[xg15]

> [1] The scarf/coat example is from this LessWrong article, based on the original paper Christopher K. Hsee, “Less Is Better: When Low-Value Options Are Valued More Highly than High-Value Options”

Yep, somehow knew it had to be LessWrong the moment the post mentioned "social value". That scarf/coat experiment and really the entire concept sounds like exactly the things that some EA folks would get hyped up about.

[leetcrew]

yeah, classic example of thinking so hard about something that you miss the obvious explanation. I already have a decent coat, so I'm not going to wear the shitty one you gave me. I already have a decent scarf too, but if you give me an especially nice one, it might become my new favorite. unless I'm planning to go straight to the store and return it, I don't really care which option cost more.

[xg15]

I think the psychological effect is probably real, but the framing is telling.

The OP at least admints that it's sort of an asshole move to exploit this, while LessWrong straight up recommends people to do this - and in fact goes a step further and insists it's a virtuous thing to do if you value your friendships:

> If you have a fixed amount of money to spend—and your goal is to display your friendship, rather than to actually help the recipient—you’ll be better off deliberately not shopping for value. Decide how much money you want to spend on impressing the recipient, then find the most worthless object which costs that amount. The cheaper the class of objects, the more expensive a particular object will appear, given that you spend a fixed amount. Which is more memorable, a $25 shirt or a $25 candle? [1]

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluabili... (The rest of the article is actually still worth a read because it has a lot more explanation and nuance on the psychology behind it)