general.
I find it hard to come up with a deeper meaning for the original statement
“We don’t automatically reflect on most things we do, even when spending money. Even lifelong practices can be shown as absurd with a moment’s consideration from the right angle. In fact, we’re so irrational that we’ll pay a dollar for a bookmark!”
Reworded so people don’t get caught up in that particular phrasing. (Also, please read the comment tree and note that I’m just trying to answer Jiro’s implied question.)
I don’t see why everyone is disagreeing with you. I definitely notice that people have a tendency to buy things labeled for some sort of purpose, where if they thought for a few minutes they could find a way to fulfill that same purpose without spending money. Unfortunately, I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head.
While I agree that people often make decisions without thinking them out, I think you are underestimating aesthetics. Aesthetics have phychological effects, and often people find better design structure estetically pleasing.
Reworded so people don’t get caught up in that particular phrasing. (Also, please read the comment tree and note that I’m just trying to answer Jiro’s implied question.)
It would seem that most of the responders are hopelessly literal....
Your quote is both literally and connotatively poor. If Spielberg had asked “Why spend two dollars on a bookmark? … Why not use a dollar as a bookmark?” then there would at least have been some moral along the lines of efficient practicality. Even then it would be borderline.
Your quote is both literally and connotatively poor. If Spielberg had asked “Why spend two dollars on a bookmark? … Why not use a dollar as a bookmark?” then there would at least have been some moral along the lines of efficient practicality.
A dollar is much more fungible than a bookmark. After you’re done reading your book, you can not only use the dollar to hold your place in other books, you can spend it on other things.
A dollar is much more fungible than a bookmark. After you’re done reading your book, you can not only use the dollar to hold your place in other books, you can spend it on other things.
It is indeed a considerably more fungible one dollar.
It would seem that most of the responders are hopelessly literal....
I find it hard to come up with a deeper meaning for the original statement, so yeah.
Besides, it’s not hard to come up with a deeper meaning behind what the responders are saying; in pointing out that an object specifically designed as a bookmark makes a better bookmark than a dollar bill, they’re making a statement about more than just dollar bills and bookmarks, but about specialization in general.
“We don’t automatically reflect on most things we do, even when spending money. Even lifelong practices can be shown as absurd with a moment’s consideration from the right angle. In fact, we’re so irrational that we’ll pay a dollar for a bookmark!”
A decision with an aesthetic benefit is not irrational. You are misusing “irrational”.
(Or was this sarcasm?)
Reworded so people don’t get caught up in that particular phrasing. (Also, please read the comment tree and note that I’m just trying to answer Jiro’s implied question.)
I don’t see why everyone is disagreeing with you. I definitely notice that people have a tendency to buy things labeled for some sort of purpose, where if they thought for a few minutes they could find a way to fulfill that same purpose without spending money. Unfortunately, I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head.
That’s clearly the intent—except maybe for that last bit—but it’s kinda a poor example, I have to admit.
Reworded so people don’t get caught up in that particular phrasing. (Also, please read the comment tree and note that I’m just trying to answer Jiro’s implied question.)
Your quote is both literally and connotatively poor. If Spielberg had asked “Why spend two dollars on a bookmark? … Why not use a dollar as a bookmark?” then there would at least have been some moral along the lines of efficient practicality. Even then it would be borderline.
A dollar is much more fungible than a bookmark. After you’re done reading your book, you can not only use the dollar to hold your place in other books, you can spend it on other things.
It is indeed a considerably more fungible one dollar.
It takes time and effort (admittedly not much of it, but usually even little of it makes a difference psychologically) to spend $1 on a bookmark. (I would have phrased it as “Why bother spending …”.)