The Science Of Why You Should Spend Your Money On Experiences, Not Things

[rubecube]

Came across this today. This discussion has spilled into some of the other threads on here, but this is a good central point to continue it.

http://m.fastcompany.com/3043858/wor...nces-not-thing

Most people are in the pursuit of happiness. There are economists who think happiness is the best indicator of the health of a society. We know that money can make you happier, though after your basic needs are met, it doesn't make you that much happier. But one of the biggest questions is how to allocate our money, which is (for most of us) a limited resource.

There's a very logical assumption that most people make when spending their money: that because a physical object will last longer, it will make us happier for a longer time than a one-off experience like a concert or vacation. According to recent research, it turns out that assumption is completely wrong.

Gilovich's findings are the synthesis of psychological studies conducted by him and others into the Easterlin paradox, which found that money buys happiness, but only up to a point. How adaptation affects happiness, for instance, was measured in a study that asked people to self-report their happiness with major material and experiential purchases. Initially, their happiness with those purchases was ranked about the same. But over time, people's satisfaction with the things they bought went down, whereas their satisfaction with experiences they spent money on went up.

It's counterintuitive that something like a physical object that you can keep for a long time doesn't keep you as happy as long as a once-and-done experience does. Ironically, the fact that a material thing is ever present works against it, making it easier to adapt to. It fades into the background and becomes part of the new normal. But while the happiness from material purchases diminishes over time, experiences become an ingrained part of our identity.

You're also much less prone to negatively compare your own experiences to someone else's than you would with material purchases. One study conducted by researchers Ryan Howell and Graham Hill found that it's easier to feature-compare material goods (how many carats is your ring? how fast is your laptop's CPU?) than experiences. And since it's easier to compare, people do so.

“The tendency of keeping up with the Joneses tends to be more pronounced for material goods than for experiential purchases,” says Gilovich. “It certainly bothers us if we're on a vacation and see people staying in a better hotel or flying first class. But it doesn't produce as much envy as when we're outgunned on material goods.”

[darklord700]

I agree with it somewhat. Material is experience too. Maclaren P1 is material but driving it is an experience. I don't think you can segregate material from experience too often.

Like buying a brand new 80" 4K OLED TV, it's both experience and material.

[Pointman]

You buy things to use them and while using them you are getting experience.

Both approaches are wrong though. In either case you give up money to get happiness via experience or things. The way to go is investing, it gives you happiness, experience, things and add rather than reduce your money.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Where do hookers and blow fit in?

[SHOGUN]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Where do hookers and blow fit in?

Short term happiness.

[Phanuthier]

I like how the article has 2 pictures of a guy skydiving lol

anyways not really surprised about any of that.... status is the bane of people's existence.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I agree with it somewhat. Material is experience too. Maclaren P1 is material but driving it is experience too. I don't think you can segregate material from experience too often.

Like buying a brand new 80" 4K OLED TV, it's both experience and material.

Originally Posted by Pointman

You buy things to use them and while using them you are getting experience.

Yeah, except the article addressed how it doesn't work like that. Over time you psychologically adapt to the experiences produced by material goods.

“One of the enemies of happiness is adaptation,” says Dr. Thomas Gilovich, a psychology professor at Cornell University who has been studying the question of money and happiness for over two decades. “We buy things to make us happy, and we succeed. But only for a while. New things are exciting to us at first, but then we adapt to them.”

No one on their deathbed says "Man, I'm really glad I bought that awesome TV."

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, except the article addressed how it doesn't work like that. Over time you psychologically adapt to the experiences produced by material goods.

honest question here....but can't you psychologically adapt to experiences as well?

[Dan02]

Does booze count as things or experiences?

[Pointman]

I thought it was sort of proven/established/accepted, that human beings are only truly happy when they contribute, rather than consume, to whatever they think is important and what connects to their core values and beliefs. I personally disdain the "bucket list" chasing satisfaction lifestyle, in my school of thoughts Portrait of Dorian Gray shows what happens to hedonists and Power of Full Engagement explains, what really brings the best out of people.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

honest question here....but can't you psychologically adapt to experiences as well?

I suppose if you kept repeating the same ones, then maybe. That said, I've been to half a dozen music festivals in my life and each one was unique in its own way.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I thought it was sort of proven/established/accepted, that human beings are only truly happy when they contribute, rather than consume, to whatever they think is important and what connects to their core values and beliefs.

Participation is just as important to most people as contribution. When you have experiences, you're exercising your autonomy and thus are fully engaged in whatever activity you're doing.

I personally disdain the "bucket list" chasing satisfaction lifestyle, in my school of thoughts Portrait of Dorian Gray shows what happens to hedonists and Power of Full Engagement explains, what really brings the best out of people.

Classic literature is great, but let's not pretend it's empirical evidence.

[OMG!WTF!]

I think there's a spot for both in life and the idea that you should do one, not the other is kind of odd. People I know who buy art are almost always thrilled on a daily basis when looking a their walls.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by SHOGUN

Short term happiness.

But with memories that will last a regretful life time!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

honest question here....but can't you psychologically adapt to experiences as well?

I would say yes.

Seeing/visiting the Rocky Mountains is an experience. But living as close as we do, how many people here even see the natural wonder when we look west? The mountains have become background noise to us. Much the same way, I would add, that that giant new TV or car does as well. New things are an experience for a moment, but quickly becomes noise.

From my own perspective, I'll use hockey as an example. I've been a Flames season ticket holder for 11 years. I love the Flames, but I rarely hesitate to skip a game when other plans conflict - I go to 40 a year, it just isn't an 'experience' anymore. But I also just got back from a trip out east where i saw games in Montreal, Ottawa and Minnesota. And those were experiences. Same players, same game, but just being somewhere else renewed the wonder of going to an NHL hockey game.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

honest question here....but can't you psychologically adapt to experiences as well?

That's definately true. Thats why we go to sunshine states for the sun and they come here for a winter vacation.

But there are cases like eating certain type of food again and again, or listening to the same piece of music recording, the experience never gets old.

[Regular_John]

Personally I'm a big proponent of experiences of things.

$200-$300 for a one night experience? Absolutely! Let's see a show, try new foods, pay too much for a bottle wine!

$300 for a pair of shoes? Are you nuts? Oh they'll last 5-6 times as long as a $100 pair?... I'll think about it, for a year.

I don't necessarily know if this is the right approach for everyone, but I do know the sushi I had in Tokyo was much more rewarding then 6 months worth of car payments on a fancier car would have been.

[undercoverbrother]

I can't believe this is a debate?

How can the owning of material items even come close to an experience, either good or bad.

Experiences shape the person you are, items do not.

One of the things that bothers me, a lot, is consumerism for the sake of it.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Personally I'm a big proponent of experiences of things.

$200-$300 for a one night experience? Absolutely! Let's see a show, try new foods, pay too much for a bottle wine!

$300 for a pair of shoes? Are you nuts? Oh they'll last 5-6 times as long as a $100 pair?... I'll think about it, for a year.

I don't necessarily know if this is the right approach for everyone, but I do know the sushi I had in Tokyo was much more rewarding then 6 months worth of car payments on a fancier car would have been.

I'm the same way. When I'm deep in thought reflecting on my life, it's always about the places I've been or the people I've met. Never about what new fancy toys I have.

Experiences > Material objects

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

I don't necessarily know if this is the right approach for everyone, but I do know the sushi I had in Tokyo was much more rewarding then 6 months worth of car payments on a fancier car would have been.

That's because the sushi was almost certainly real.

The crap we have here is generally pretty low grade or fake as hell. It's also why we get the weird sushi "fusion" here - don't have the proper ingredients so you add things like mango and try to make it trendy and make it look/taste better.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolm...ew-study-says/

- More than half (59%) of the 46 fish types tested had mislabeling.
- Only 7 of 120 red snapper samples (6%!) collected nationwide were actually red snapper.
- 84% of white tuna samples were actually escolar, “a species that can cause serious digestive issues for some individuals who eat more than a few ounces.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-effects.html

- 59 percent of fish sold as 'tuna' in restaurants and grocery stores is not actually tuna
- Fish sold as 'white tuna' is usually escolar which causes prolonged, oily, anal leakage when eaten in quantities more than six ounces