👏 Normalise 👏 Anonymous 👏 Gifts 👏

I actually don't know how normal it is, but it's a popular format, so...

Gift giving is an ancient practice which strengthens social bonds. It also has the potential, as per the Sam Vimes Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness, to help bootstrap someone to a higher level of wealth by providing them with goods that they can't afford for themselves. If the man who is buying the cheap cardboard boots has a wealthy friend, that friend could buy him a pair of leather boots that he could not afford to buy himself, and raise his disposable income by some ten dollars a year.

However, there's a catch. Gift giving between non-kin is generally understood to be reciprocal. We are naturally predisposed to look favourably on people who give us things, that is why it is possible to buy peerages. Quid pro quo isn't a bad thing, it's what creates a mutual bond of obligation. But if one person in the relationship can afford significantly greater value gifts than the other, giving according to what you can afford serves instead to highlight the power disparity. It weakens, rather than strengthens, the relationship. To be given a gift feels all too much like charity, reminding you of the position of poverty you are in relative to them, and risks creating resentment instead of gratitude.

This is not such a problem with giving between relatives -- it is understood that the way to reciprocate gifts from your parents is to bestow gifts upon their grandchildren; wealth going down the generations is the normal way of things. If the man in this example had a wealthy uncle, said uncle could buy him a pair of boots without any awkwardness -- buying your relatives expensive gifts if you can is expected, especially if they're your descendants (wealth moving generationally downwards). But between unrelated people in a position of ostensible equality, it's not so easy.

But what if the boots are given anonymously? It still might not deal with the issue of feeling like the recipient of charity (although I would certainly feel a lot less awkward accepting an anonymous gift of great value, than if I knew the giver), but without knowing who the giver is, it should not affect any relationships (assuming it is such a gift that you can't guess who gave it). As Jesus said, when you give, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. It's okay for small gifts, essential even so that they can serve their function in social bonding (and tell the other person how little you know of them -- that's a different kind of awkwardness, receiving a gift that you really didn't want because the giver hasn't updated their understanding of you, if it was ever even accurate). But if you're going to give big, give anonymously.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The ASHRAE Ventilation Recommendations Are Too Low

With winter on its way, I've been thinking a lot about heating and insulation -- specifically, about what the minimum level of power required is given the need to heat up outside air in a properly ventilated home. This led me to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, who provide guidance as to what the outside airflow rate should be to ensure acceptable air quality. Unfortunately, having done the maths regarding CO2 production, their recommendations are far too low. Healthy individuals take 12-20 breaths per minute. Each breath exhales 0.5 litres of air , so each person will exhale 6-10 litres every minute, which at a CO2 level of 4%, contains 100 times the CO2 of ambient air. In order to dilute this to a doubling of CO2 over ambient, around 800ppm, 600-1000 L (10-17 L/s) of outside air would be required, assuming the inhabitants are not engaged in physical activity that would raise their CO2 production significantly. The recommendations f
Read more

The Fae/acc Manifesto

It is a popular passtime of humans, since the advent of mass literacy, to write manifestos, calls to action, and the like. Especially in the age of the internet, when your potential audience is measured in the billions. And especially if you believe you have Something Important To Say, That Will Change The World. Your mileage may vary on whether or not this manifesto falls into that category; for the most part it is a collection and ordering of various streams of thought, partly inspired by and reacting to the plethora of “[x]/acc” manifestos and micromovements, about where humanity stands and should stand in the universe. Remember that acceleration is not always a change in speed; it can also be a change in direction… 1. A sufficiently complex process is indistinguishable from a person “ I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think."… ...Instea
Read more

The Subtle Future

Everyone knows about the Monofuture , even if they do not know it by that name. It is The Future (tm)! Flying cars! Monorails! Shiny glass and steel towers! Spaceships and spandex, all in the wondrous future of the year 2000AD! And everyone knows that it's not the future we got by the year 2000AD. This has made a few people very disappointed, and many people flustered, because it was the only somewhat-positive vision of the future they have been given. It's Star Trek or Mad Max, and if you look around you you will not see Star Trek, therefore we must be in the Mad Max timeline. But look around more. Just, look around you. Have you worked out what we're looking for? In 50 years of progress, what has fundamentally changed? The cars look a bit different, yes, but they are still cars. Even if autonomous and electric they will still be cars. The railways that carry much of the worlds freight would be instantly recognisable to Brunel. Airlines hit their top speed and took their
Read more