Watching a Subspecies of Money Men

Last month we commented about how the super-rich signal their wealth to each other without making it obvious that's what they're trying to do. But not all of them, or those trying to be as wealthy as they are, are into that game at least when it comes to timepieces.

WSJ: The Anti-Status Watch: Why Men in Finance Love Cheap, Cheesy Watches

Sponge Bob and Avengers watches worn by financiers
Patrick Lyons and Leroy Dikito (WSJ/Lyons/Dikito)

Though finance guys famously flaunt Rolexes or Patek Philippes on their wrists, an established subspecies of money men goes the other way entirely. In place of a sleek steel case and elegant ceramic dial? Mickey Mouse. SpongeBob SquarePants. Fanta-orange rubber straps.

Over the years, highfliers have made headlines for sporting Swatches. (See: Blackstone Group CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman or former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.) That “wealthy guy, cheap watch” ethos continues to resonate in boardrooms and on trading floors, with men of all seniority levels embracing plasticky, offbeat designs, from superhero models to calculator Casios. Many resemble something you might win in a claw machine. Priced from $30 to a few hundred bucks, they’re a bit of fun and a different sort of flex, conveying an “I don’t need a Rolex” bravado that comes from having made it. Call them anti-status watches.

A practical reason for this anti-status affectation: cheap, everyday watches can be used as conversation starters in business conversations.

It's also possible to be viewed as truly wealthy, especially if everyone knows that a person is rolling in it, by not appearing to care about looking the part. The psychology of wealth, like the most important aspects of life, can be complicated.

I Still Wouldn't Trade My Life for Theirs

Woody Allen: "80% of success is
showing up." Truer than ever.

To those of us who worked long hours for modest pay increases and sometimes just to keep our jobs, getting ahead today seems almost effortless: [bold added]

common-sense moves that might once have been considered standard—meeting people in person, doing small favors for colleagues, hitting deadlines even if it means occasional late nights—are now seen as exceptional in the current work climate...

Consultant Alec Agana, a senior associate at KPMG in Los Angeles, says he knows that long hours in the office were a baseline expectation for many of his predecessors. Now he says he scores points by showing up in person a few times a week, even though he is often required to go in just once.

Every generation thinks that the succeeding one has it easy, and yes, we boomers have become our parents and grandparents.

Olfactory Modification

(WSJ graphic)

In a double-blind study men and women displayed opposite behaviors when they were exposed to hexadecanal (HEX), a chemical found on babies' scalps: [bold added[

breathing in HEX influences our social behavior, dialing up aggression in women but attenuating it in men. This sex difference stunned the researchers. Based on mouse studies, they expected HEX to have a calming effect across the board...“Women exposed to HEX reacted 19% more aggressively, while men were 18.5% less aggressive.”

...The authors speculate that HEX is an ancient survival mechanism. Mothers exposed to the chemical signal would be more likely to defend their babies against threats, while fathers who inhale it would likely be less aggressive.

Brain scans confirmed that exposure to HEX caused sections of men's brains to react very differently than women's.

Because the dimensions of aggressiveness and agreeableness are not as value-laden as, say, intelligence ("more aggressive" is not necessarily a compliment while "more intelligent" is), the apparent findings of an inherent sex difference in reacting to a chemical has escaped controversy.

Let's hope that researchers will design, conduct, and report on future experiments in this area with neither fear nor favor.

Teach Your Substitute Children Well

"Cakes has developed a taste for
Kentucky Fried Chicken." (WSJ)

It's not news that the Wall Street Journal ran an article on fat cats. However, this time the phrase was meant literally.

So many people have struggled with weight gain during the pandemic that the term “Covid 15” has gained currency, a variation of the familiar “Freshman 15” weight gain in college. Their pets aren’t far behind...

Among 1,000 dog and cat owners surveyed in October by Banfield Pet Hospital, the nation’s largest general veterinary practice, with hospitals in 42 states, 42% said their pets had gained weight during the quarantine, up from 33% in May.

One dog cries during a Zoom business call to extort a treat from her owner. Other pets divide and conquer by exploiting their owners' failure to communicate with each other about how many treats have been doled out.

For many people cats and dogs are substitute children. Like real children, pets have learned how to get what they want from their parents.

Note: during the past year wild animals have gotten fatter, too. In Foster City the portlier ducks didn't flee and gazed half-expectantly when I approached them. Where did they learn that behavior?

Comforted by Limitation

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek reflects upon the "deeply strange" nature of carbon- or radioactive-dating. [bold added]

What makes radioactive nuclei such ideal clocks is that they are reliably unreliable. An isotope’s half-life can be determined accurately by observing lots of decays. For instance, radioactive carbon, which is used to date organic material, has a half-life of about 5,700 years. But it’s impossible to predict when any individual nucleus will decay. In fact, an individual nucleus is a kind of anti-clock: It does not register the passage of time at all. There is no observable difference between old and young nuclei.They remain ideally young, we might say, until they suddenly and explosively die. By monitoring decays within this homogeneous population we measure time statistically, with confidence.

(Graphic from toppr)

In other words scientists can very accurately predict the behavior of a large group of atoms but cannot tell how a single atom will behave.

Of course, it's very easy to analogize this principle of quantum physics to the science of human behavior.

The study of the behavior of groups and whole societies has made significant advancements, but the Holy Grail seems to be predicting how an individual will behave; an immense amount of data has already been stored about each human being who owns a cellphone.

From his eye movements, demographic characteristics, and social networks it would be logical that an algorithm could predict what a person was going to buy, who he would vote for, and whom he will marry.

But hooray for free will, which the ancients said limits the omniscience of a Deity or which moderns might say will constrain the emerging singularity.

If scientists are having difficulty predicting the decay of a single carbon atom, then they are sure to have trouble with a human being. Despite my admiration for science and progress, I am comforted by that idea.

Itself Alone

(Columbia University photo)

Economists readily acknowledge that the concept of economic man (homo economicus), which is necessary for building their models, is a simplification of reality; human beings do not always behave rationally!

But attributing irrational behavior to "cognitive biases" is equally simplistic, according to economist Richard Robb. There are other explanations for behavior besides purposefully acting in the pursuit of rational or irrational goals. [bold added]

“Certain actions,” he says, “are undertaken by people not for any tangible benefit, but for their own sake.” These actions belong to “a second realm of human behavior” that is neither rational nor irrational. Mr. Robb calls these “for itself” actions, which he defines as “unproblematic, intrinsically human impulses” undertaken “without regard to whether they’re better than some alternative.”

Dr. Robb uses the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate:

(From ancient-origins.net)

“He lavishes all this attention on one random man,” Mr. Robb says. “It’s an act of mercy that’s not optimal in any way. If he cared about humankind in some sort of coherent way, he’d get this one guy up and on his way and then go find somebody else who was also robbed on the side of the road.”

Mr. Robb next tests the behavioral-economics explanation. Are we going to say that the Samaritan is subject to a cognitive bias—a salience bias in response to the one person right in front of him—so he makes the wrong choices? “I don’t think so,” he says. “It doesn’t feel right to say that the Samaritan is irrational, or that he’s got a cognitive defect he needs to correct, and that somebody needs to point out to him that he’s reached the point of diminishing marginal returns with this one man and should therefore go on and find a different man.”

Rather, the Samaritan’s actions lift his behavior into a realm beyond rational choice. “If he’d lavished that degree of care on every beat-up person he’d found, he’d never have made his way out of Jerusalem,” Mr. Robb says. His was an act of for-itself mercy.

Economists can explain why some people give nothing to charity while others devote their lives to it. They have difficulty explaining why a significant number are willing to help one or a few strangers but no more. The dismal science has a long way to go.

Love reckons by itself—alone—
"As large as I"—relate the Sun
To One who never felt it blaze—
Itself is all the like it has—
----Emily Dickinson

Difference of Opinion

I say it's more proof we're descended from fish.

Arguing on Twitter. pic.twitter.com/lItC9NEGVN

— Paul Bronks (@BoringEnormous) October 3, 2018

Ivory Tower

(Image from Kiplinger.com)

Buying the right gift has always been a problem for your humble blogger; in some cases the gifts were received so unenthusiastically that I would have been better off giving cash, gift cards, or even a donation to charity in the recipient's name. In the dry language of economics

A gift will cause a misallocation of resources if the recipient would have preferred something else that would have been no more expensive for the donor to acquire.

So why do we continually "misallocate" (buy the wrong) gifts, even for those whom we know well? Researchers theorized that expressions of gratitude--smiles and hugs, for example--steer donors in the wrong direction.

Dr Yang and Dr Urminsky framed an experiment around St Valentine’s day. They picked three pairs of appropriate gifts: a dozen roses in full bloom versus two dozen rose buds that were about to blossom; a bouquet of freshly cut flowers versus a bonsai; and a heart-shaped basket of biscuits versus a similar basket of fruit...

[Donor] men went for the smiles and hugs more often than it would seem that [recipient] women would have wished. Specifically, 44% of them said that they would prefer to give roses in full bloom while only 32% of the women said they preferred that gift to the two dozen buds. Similarly, with the bouquet and the bonsai, 40% of the men preferred to give the bouquet but only 28% of the women preferred to receive it.

(Biscuits, i.e., cookies in American English, were chosen by both donors and recipients over flowers).

The researchers were puzzled why the women displayed more affection over the gift with a short-term life (i.e. floral bouquet), although they said they preferred the longer-lived one (the bonsai). Really? Didn't they ask any husbands about the cold reception for a practical, long-lasting gift like cookware or an electric shaver? Don't the researchers have any life experience?

Definition of an economist: an academic who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

It's Better to Cool Off

(Photo from I Hate Hot Humid Weather)

As if there aren't enough reasons to deplore it, global warming will make us grumpy: [bold added]

According to a new study in the European Journal of Social Psychology, uncomfortably hot environments make people less likely to help others in need....

The researchers were able to show that hot and muggy environments increased fatigue and reduced positive mood, which directly led to less helping behavior. Understanding this connection may help people better anticipate—and possibly prevent—these types of harmful or undesirable behaviors.

Comments:
1) Despite the increased cost in electricity and carbon emissions, employers are likely better off running the A/C on a hot day. A happier workforce is a helpful workforce, which means a more profitable business.
2) "Uncomfortably hot" is a subjective measure. In Hawaii the friendly natives are used to an 80-degree, humid environment that is too sultry for the average Mainlander. After living in the much cooler Bay Area for 40 years, I am now decidedly irritable whenever I return home. It must be the weather; that's my story, and I'm sticky to it.