[hxa7241]

This is quite pointless because it essentially cancels out. To get a cooperative structure you have to give away surplus -- that is, people with more have to give it to people with less.

Yes, redistribution! That seems a dirty idea in a substantial part of USA politics. So 'pay it forward' chains are a peculiar thing: they summon the feeling of cooperation, in an acceptable way, without actually being effectively cooperative.

[SeanDav]

Could not disagree more with you.

It is far from pointless. First of all the next person in line feels good, because a stranger helped them with no underhanded motives. Then there is a high chance they will pass it on, getting a second dose of feeling good, because most people feel good about helping others.

That's a double dose of feeling good. I don't see what is being cancelled out here.

[vidarh]

The chains are peculiar yes, but not that peculiar: It's strongly ingrained in us to return favours, to the point that giving someone something is a brutally effective way of exploiting them by later asking for a bigger favour back (e.g. consider Hare Krishna, that tended to use flowers for this purpose). The effect is so strong that we often try to prevent receiving favours because we don't want to become indebted.

In that light, these chains are easy to explain: People might like the idea, but people are also likely to want to prevent a feeling of being indebted - if you can't pay back the person who did you the favour, paying it forward to the person is the next best thing. There's also social pressure to show that you're as charitable as the guy in front of you, and against being seen as the person who is either "too greedy" or too poor.

There's also very low perceived cost: You were intending to pay for your meal anyway; that you're actually paying for someone elses meal makes little difference for you - it's more like friends that takes turn paying the bill when going out, where it is a social gesture rather than an attempt at charity.

[_red]

Quite right. In fact the opposite works - and its known as the Ben Franklin Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_effect).

The idea is that if I ask a favor of you (to loan me a book, in Ben's case) - you are more likely to become friendly to me in the future.

Its a curious extension of what you mentioned above, by asking you for a favor - which you then grant - you gain a sort of psychological 'credit' over me (I owe you). In fact, because you implicitly recognize that I'm voluntarily offering to place myself in your debt, you are happy to oblige since you recognize the subtle power relationship at work.

I learned about this from a lawyer friend who claims he uses it all the time. If there is someone professionally he want to get to know, he will call them and ask them for a small favor (ie. I can't make the social gala party tonight, could you please take my check with you and drop it off to pay for my yearly dues...etc).

[nmcfarl]

I use this occasionally for social, not professional, purposes and it seems to work quite well.

It’s sometimes a bit tricky to think up a favor the right size for the state of your relationship, but still useful enough to be real. Fake favors don’t work (and are frankly just weird).

[justhw]

Can you give me an example of a fake favor?

[nmcfarl]

Asking for the loan of book you'd won't be reading.

Things like that read false, and mess things up. It needs to be something that actually helps you out, to give the right social signals.

[triplesec]

ooh, that's evil and manipulative in the wrong hand. And explains a lot. Humans. All System 1...

[corresation]

You were intending to pay for your meal anyway; that you're actually paying for someone elses meal makes little difference for you

These chains have been common at coffee shops drive-thrus in Canada for years, where the standard deviation of orders is very small: Almost everyone is just getting a coffee and maybe a donut. A couple of dollars, generally. I have to imagine that order size varies much more dramatically at a burger shack, and it has to suck if you and getting your cheeseburger and end up in a chain with a family of six behind you.

[enoch_r]

Others have focused on how "pay it forward" chains actually do produce surplus, of a particular kind. But what jumped out at me was the idea that you must have redistribution to get a cooperative structure:

> To get a cooperative structure you have to give away surplus -- that is, people with more have to give it to people with less. Yes, redistribution!

This is correct up right up until the hyphen. Cooperation involves giving away surplus, but everyone has surpluses on different axes. Someone good at software development might have no idea how to fix his car; he gives away his surplus software development talent to someone with more knowledge of auto mechanics. Obviously the trade isn't direct since the mechanic might not want his software--so the developer trades his software for money, then trades money for the repair. This is cooperation!

[Osmium]

Ah, yes, you want a surplus, but a surplus of what exactly? No one cares about the burgers. It's a surplus of good-will and happiness that they want to create, and I think to that end it's very effective indeed.

[bambax]

> it essentially cancels out

If the person before me pays for my meal, I won't feel obliged to pay for the person after me.

How does it even work anyway? How do you know how much the person after you owes? It may work at drive ins but it's certainly impossible at a normal queue -- except if people leave a "standard amount" regardless of what the next order actually is.

And even at a drive-in where the amount of the next order is known, it's probably a big hassle for the cashier -- if not downright impossible: the point-of-sale system wants the exact amount if paid by card, and if using cash it's even more complex (the POS system tells the cashier how much to give back, and now this is false and has to be somewhat reconciled at the end of the day).

This sounds completely fake.

[dionidium]

You're right that it's specific to drive-thrus. The implication is that the person behind you has already spoke their order into the box by the time you pay for yours, so the cost is completely known to all parties. It's pretty straightforward.

[blahedo]

It's not a big hassle at all. The system is already managing payments as a queue, and once your meal is paid for (either because you paid it or because you were a beneficiary of someone else), the next one on the queue is the one immediately after you, which the cashier can then take your payment for and clear it out of the system.

[frogpelt]

It may be pointless to you. That doesn't mean it's pointless.

[corresation]

This is quite pointless because it essentially cancels out

This is ultimately what makes this so bizarre -- in the end such a chain has a single "benefactor", and then a number of what could best be described as victims: People who become a part of this process because of social obligation. Given that the people were already in line and obviously ready to pay for their order, this is unwelcome generosity, and it takes advantage of the law of reciprocity in many cultures.

This sounds really cynical, and I suppose it is, but I see nothing heart warming about Western culture in these acts. If someone randomly paid for other people's food, that is one thing, but what we're reading about now are people obligating the people behind them to pay for the people behind them, essentially trying to become a part of something -- the initiator -- for little.

If I pull up to Tim Hortons and just want a coffee and a donut, having to understand and then orchestrate the chain is not something I was looking for, and in the end I've gained nothing.

[pmichaud]

I strongly disagree that it's worth nothing. In terms of money, sure, someone paid extra, and someone got free stuff, with the bunch intermediaries.

But isn't it true that we collectively spend our lives chasing the ghost of connection, goodwill, and meaning? Don't you think that lacking those is one of the major "bugs" in western society?

So now we have a chain of people who get to participate in an act that brings them together, makes them part of a small "community," and allows to them to exercise both generosity and gratitude.

I think that's extremely valuable, and that someone has figured out how to do that for such a small price is pretty smart.

If you want evidence that my position is closer to reality than yours, consider how strongly stories like this resonate with people, and ask yourself why that's the case.

[garethadams]

Which part of society is obligating a person to continue paying it forward? Certainly not the previous customer, who has already driven off. And certainly not the following customer, who (if you don't pay it forward) has no way of knowing that you got your food for free.

In fact other than you, the only person who knows the situation is the cashier, and they certainly aren't expecting meals to continue to be paid forward - the articles on the topic always mention how surprised they are when it happens. And to be honest I don't understand your social compass if being judged by a random restaurant cashier is that big a burden on your conscience.

[corresation]

And to be honest I don't understand your social compass if being judged by a random restaurant cashier is that big a burden on your conscience.

My moral compass is not dictated by the presence of witnesses. If I'm at a park and no one is there to witness it, I still dispose of trash properly. I pick up after my dog without scurrilously looking around for other people.

One's "moral compass" should be internal, and might also be considered like karma. Most people do things because they believe it is right, not because they are being judged (though there are those people in this world, and they are the ones who dent and run and leave a big doggy steamer cooking in your yard). And in Western society one of the biggest burdens you can drop on someone is the sense of reciprocity.

[garethadams]

Ok, that makes a lot of sense, but then I don't understand what you mean by "people obligating the people behind them to pay for the people behind them".

If your moral compass is based on what you believe internally, I don't see how you are being obliged to do something by someone else if that person has no knowledge of whether you did it or not.

[triplesec]

it's a good point that if I'm in line and have a cheap order and feel under pressure to pay it forward I might end up paying a few times my order. It pays to be mindful if you're hard up, and be able to say no!

[dwaltrip]

If everyone's day was brightened, then that seems pretty damn effective to me.