This doesn’t mean something stodgy like “before you get something, think carefully about whether you will actually use and enjoy it, using outside view information about items in this reference class”.
Shame, that would have been an excellent message. It sounds much more practical than self-modifying into someone who likes to make muffins just because I bought a muffin tin.
I’d go as far as to say that a bias towards changing yourself to be someone who uses the stuff you buy is something to beware of. Perhaps before I buy something I should ask the question “How will owning this item change my preferences and my habits? Do I want my preferences and habits to be changed in this way?” (Sometimes the answer is “Yes!”)
If you aren’t currently someone who would use a muffin tin, and you don’t want to self-modify in that direction, then the article seems correct in advising that you don’t buy a muffin tin...
And yet, on the other hand, my spontaneous modification into someone who wears a leather vest given any reasonable opportunity was a somewhat predictable but ultimately unintended side effect of my recent Awesome Leather Vest purchase—I really had planned on it being just a component of one or two special-event outfits. In this case it was a known risk and not a problematic one, but if I hadn’t thought that all the way through and leather vests of the type I acquired had more problematic social-signaling properties, it could indeed have been a problem—this is actually a component of why I haven’t gotten a cloak, and also I could make an argument on that basis that I shouldn’t’ve gotten a cane when I injured my knee a year ago, since I wasn’t intending on modifying into a full-time cane-user and that somewhat-predictably happened anyway and has had repercussions. (I don’t mind ‘em on net, from here, but being visibly disabled has taken some adjusting to, and peoples’ behavior on that count still grates a bit sometimes, and I really should have put a bit more thought into that ahead of time, ideally. OTOH, canes: kinda awesome.)
Not all ‘self’-modifications are voluntary. Sunk-cost-based modifications are a subset of the ones that aren’t. Being wary of the involuntary ones is not necessarily unwise.
True. I hadn’t meant “if you don’t want to self-modify in that direction” to imply voluntary or non-voluntary. Sometimes it’s a voluntary process of making-yourself-use-it like Alicorn described, and sometimes it’s an involuntary process like you’ve described.
Why would you not want to be someone who wears a cloak often? And whatever those reasons are, why wouldn’t they prevent you from wearing a cloak after you buy it?
If it follows the pattern of the vest and the cane, I’ll want to wear it All The Time, whether that’s a good idea for signaling and aesthetic reasons or not—and I’m not sure it would be a good idea on either of those counts, but sensory considerations often trump those when it comes to things that I actually own and have experienced and gotten used to at all.
In other words: Right now I’m physically comfortable not wearing a cloak. If I get it and it’s as awesome along the physically-comfortable axis as I expect it will be, then I will quickly become the kind of person who is not physically comfortable when not wearing a cloak, and if it’s socially unacceptable to wear a cloak, or socially unacceptable to wear a cloak with my vest that I’m now uncomfortable when I’m not wearing, then that change could be a problem. (For values of ‘socially unacceptable’ that include ‘changes how people react to me in ways that are sufficiently bad’.)
If I could predict what peoples’ reaction to me-wearing-a-cloak would be without actually wearing a cloak to find out, this would be less of a problem, but as of right now I don’t know that they’d react acceptably.
I think Alicorn’s intended point was closer to “How will owning this item change my preferences and my habits? Do I want my preferences and habits to be changed in this way?” (Sometimes the answer is “Yes!”)” than “self-modifying into someone who likes to make muffins just because I bought a muffin tin.” You need to do the value-weighing before you purchase something.
Also, she’s made an underlying assumption that a) you have limited resources, such that buying something is a tradeoff against buying something else, and b) having stuff you don’t use creates “clutter” which is unpleasant. These points may not be true for everyone: someone making $150,000 a year probably doesn’t have to ponder very hard on whether or not buying a muffin tin is worth it, because it has a negligible effect on their savings, and not everyone finds having a lot of stuff distressing. I do think it’s true that most people err on the side of buying too much (see rising Canadian household debt) and keeping too much stuff around.
Shame, that would have been an excellent message. It sounds much more practical than self-modifying into someone who likes to make muffins just because I bought a muffin tin.
I’d go as far as to say that a bias towards changing yourself to be someone who uses the stuff you buy is something to beware of. Perhaps before I buy something I should ask the question “How will owning this item change my preferences and my habits? Do I want my preferences and habits to be changed in this way?” (Sometimes the answer is “Yes!”)
If you aren’t currently someone who would use a muffin tin, and you don’t want to self-modify in that direction, then the article seems correct in advising that you don’t buy a muffin tin...
And yet, on the other hand, my spontaneous modification into someone who wears a leather vest given any reasonable opportunity was a somewhat predictable but ultimately unintended side effect of my recent Awesome Leather Vest purchase—I really had planned on it being just a component of one or two special-event outfits. In this case it was a known risk and not a problematic one, but if I hadn’t thought that all the way through and leather vests of the type I acquired had more problematic social-signaling properties, it could indeed have been a problem—this is actually a component of why I haven’t gotten a cloak, and also I could make an argument on that basis that I shouldn’t’ve gotten a cane when I injured my knee a year ago, since I wasn’t intending on modifying into a full-time cane-user and that somewhat-predictably happened anyway and has had repercussions. (I don’t mind ‘em on net, from here, but being visibly disabled has taken some adjusting to, and peoples’ behavior on that count still grates a bit sometimes, and I really should have put a bit more thought into that ahead of time, ideally. OTOH, canes: kinda awesome.)
Not all ‘self’-modifications are voluntary. Sunk-cost-based modifications are a subset of the ones that aren’t. Being wary of the involuntary ones is not necessarily unwise.
True. I hadn’t meant “if you don’t want to self-modify in that direction” to imply voluntary or non-voluntary. Sometimes it’s a voluntary process of making-yourself-use-it like Alicorn described, and sometimes it’s an involuntary process like you’ve described.
I’m pretty sure wedrifred was referring to either involuntary modifications or both kinds, was the point.
Why would you not want to be someone who wears a cloak often? And whatever those reasons are, why wouldn’t they prevent you from wearing a cloak after you buy it?
If it follows the pattern of the vest and the cane, I’ll want to wear it All The Time, whether that’s a good idea for signaling and aesthetic reasons or not—and I’m not sure it would be a good idea on either of those counts, but sensory considerations often trump those when it comes to things that I actually own and have experienced and gotten used to at all.
In other words: Right now I’m physically comfortable not wearing a cloak. If I get it and it’s as awesome along the physically-comfortable axis as I expect it will be, then I will quickly become the kind of person who is not physically comfortable when not wearing a cloak, and if it’s socially unacceptable to wear a cloak, or socially unacceptable to wear a cloak with my vest that I’m now uncomfortable when I’m not wearing, then that change could be a problem. (For values of ‘socially unacceptable’ that include ‘changes how people react to me in ways that are sufficiently bad’.)
If I could predict what peoples’ reaction to me-wearing-a-cloak would be without actually wearing a cloak to find out, this would be less of a problem, but as of right now I don’t know that they’d react acceptably.
I think Alicorn’s intended point was closer to “How will owning this item change my preferences and my habits? Do I want my preferences and habits to be changed in this way?” (Sometimes the answer is “Yes!”)” than “self-modifying into someone who likes to make muffins just because I bought a muffin tin.” You need to do the value-weighing before you purchase something.
Also, she’s made an underlying assumption that a) you have limited resources, such that buying something is a tradeoff against buying something else, and b) having stuff you don’t use creates “clutter” which is unpleasant. These points may not be true for everyone: someone making $150,000 a year probably doesn’t have to ponder very hard on whether or not buying a muffin tin is worth it, because it has a negligible effect on their savings, and not everyone finds having a lot of stuff distressing. I do think it’s true that most people err on the side of buying too much (see rising Canadian household debt) and keeping too much stuff around.