@jacob -- no, what I am saying is more simplistic. Most days/events in our lives are not all that meaningful in the greater scheme of things -- indeed, we don't even remember them. It is the relatively rare "memorable" days when someone is born, dies, is married, wins a big prize or completes a big project, has a stroke or an accident, loses their house in a fire, etc. that have a disproportional impact. On an intermediate scale might be annual family get-togethers, other reunions and graduations.
So I'm basically agreeing with Jenny -- when you are presented with a "memorable" event, its worth recognizing it and behaving differently than what you might otherwise do on a day-to-day basis.
I would think that each person's function would look different depending on how they plan (or fail to plan) and conduct their lives. Zimbardo/Boyds "Time Paradox" research is related to this. See http://www.thetimeparadox.com/ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUYU6KBdcHA for the entertaining animation.
Most people here are future-oriented and are good planners who strive to minimize negative meaningful events. Our challenge may be to make sure we're not squelching the positive ones as well by overly automating ourselves or demanding consistency for consistency's sake alone.
Being frugal and not cheap
"Our challenge may be to make sure we're not squelching the positive ones as well by overly automating ourselves or demanding consistency for consistency's sake alone. "
This, is one of the hardest parts of living frugally. When combined with the introverted nature of many here, it can lead to sitting alone counting your money. It is a mistake I am prone to.
I try to fight it. This year I started 2 hobbies, which over the course of the year, will cost me about $2k. They ensure I socialize with high quality people in a non-work setting 3-4x a week. Not cheap, but IMO, a frugal investment in my mental health and social network.
This, is one of the hardest parts of living frugally. When combined with the introverted nature of many here, it can lead to sitting alone counting your money. It is a mistake I am prone to.
I try to fight it. This year I started 2 hobbies, which over the course of the year, will cost me about $2k. They ensure I socialize with high quality people in a non-work setting 3-4x a week. Not cheap, but IMO, a frugal investment in my mental health and social network.
Whether you see the particular situation as levying a tax or as a form of social investment may depend on whether you are introverted or extroverted I suppose. Personally I find eating and drinking with others to be a great (and worthwhile) pleasure and splitting the bill is a more or less graceful way to ensure the meal concludes in good humour.
If you find yourself concerned about the relatively small premium you are paying vs the menu price of your meal I doubt you should be attending these jamborees.
If you find yourself concerned about the relatively small premium you are paying vs the menu price of your meal I doubt you should be attending these jamborees.
Agree with most of the posts. I ended up splitting the bill without a peep on my end and accepted that fact for future meals.
I would agree with the idea that you shouldn't cut out something that add value to your life (this was one of the points that jumped out at me in Engineering your Retirement--whether it be a cup of coffee from Starbucks or having dinner with friends).
And I think this is an important way to live your life, seek things that give you value. For some it might eating out (as jb pointed out) for others if might be reading a book instead (as jacob prefers).
On a more philosophical/grander scheme of things, the main point was being frugal and not cheap. I see the point that your frugal ways may appear cheap to others (given the Wheaton scale). But what I've realized is that the key seems to be to be frugal in your lifestyle and at the same time generous with others (whether it is with time or money).
I would agree with the idea that you shouldn't cut out something that add value to your life (this was one of the points that jumped out at me in Engineering your Retirement--whether it be a cup of coffee from Starbucks or having dinner with friends).
And I think this is an important way to live your life, seek things that give you value. For some it might eating out (as jb pointed out) for others if might be reading a book instead (as jacob prefers).
On a more philosophical/grander scheme of things, the main point was being frugal and not cheap. I see the point that your frugal ways may appear cheap to others (given the Wheaton scale). But what I've realized is that the key seems to be to be frugal in your lifestyle and at the same time generous with others (whether it is with time or money).
-
LiquidSapphire
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:40 pm
I stumbled upon this article that address this issue:
http://www.realsimple.com/work-life/mon ... page2.html
Splitting the Bill
Problem: The check arrives, and while you had a salad, everyone else had steak.
Solution: If there's just a few dollars' difference, consider splitting the bill evenly. If you're really in a money crunch―or the house wine you had doesn't exactly compare with the three $100 bottles the rest of the group shared―just say up front, "We're all paying for our own meals and drinks, right?" Make it plain and simple. If it's a large group, you can also ask your server for a separate check when you order. Most restaurants have software systems that can easily print multiple checks. If you don't get a separate check and one of the pricey wine drinkers moves to split the bill evenly, it's OK to be pleasantly assertive, says Post: "Try, 'Hey, guys, I figure $30 will cover my meal, glass of wine, tax, and tip. Can I throw that in and let you split the rest?'" Your message is clear ("I owe less"), but it's not the least bit confrontational.
http://www.realsimple.com/work-life/mon ... page2.html
Splitting the Bill
Problem: The check arrives, and while you had a salad, everyone else had steak.
Solution: If there's just a few dollars' difference, consider splitting the bill evenly. If you're really in a money crunch―or the house wine you had doesn't exactly compare with the three $100 bottles the rest of the group shared―just say up front, "We're all paying for our own meals and drinks, right?" Make it plain and simple. If it's a large group, you can also ask your server for a separate check when you order. Most restaurants have software systems that can easily print multiple checks. If you don't get a separate check and one of the pricey wine drinkers moves to split the bill evenly, it's OK to be pleasantly assertive, says Post: "Try, 'Hey, guys, I figure $30 will cover my meal, glass of wine, tax, and tip. Can I throw that in and let you split the rest?'" Your message is clear ("I owe less"), but it's not the least bit confrontational.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
@radamisto
i understand the sentiment but i dont think its achievable unless you have some kind of personality disorder. People do give us feedback good and bad and this is healthy. We take our social ques from others from the moment we are born.
Best imo to try and workshop the issues rather that pretend you are infallable.
i understand the sentiment but i dont think its achievable unless you have some kind of personality disorder. People do give us feedback good and bad and this is healthy. We take our social ques from others from the moment we are born.
Best imo to try and workshop the issues rather that pretend you are infallable.
-
DC Waffler
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:15 am
When I was in my twenties, I was part of a pretty tight-knit group that went out every weekend. We usually bought dishes that were within a couple dollars of each other. One week, someone might have a glass of wine, and another week someone else might have dessert. It evened out, we split everything, and I had no problems with it.
In my thirties, I moved out of state, and socialized with a bigger group of people in which I was close to only a few members. I went out most weekends, but the group composition was fluid from week to week. People I didn't know very well would eat and just leave without paying, the remaining people would be asked to split the entire bill, and things never seemed to even out. I felt resentful.
After a while, I stopped eating out with them. It's kind of sad not to have a standing social event every week. I eat out more rarely now. But when I eat out with people who care about me, we fight because we want to be the paying the check. If I'm not close enough to you to tell you to pay for your own food, then I'm not close enough to be your sugar mommy.
In my thirties, I moved out of state, and socialized with a bigger group of people in which I was close to only a few members. I went out most weekends, but the group composition was fluid from week to week. People I didn't know very well would eat and just leave without paying, the remaining people would be asked to split the entire bill, and things never seemed to even out. I felt resentful.
After a while, I stopped eating out with them. It's kind of sad not to have a standing social event every week. I eat out more rarely now. But when I eat out with people who care about me, we fight because we want to be the paying the check. If I'm not close enough to you to tell you to pay for your own food, then I'm not close enough to be your sugar mommy.
Moderation is the process of eliminating or lessening extremes. It is motion toward the average.
Since the average American is overweight (50% will be obese by 2030), indebted ($16K per household on average) and addicted to at least two of the following:
Caffeine, pornography, internet use, drugs, alcohol, sex, smoking, gambling, tanning, eating, hoarding, video games, shopping, working, television, smartphones and cosmetic surgery.
We should be running as fast as we can AWAY from average. We should rarely be doing things in moderation. In order to be exceptional at anything we must, by definition, go to extreme.
Hence, Early Retirement Extreme.
Since the average American is overweight (50% will be obese by 2030), indebted ($16K per household on average) and addicted to at least two of the following:
Caffeine, pornography, internet use, drugs, alcohol, sex, smoking, gambling, tanning, eating, hoarding, video games, shopping, working, television, smartphones and cosmetic surgery.
We should be running as fast as we can AWAY from average. We should rarely be doing things in moderation. In order to be exceptional at anything we must, by definition, go to extreme.
Hence, Early Retirement Extreme.
I wouldn't classify the averages of society as being moderate. Again, I do no equate the averages of society with moderation. Gorging on junk food is not being moderate with one's diet. Being sedentary is not being moderate about physical activity. Eating a balanced diet that best suits one's genes and overall health goals is being moderate. Exercising an hour or so a day allowing one's heart rate to be sustained at age minus 220 bpm without overexerting one's self to the point of harm is being moderate.
It is interesting how words mean different things to different people. jzt83, your view of moderation is certainly healthy.
Dictionary.com defines moderation as "avoidance of extremes or excesses," and defines the word extreme as, "of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average."
So most people define moderation as moving toward average and away from extreme. But what is average? How do we define it? That's the crux of the argument.
Many of us may know someone who eats every meal out at a restaurant. We also may know someone who never, ever, ever goes to a restaurant. Those two ends of the spectrum would then define our own personal extremes. Our brains naturally triangulates between the two extremes to define moderate.
One of the greatest problems we face today as a society is the fact that we are constantly redefining the extremes further outward. What was once a medium sized soda is now smaller than the smallest available option. We watch the biggest loser and the moderate contestant weighs 320 pounds.
The way you handle it is healthy. You refuse to allow others to define moderate for you. Unfortunately, everyone else does not do the same.
Dictionary.com defines moderation as "avoidance of extremes or excesses," and defines the word extreme as, "of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average."
So most people define moderation as moving toward average and away from extreme. But what is average? How do we define it? That's the crux of the argument.
Many of us may know someone who eats every meal out at a restaurant. We also may know someone who never, ever, ever goes to a restaurant. Those two ends of the spectrum would then define our own personal extremes. Our brains naturally triangulates between the two extremes to define moderate.
One of the greatest problems we face today as a society is the fact that we are constantly redefining the extremes further outward. What was once a medium sized soda is now smaller than the smallest available option. We watch the biggest loser and the moderate contestant weighs 320 pounds.
The way you handle it is healthy. You refuse to allow others to define moderate for you. Unfortunately, everyone else does not do the same.
@Ego There is an interesting discussion related to this concept (relativity of choice preferences) in Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational". He posits and proves with various experiments that humans are so prone to comparing and choosing from what is in front of them that their choices are often made based on the other alternatives.
For example, when faced with the choice of buying the online version of the Economist for $59, the print version for $125 or both for $125, most people would choose "both" for $125. But if the middle choice is eliminated, a majority then chooses the $59 dollar option. The very existence of the "bad option", convinces people to buy something more expensive, even though no one ever picks the bad option. This is irrational behavior. And it is the norm.
Marketers know this trick and often present less desirable options to make the one they want the consumer to pick look more attractive. So if a restaurant wants to sell an overpriced entree, a popular strategy is to put an even more over-priced item next to it.
Absent conscious intervention, the human mind is prone to relative comparisons based on what is currently or commonly available. (This also is a manifestation of the "Thinking Fast" part of the mind model presented in "Thinking Fast and Slow".)
For example, when faced with the choice of buying the online version of the Economist for $59, the print version for $125 or both for $125, most people would choose "both" for $125. But if the middle choice is eliminated, a majority then chooses the $59 dollar option. The very existence of the "bad option", convinces people to buy something more expensive, even though no one ever picks the bad option. This is irrational behavior. And it is the norm.
Marketers know this trick and often present less desirable options to make the one they want the consumer to pick look more attractive. So if a restaurant wants to sell an overpriced entree, a popular strategy is to put an even more over-priced item next to it.
Absent conscious intervention, the human mind is prone to relative comparisons based on what is currently or commonly available. (This also is a manifestation of the "Thinking Fast" part of the mind model presented in "Thinking Fast and Slow".)
The 'average' is emphatically not moderate. It may be, in certain circumstances, but mostly I don't think it is. As the "Biggest Loser" example shows, with different populations 'moderation' takes on completely different meanings.
I'm tempted to say that moderation should be based on an absolute metric, but of course for some things, we do look to an external reference. For eating or diet, I think moderation can be defined independent of population. If you're gaining weight, you're not eating in moderation; likewise, if you're undernourished and weak, you're not eating in moderation. But for cultural things like TV consumption, a person's definition of moderate can be skewed by who they're surrounded with. In a society where people watch 3 hours of TV every day, it might seem 'moderate' to watch 2 hours but few of us here would really consider that moderate or healthy.
To me, if I start to think "this seems a little extreme," that's probably a sign to moderate my tendencies. For things that are bound to biology, I think moderation can be easily defined independent of cultural values.
I'm tempted to say that moderation should be based on an absolute metric, but of course for some things, we do look to an external reference. For eating or diet, I think moderation can be defined independent of population. If you're gaining weight, you're not eating in moderation; likewise, if you're undernourished and weak, you're not eating in moderation. But for cultural things like TV consumption, a person's definition of moderate can be skewed by who they're surrounded with. In a society where people watch 3 hours of TV every day, it might seem 'moderate' to watch 2 hours but few of us here would really consider that moderate or healthy.
To me, if I start to think "this seems a little extreme," that's probably a sign to moderate my tendencies. For things that are bound to biology, I think moderation can be easily defined independent of cultural values.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
>>for some things, we do look to an external reference
I think this is ok, as long as you're deliberate and/or aware of your environment. That's why I visit boards like this regularly. On here, I feel like a slacker. In Stepford, I feel like Amy Dacyczyn. I'd rather aim for the middle here. (funny how many threads here--no matter what the original topic is--end up with a discussion of the *find your tribe* theme in some way
I think this is ok, as long as you're deliberate and/or aware of your environment. That's why I visit boards like this regularly. On here, I feel like a slacker. In Stepford, I feel like Amy Dacyczyn. I'd rather aim for the middle here. (funny how many threads here--no matter what the original topic is--end up with a discussion of the *find your tribe* theme in some way
@m741 The Biggest Loser, TV, eating and diet: This is a good nutshell example of the problem. Three hundred years ago the extreme end of the spectrum - the glutton - was defined using the person in the village who was fifteen pounds heavier than everyone else. Today we cast a much broader net to define extreme thanks to television and this machine I am using right now. The guy who is 100, 200, 300, even 400 pounds overweight has someone else to look toward and unconsciously think to themselves, "Well, at least I'm not as big as him/her."
When we are consciously thinking about it, you and I agree that the average is not moderate. But for most people, much of this thinking is going on behind the scenes. They (we) are not really thinking - I mean really thinking - about it at all. As Dragline showed above, they are reacting automatically and often irrationally.
@Dragline: Someone tested that Economist subscription offer and found it to be successful on the general population. They were able to lure otherwise rational people into making an irrational decision. What terrifies me is when this becomes more focused. We know profiles are being built about us as we type or use our devices. Soon they will be able to fine-tune and custom-make the manipulation so that it appeals directly to my psychological makeup, my state of mind at that moment and a host of other variables (hungry, sleepy, drunk, angry...) Not only will they be able to get me to do what they want, they will be able to manipulate me into believing that I am not being manipulated. What it means to make a choice, to make a decision, will soon be changing drastically.
When we are consciously thinking about it, you and I agree that the average is not moderate. But for most people, much of this thinking is going on behind the scenes. They (we) are not really thinking - I mean really thinking - about it at all. As Dragline showed above, they are reacting automatically and often irrationally.
@Dragline: Someone tested that Economist subscription offer and found it to be successful on the general population. They were able to lure otherwise rational people into making an irrational decision. What terrifies me is when this becomes more focused. We know profiles are being built about us as we type or use our devices. Soon they will be able to fine-tune and custom-make the manipulation so that it appeals directly to my psychological makeup, my state of mind at that moment and a host of other variables (hungry, sleepy, drunk, angry...) Not only will they be able to get me to do what they want, they will be able to manipulate me into believing that I am not being manipulated. What it means to make a choice, to make a decision, will soon be changing drastically.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
@ego--I attended counseling with my son for a while this year(he was thoroughly convinced schoolwork was optional). This is exactly how the counselor taught me to handle things with DS. She taught me how to frame the choices, which choice to put in the middle, how to change them up so he didn't catch on, etc. For the most part it really does work, although he's figured out the game a bit and will ask for new choices before answering. It's a little scary how easy it is to manipulate people this way. I use the same method in a group I run now so we don't end up discussing endless possibilites instead of getting something done.