Gut reaction: Working out has an externality. Muscle tone applies a cost on others who must devote more of their time (which can be measured in dollars, by the way) toward the positional signalling game of fitness. Does this mean we should avoid conspicuous health?
Second reaction: I don’t like this advice. Maybe I value other goals higher than happiness.
Doesn’t buying a nice house contribute to genuine peace and stability while forcing a potential spendthrift to start saving? That’s an internalized benefit.
Just because something has benefits doesn’t mean it has externalized costs.
Doesn’t buying a nice house contribute to genuine peace and stability while forcing a potential spendthrift to start saving?
Or does it contribute to speculative bubbles, and increase unemployment by forcing ‘stability’ (inflexibility & stasis)?
“Just as the blowing winds preserve the sea from the foulness that would be the result of a prolonged calm, so also corruption in nations would be the result of prolonged—let alone perpetual—peace.”
Just because working out has benefits doesn’t mean it’s not without negative externalities.
Sure, but this is something that could be said of everything—everything has consequences which one has not foreseen. That’s the first law of ecology.
Unless you have specific reason to bring that up, or good evidence that the obvious benefits are outweighed by subtler negative externalities that others have noticed, or something, why are we discussing it?
Because the linked-to study simply says “conspicuous consumption has negative externalities” and the conclusion given is “Avoid Conspicuous Consumption.” I call foul.
‘positional goods’ which, by definition, cannot be augmented, because they rely solely on not being available to others.
-
… the production of positional goods in the form of luxuries, such as exceedingly expensive watches or yachts, is a waste of productive resources, as overall happiness is thereby decreased rather than increased.
^ This is specific to wealth and cannot (necessarily) be said of other forms of status, such as fitness.
That’s a pecuniary externality. People of your same gender will find it harder to compete, but people of your preferred gender will have more attractive potential mates available.
The term “conspicuous consumption” is commonly applied to displays of (financial) wealth; the recommendation to avoid conspicuous consumption does not imply that you should avoid all forms of conspicuous superiority. I’m not sure that fitness-as-status is so closely analogous to wealth-as-status.
For heterosexual men, one reason to exhibit conspicuous consumption is the dating game. :-)
And for everyone else, I think the Halo Effect is quite a good reason as well especially for clothes. But focus on experiences of course, just don’t go into a complete extreme.
It’s the same reasoning as the “avoid conspicuous consumption” lemma, and it could also be applied to education-as-status, lawncare-as-status, fashion-as-status, art-as-status or karma-as-status. Maybe the lesson could be rewritten as “Conspicuous Consumption has Costs on Others”? That seems like an unbiased reading of that study.
But I’m not even sure if I agree with that. If conspicuous consumption encourages others to become productive members of society out of envy, then it has its societal benefits.
You seem to be saying that the rules of the game of wealth-as-status are the same as those for fitness-as-status, to take one of your examples. But this is not at all clear to me. Wealth can be stolen and given away. Wealth can be amassed. Fitness is accessible to most people in a way that wealth is not.
That seems like an unbiased reading of that study.
I’d say that it is an overgeneralization of the findings.
Make that “to most people in the developed world”, then. If I want more fitness, I just have to exercise more and eat better, which the majority of people in the developed world could afford with little trouble if they wanted to. (Programs like the 5BX take less than half an hour a day—personally I use Goodbye Couch.) If I want more wealth (and here we’re talking about an amount of wealth that can buy “exceedingly expensive watches or yachts”, not just a couple hundred more dollars per months) there’s very little I can do to reliably achieve that.
The interesting question might be whether the usual way of signalling health (muscle bulk and low fat-- more bulk for men than women) is as closely connected to actual health (longevity, energy, enjoyment of life, disease resistance, fun, probably more....) as the culture assumes. What’s a optimal pursuit of looking healthy?
The interesting question might be whether the usual way of signalling health (muscle bulk and low fat—more bulk for men than women) is as closely connected to actual health (longevity, energy, enjoyment of life, disease resistance, fun, probably more....) as the culture assumes.
As far as I am aware the ‘low fat’ signal is a cultural idiosyncrasy. All else being equal it’s a signal of somewhat less disease resistance.
So, from the fact that underweight people are less healthy than neither-underweight-nor-overweight people it doesn’t follow that overweight people are also healthier than neither-underweight-nor-overweight people, and hence that there’s no good reason (other than signalling) for people to not want to be overweight, does it? (Or am I misunderstanding what the whole issue is about?)
Muscle tone applies a cost on others who must devote more of their time (which can be measured in dollars, by the way) toward the positional signalling game of fitness. Does this mean we should avoid conspicuous health?
Let’s work this out TDT-style: if the right answer to the question “should you exercise” is “no (because that would make others jealous unless they exercise too, because then they wouldn’t look as good as you)” you get a world with people who don’t exercise. If it is “yes (because then you’d look better)” you get a world with people who do exercise. I’d pretty much prefer the latter world. IOW, I’m not sure that this game is purely positional (i.e. zero-sum).
Let’s work this out TDT-style: if the right answer to the question “should you exercise” is “no (because that would make others jealous unless they exercise too, because then they wouldn’t look as good as you)” you get a world with people who don’t exercise.
I hate seeing TDT agents described as thinking like that. Because they just don’t.
Gut reaction: Working out has an externality. Muscle tone applies a cost on others who must devote more of their time (which can be measured in dollars, by the way) toward the positional signalling game of fitness. Does this mean we should avoid conspicuous health?
Second reaction: I don’t like this advice. Maybe I value other goals higher than happiness.
Does muscle tone not contribute to genuine health and longevity? That’s a positive externality being generated right there.
Doesn’t buying a nice house contribute to genuine peace and stability while forcing a potential spendthrift to start saving? That’s an internalized benefit.
Just because something has benefits doesn’t mean it has externalized costs.
Or does it contribute to speculative bubbles, and increase unemployment by forcing ‘stability’ (inflexibility & stasis)?
For the record, I agree that home ownership isn’t worth it for most prices. Bad example on my part.
I stand by my original point. Just because working out has benefits doesn’t mean it’s not without negative externalities.
Sure, but this is something that could be said of everything—everything has consequences which one has not foreseen. That’s the first law of ecology.
Unless you have specific reason to bring that up, or good evidence that the obvious benefits are outweighed by subtler negative externalities that others have noticed, or something, why are we discussing it?
Because the linked-to study simply says “conspicuous consumption has negative externalities” and the conclusion given is “Avoid Conspicuous Consumption.” I call foul.
-
^ This is specific to wealth and cannot (necessarily) be said of other forms of status, such as fitness.
That’s a pecuniary externality. People of your same gender will find it harder to compete, but people of your preferred gender will have more attractive potential mates available.
The term “conspicuous consumption” is commonly applied to displays of (financial) wealth; the recommendation to avoid conspicuous consumption does not imply that you should avoid all forms of conspicuous superiority. I’m not sure that fitness-as-status is so closely analogous to wealth-as-status.
For heterosexual men, one reason to exhibit conspicuous consumption is the dating game. :-) And for everyone else, I think the Halo Effect is quite a good reason as well especially for clothes. But focus on experiences of course, just don’t go into a complete extreme.
It’s the same reasoning as the “avoid conspicuous consumption” lemma, and it could also be applied to education-as-status, lawncare-as-status, fashion-as-status, art-as-status or karma-as-status. Maybe the lesson could be rewritten as “Conspicuous Consumption has Costs on Others”? That seems like an unbiased reading of that study.
But I’m not even sure if I agree with that. If conspicuous consumption encourages others to become productive members of society out of envy, then it has its societal benefits.
You seem to be saying that the rules of the game of wealth-as-status are the same as those for fitness-as-status, to take one of your examples. But this is not at all clear to me. Wealth can be stolen and given away. Wealth can be amassed. Fitness is accessible to most people in a way that wealth is not.
I’d say that it is an overgeneralization of the findings.
In what way is fitness accessible to most people but wealth is not?
Make that “to most people in the developed world”, then. If I want more fitness, I just have to exercise more and eat better, which the majority of people in the developed world could afford with little trouble if they wanted to. (Programs like the 5BX take less than half an hour a day—personally I use Goodbye Couch.) If I want more wealth (and here we’re talking about an amount of wealth that can buy “exceedingly expensive watches or yachts”, not just a couple hundred more dollars per months) there’s very little I can do to reliably achieve that.
The interesting question might be whether the usual way of signalling health (muscle bulk and low fat-- more bulk for men than women) is as closely connected to actual health (longevity, energy, enjoyment of life, disease resistance, fun, probably more....) as the culture assumes. What’s a optimal pursuit of looking healthy?
As far as I am aware the ‘low fat’ signal is a cultural idiosyncrasy. All else being equal it’s a signal of somewhat less disease resistance.
Why are people assuming that the relationship between fat and health must be monotonic?
They aren’t. That would be crazy.
So, from the fact that underweight people are less healthy than neither-underweight-nor-overweight people it doesn’t follow that overweight people are also healthier than neither-underweight-nor-overweight people, and hence that there’s no good reason (other than signalling) for people to not want to be overweight, does it? (Or am I misunderstanding what the whole issue is about?)
Let’s work this out TDT-style: if the right answer to the question “should you exercise” is “no (because that would make others jealous unless they exercise too, because then they wouldn’t look as good as you)” you get a world with people who don’t exercise. If it is “yes (because then you’d look better)” you get a world with people who do exercise. I’d pretty much prefer the latter world. IOW, I’m not sure that this game is purely positional (i.e. zero-sum).
I hate seeing TDT agents described as thinking like that. Because they just don’t.