Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/maam-your-burger-has-been-paid-for.html
28 comments
I suspect a carefully coordinated PR campaign for Chick-fil-A, as I've noticed uncharacteristically, frequent positive references to them in unrelated news items lately. I consume a lot of news, and noticing "fake" planted positive references in tangentially related articles is par for the course for any company that stepped in deep shit like they did. I suspect at least one of these positive comments here to be a plant as well. If you think this is paranoid, you don't know how our world works.
It could be a made up story, but there is a drive through coffee place in Michigan where this happens every so often. they even have a radio station sometimes coordinate it sometimes to see how long a chain they can get going.
Probably true, except for the part about chicfila staff trolling HN.
I agree with you, based on personal experience this happens, a lot. In the organizations I have been with, not everyone in the company even know it was a planted piece.
There are hundreds of stories about various companies on hn. The fact that you single out this one says more about your liberal bias than its objective "fakeness".
He didn't say anything about liberals, conservatives or Chick-fil-a's noxious gay marriage positions. Who's biased?
The article mentions chick-fil-a by name 3 times in the text and at the bottom, it's one of 3 terms that you can sign up for email alerts about. This is right after they had a run of bad publicity (yes, caused by politics, but that's irrelevant). Seems to fit in the PR-created article category to me.
The article mentions chick-fil-a by name 3 times in the text and at the bottom, it's one of 3 terms that you can sign up for email alerts about. This is right after they had a run of bad publicity (yes, caused by politics, but that's irrelevant). Seems to fit in the PR-created article category to me.
Actually he did refer to how Chick-fil-a "stepped in deep shit".
I took that as a statement of fact (akin to "Chick-fil-a faced a public relations disaster ...") rather than a value judgement.
It's a fact? I heard Chick-fil-a stores had record sales after your so-called "deep shit PR disaster."
Agreed, but I think it's indicative of a liberal bias, or at least living in a liberal bubble, to place so much weight on something that most people have long forgotten about (especially the kind of person who eats there).
And the post I was responding to claimed that these things weren't even mentioned by the top poster, which they clearly were.
And the post I was responding to claimed that these things weren't even mentioned by the top poster, which they clearly were.
You mention "chick fil-a PR", and that's going to be the first thing that comes to mind. Total self-inflicted wound on their part, whatever your personal politics.
I specifically address this point when I say that it's only a minority of people who would even remember that controversy. Would you care to address this line of argument?
I just did. You remembered it, and with passion. You knew exactly what the parenthetical (they stepped in it) was talking about. So did everyone else on the thread.
You disprove your own argument.
You disprove your own argument.
There may be hundreds of stories about various companies, but they aren't like this one. It seemed to be about generosity, and only tangentially about Chick-Fil-A, but I couldn't help (1) imagining myself being generous in my local Chick-Fil-A drive-through and (2) imagining myself feeling the warmth of someone else's generosity at my local Chick-Fil-A drive-through (which I've never experienced in real life).
pg wrote about the art of carefully disguised PR campaigns: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
That article was originally about me and was wrong. So there's that.
He also mentioned that they were never able to crack the New York Times :)
That was, however, some time ago.
That was, however, some time ago.
Also, that Viaweb never made it to the New York Times doesn't mean that nobody then did. Note the first sentence of the essay ;)
Ha, great point! I had based my comment on memory.
Also, worth mentioning that while I don't want to be overly cynical, this article does sound like a brilliant PR campaign. Given the size of typical PR budgets, you could afford a lot of free fast-food lunches for people.
Also, worth mentioning that while I don't want to be overly cynical, this article does sound like a brilliant PR campaign. Given the size of typical PR budgets, you could afford a lot of free fast-food lunches for people.
I don't know about that, but I do know that the only time I have had a pay-forward experience was at Chick-fil-A. And it was fun!
Really, that's what this article says to you?
Sometime folks look at others who are not doing so well and decide to pick up the tab, or just feel like doing it for a complete stranger. Some of its religion, some of it is just spreading the wealth. Sometime its just looking at others in bad situations. Sometimes its just to make themselves feel better.
I've done it a couple of times. I payed for a young lady at a McDonalds because their credit card machine was out and she didn't have cash and had a kid with her. No big deal for me, but I would imagine it helped her day. I've bought one of the pink coffee mugs (breast cancer awareness) and told the clerk to give it to the next lady who comes in. I got to see the reaction, but she never knew who bought it.
Spread a little joy, the world's a circle and it comes back to you.
"If you think this is paranoid, you don't know how our world works."
No, I just find it sad that you believe the dark corners of the world define the whole.
Sometime folks look at others who are not doing so well and decide to pick up the tab, or just feel like doing it for a complete stranger. Some of its religion, some of it is just spreading the wealth. Sometime its just looking at others in bad situations. Sometimes its just to make themselves feel better.
I've done it a couple of times. I payed for a young lady at a McDonalds because their credit card machine was out and she didn't have cash and had a kid with her. No big deal for me, but I would imagine it helped her day. I've bought one of the pink coffee mugs (breast cancer awareness) and told the clerk to give it to the next lady who comes in. I got to see the reaction, but she never knew who bought it.
Spread a little joy, the world's a circle and it comes back to you.
"If you think this is paranoid, you don't know how our world works."
No, I just find it sad that you believe the dark corners of the world define the whole.
It's not that he doesn't believe this happens, but rather that the presence of a story about it in NYT where chick-fil-a is mentioned directly in the first paragraph is not an accidental matter. Chick-fil-a being the main restaurant talked about in a feel good article like this is great PR for them, discounting the possibility of it having been arranged deliberately just because the op was overly cynical is a bit petulant. PR is almost never about making things up, but rather the timing and the tone and the things mentioned in the periphery of the story. PR firms know that a straight-up story on how chick-fil-a is great is not likely to do much for them with world-weary americans, but a feel good story about people helping each other (which may very well have happened) with chick-fil-a strategically placed just in the background is great.
Given the leanings of the NYT, I cannot imagine a feel good article about Chick-Fil-A will ever appear in their pages because of money. They have refused advertising several times because it doesn't jive with their editorial policy.
[edit] also see Natsu's comment for an additional thought against it being an ad for Chick-Fil-A.
[edit] also see Natsu's comment for an additional thought against it being an ad for Chick-Fil-A.
You can't believe it would happen for money, but you'd believe it'd happen for free? Anyway, PR is far more complex and subtle than "I give money, you write article". Someone posted a pg essay below that might be instructive.
As to why I think this might (I make no claims to certainty) be a PR-influenced article:
1. Chick-fil-a is mentioned in the first paragraph, no other restaraunt is mentioned until the fourth.
2. The first 3 paragraphs are a visceral imagining of what it would be like to be part of a "pay-it-forward" chain at a chick-fil-a specifically, complete with giggling cashier. Other restaurants are mentioned only in an detached and objective manner.
3. There's a direct quote in paragraph 5 from the chick-fil-a "director of hospitality", the only other quote from a restaurant owner is from a smaller local shop 3 or 4 paragraphs down. The chick-fil-a representative’s quote is a comment on the value and reasoning behind pay-it-forward, the other's is simply a factual one about a lady at his store that does it.
4. Getting a bit more abstract here, but this is exactly the kind of ideal that chick-fil-a probably wants to be associated with, "good-old down home people helping each other out small town america &c.". Note the jab at starbucks at the end?
5. Like op said, chick-fil-a took a bit of a beating in the press awhile ago. People might not remember what happened exactly, but they probably came away with a slightly worse impression of chick-fil-a. If PR was involved in this article then it's probably to try and repair that damage.
As to why I think this might (I make no claims to certainty) be a PR-influenced article:
1. Chick-fil-a is mentioned in the first paragraph, no other restaraunt is mentioned until the fourth.
2. The first 3 paragraphs are a visceral imagining of what it would be like to be part of a "pay-it-forward" chain at a chick-fil-a specifically, complete with giggling cashier. Other restaurants are mentioned only in an detached and objective manner.
3. There's a direct quote in paragraph 5 from the chick-fil-a "director of hospitality", the only other quote from a restaurant owner is from a smaller local shop 3 or 4 paragraphs down. The chick-fil-a representative’s quote is a comment on the value and reasoning behind pay-it-forward, the other's is simply a factual one about a lady at his store that does it.
4. Getting a bit more abstract here, but this is exactly the kind of ideal that chick-fil-a probably wants to be associated with, "good-old down home people helping each other out small town america &c.". Note the jab at starbucks at the end?
5. Like op said, chick-fil-a took a bit of a beating in the press awhile ago. People might not remember what happened exactly, but they probably came away with a slightly worse impression of chick-fil-a. If PR was involved in this article then it's probably to try and repair that damage.
You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job.
Why was Chick-fil-a mentioned first? (Puts on Sherlock Holmes cap.)
1. Maybe the writer was fishing for pageviews?
2. Maybe the writer wanted an eye-catching lead? Aggregators pick up the first sentence.
3. Is it a coincidence this is trending on a Sunday after millions of Christians just ate Chick-fil-a after church? How many priests/pastors injected this story into the sermon today? How many Christian moms did a "share by email" on this? A ton!
4. Sometimes these stories take months to write. Maybe the writer first discovered the phenomena via a Chick-fil-a related conversation.
5. A good article must have quotes. It's possible the Chick-fil-a quote came first which got the always-difficult first paragraph rolling.
6. Maybe this was an underhanded jab at Chick-fil-a patrons. "See, it's not just chicken-eating Christians that are generous." NYT's political slant is no secret.
7. Maybe the writer just likes the chicken? Is that so far-fetched? LOL.
Those are just as plausible, if not more plausible, in my opinion.
Why was Chick-fil-a mentioned first? (Puts on Sherlock Holmes cap.)
1. Maybe the writer was fishing for pageviews?
2. Maybe the writer wanted an eye-catching lead? Aggregators pick up the first sentence.
3. Is it a coincidence this is trending on a Sunday after millions of Christians just ate Chick-fil-a after church? How many priests/pastors injected this story into the sermon today? How many Christian moms did a "share by email" on this? A ton!
4. Sometimes these stories take months to write. Maybe the writer first discovered the phenomena via a Chick-fil-a related conversation.
5. A good article must have quotes. It's possible the Chick-fil-a quote came first which got the always-difficult first paragraph rolling.
6. Maybe this was an underhanded jab at Chick-fil-a patrons. "See, it's not just chicken-eating Christians that are generous." NYT's political slant is no secret.
7. Maybe the writer just likes the chicken? Is that so far-fetched? LOL.
Those are just as plausible, if not more plausible, in my opinion.
>You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job.
And you seem to desperately want me to be some bitter chick-fil-a hater. IF chick-fil-a was involved in the writing of this piece then it's nothing more than what hundreds of other companies do everyday, PR involvement is an integral part of the modern press. I may not like it but I would not call it "nefarious". I'm not commenting because I have a hate-on for chick-fil-a but because there seems to be a lot of wilful ignorance here on just how much the media we consume is manipulated by PR.
On to your points:
1. I don't really see why chick-fil-a would get more pageviews than another restaurant so I'll skip this.
2. Of course the writer wants an effective opening, but the "you're part of a pay-it-forward line" fantasy could have easily been written at a generic restaurant.
3. Other people have said it but chick-fil-a is closed on sundays. Also I don't really get what this has to do with how and why the author wrote the story.
4. I'm pretty sure a fluff piece on people paying for each other's fast food didn't take a month to write. And I think the author probably did discover the phenomenon after a chick-fil-a related conversation, one with a chick-fil-a sponsored PR representative.
5. It's impossible to say assuredly whether any article was PR influenced but that quote seemed awfully convenient.
6. You seem to be very concerned with christianity when no-one else has mentioned it, least of all the article. I would not personally assume that chick-fil-a patrons are particularly christian, it seems strange to me that this is immediately the thing you jump to. Same thing goes with the source's political leanings, I don't consider fast food to be a political matter and I don't think NYT or chick-fil-a do either.
7. Sure, but if that's the case it's interesting that most of the other restaurants mentioned are coffee shops and a bagel cafe (which aren't really chick-fil-a competitiors) rather than popeyes or mary brown's.
so in conclusion:
1. I'm right
2. You seem to weirdly have tied up a fast-food restaurant into some christian right wing identity you hold and it's preventing you from acknowledging the very really possibility of PR manipulation in an NYT fluff piece.
On to your points:
1. I don't really see why chick-fil-a would get more pageviews than another restaurant so I'll skip this.
2. Of course the writer wants an effective opening, but the "you're part of a pay-it-forward line" fantasy could have easily been written at a generic restaurant.
3. Other people have said it but chick-fil-a is closed on sundays. Also I don't really get what this has to do with how and why the author wrote the story.
4. I'm pretty sure a fluff piece on people paying for each other's fast food didn't take a month to write. And I think the author probably did discover the phenomenon after a chick-fil-a related conversation, one with a chick-fil-a sponsored PR representative.
5. It's impossible to say assuredly whether any article was PR influenced but that quote seemed awfully convenient.
6. You seem to be very concerned with christianity when no-one else has mentioned it, least of all the article. I would not personally assume that chick-fil-a patrons are particularly christian, it seems strange to me that this is immediately the thing you jump to. Same thing goes with the source's political leanings, I don't consider fast food to be a political matter and I don't think NYT or chick-fil-a do either.
7. Sure, but if that's the case it's interesting that most of the other restaurants mentioned are coffee shops and a bagel cafe (which aren't really chick-fil-a competitiors) rather than popeyes or mary brown's.
so in conclusion:
1. I'm right
2. You seem to weirdly have tied up a fast-food restaurant into some christian right wing identity you hold and it's preventing you from acknowledging the very really possibility of PR manipulation in an NYT fluff piece.
I won't respond to all of that but I think we can both agree the business of news is interesting. Also I'm fascinated by the PR world and no, I don't have much experience in that area. My perspective is more pageviews & software oriented. How the New York Times operates, how the editors make decisions, it would be fun to be a fly on the wall there. I bet they're ripping out their hair trying to keep up with the pace of the Internet.
Anyway, you made me look it up because I wasn't sure exactly what happened. As far as I can tell, this is what started the Chick-fil-a controversy. I believe this is the full text - http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271
In particular, near the end of the interview:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
Which I suppose is why you think they need ongoing PR help in the New York Times. My first wife, we won't talk about her! LOL.
Anyway, you made me look it up because I wasn't sure exactly what happened. As far as I can tell, this is what started the Chick-fil-a controversy. I believe this is the full text - http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271
In particular, near the end of the interview:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
Which I suppose is why you think they need ongoing PR help in the New York Times. My first wife, we won't talk about her! LOL.
Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays. all Sundays. every Sunday.
Chick-fil-a is actually closed on Sunday :)
indeed. journalists: even good ones, are under pressure for time and stories, and will often take excellent copy from a crafty PR verbatim. Such is capitalism.
It's not indeed (protomyth below) a matter of journalist or NYT deliberately giving column advertising to this company, but more the PR-fu of getting them to mention them anyway by feeding them the story in the right way, knowing that the journos will want to feel independent and objective. Clever PR people, upright journalists...
(I couldn't see a reply button on your comment just now, and now I see there is one. weird)
(I couldn't see a reply button on your comment just now, and now I see there is one. weird)
The article mentions a dozen different restaurants. Why do you believe this was Chick-fil-a rather than one of the others?
Well, they are mentioned in the first sentence, and repeatedly returned to throughout. Any of the other restaurants are done in group references, without being singled out. My suspicion was up as the entire first person framing of the article began, pulling the reader into this fantasy reality where fast food meals are paid for by strangers. Perhaps its the lack of any point to the article. Sure, I can accept human interest articles, but that one smells to fishy.
> this fantasy reality where fast food meals are paid for by strangers
This is not a fantastical practice. While it is not particularly common, I've heard of it quite a few times (most of which had nothing to do with Chick-fil-A) and have done similar things myself.
This is not a fantastical practice. While it is not particularly common, I've heard of it quite a few times (most of which had nothing to do with Chick-fil-A) and have done similar things myself.
Unbelievably sad.
Wow, this almost makes Chick-fil-A seem like a non-bigoted 21th century hospitality establishment. Only almost though.
Chick-fil-A employees are the most polite out of all the fast-food establishments I've frequented. The tables are always spotless, and the food is (I'll concede, this is subjective) damn good.
I don't think it's particularly difficult to separate a few bigoted executives from the totality of the company.
I don't think it's particularly difficult to separate a few bigoted executives from the totality of the company.
I agree. I rarely visit Chick-fil-A, but over the summer I had to go to a conference in NC and a group of us drove down from the Northeast, urban US. We stopped at one of their locations for lunch and there were about 8-10 of us so we had to push some tables together to extend a booth and make enough room for everyone. At around the mid-point of our meal, a middle-aged female employee came to our table, smiled, and asked us if we would like more napkins and if we needed our drinks refilled.
Now, maybe I'm just a cynical Yankee, but I would say that kind of treatment is extremely rare in fast food joints where I'm from. All employees I've ever encountered are well trained, professional, and super-polite (but not in an overbearing way).
Now, maybe I'm just a cynical Yankee, but I would say that kind of treatment is extremely rare in fast food joints where I'm from. All employees I've ever encountered are well trained, professional, and super-polite (but not in an overbearing way).
They are not just some executives, they're the founding family, and my guess is that the politeness and cleanliness are probably instilled by them as well.
> Chick-fil-A employees are the most polite
Admittedly subjective, but the few times I've gone to Chickfila, the politeness had a Stepford Wives superficiality to it. "It has been my pleasure to serve you today sir". Who says that?
P.S. How I assuage my Chickfila guilt: http://chickfilaconfessional.com/
Admittedly subjective, but the few times I've gone to Chickfila, the politeness had a Stepford Wives superficiality to it. "It has been my pleasure to serve you today sir". Who says that?
P.S. How I assuage my Chickfila guilt: http://chickfilaconfessional.com/
[deleted]
Not only is your comment a really ignorant and tedious shot at Chick-fil-a, but you clearly didn't even read the article.
[deleted]
This only incidentally involves Chick-fil-A, and is utterly orthogonal to the (IMO) reprehensible beliefs and behaviors of its executives.
The hippie/'open your mind' culture has left people feeling if someone doesn't agree with or support all of my lifestyle choices, if they tell me what I'm doing is wrong, they must be a bigot.
It's a fallacy.
It's a fallacy.
[deleted](1)
Makes you think about how much fast food is consumed in the US. I like a McBurger myself once in a while, but people eat altogether too much of that junk over there.
Nice article though: people in the US, especially outside the big cities, are often very kind. My Italian wife is always pleasantly surprised by this when we're there.
Nice article though: people in the US, especially outside the big cities, are often very kind. My Italian wife is always pleasantly surprised by this when we're there.
I think that's true worldwide. People are often much kinder and care about their community more outside the bigger cities.
I don't think people are all that much kinder and care more about their community overall, but rather big cities puts people into "survival mode" a lot, where we are trying to cope with too many people around.
It'd be exhausting to acknowledge everyone we pass, much less great them in a friendly way. It'd be exhausting if everyone asked you if you need help (and so too few end up doing it instead) just because it's obvious you're having a bad day.
And sheer numbers means running into the occasional people trying to scam you etc. is much more likely, and another reason for people to be more sceptical of your motivations etc.
Get past the shields people put up to cope with this, and there's plenty of kindness to find in big cities too.
It'd be exhausting to acknowledge everyone we pass, much less great them in a friendly way. It'd be exhausting if everyone asked you if you need help (and so too few end up doing it instead) just because it's obvious you're having a bad day.
And sheer numbers means running into the occasional people trying to scam you etc. is much more likely, and another reason for people to be more sceptical of your motivations etc.
Get past the shields people put up to cope with this, and there's plenty of kindness to find in big cities too.
People outside big cities have higher levels of Give A Shit Capital. http://shrik.theswamp.in/2013/07/why-people-think-what-they-...
"Perhaps the largest outbreak of drive-through generosity occurred last December at a Tim Hortons in Winnipeg, Manitoba, when 228 consecutive cars paid it forward."
Damn you socialist Canada. You did it with your healthcare and now you are doing it with your fast food too? :)
Damn you socialist Canada. You did it with your healthcare and now you are doing it with your fast food too? :)
Its the maple syrup high
This happened with Starbucks years ago. At the time, people accused Starbucks of staging it. Recently, Starbucks has been making "pay it forward" be a official promotion:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004084452_webstarbuc...
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004084452_webstarbuc...
It's funny how this positive article with a feel good story brings out the negativity at hnews.
Sometimes, reading stuff here just makes me go WTF???
Sometimes, reading stuff here just makes me go WTF???
I think a lot of people are on autopilot and just vote up negative stuff.
I think it has something to do with the fact that a lot of people here must be in a low mood because they're starting their own business and struggling, or hating their current job and wanting to do a startup.. I don't know. Just a hypothesis.
Could also have something to do with the natural skepticism of a lot of smart people who are used to poking holes in theories/systems/stories. All this is just conjecture of course but we should do a survey of some kind.
I think it has something to do with the fact that a lot of people here must be in a low mood because they're starting their own business and struggling, or hating their current job and wanting to do a startup.. I don't know. Just a hypothesis.
Could also have something to do with the natural skepticism of a lot of smart people who are used to poking holes in theories/systems/stories. All this is just conjecture of course but we should do a survey of some kind.
> [..] a lot of people here must be in a low mood because they're starting their own business and struggling, or hating their current job and wanting to do a startup..
You're the one being cynical... It's just a bias, people don't comment if the only thing they have to say is "oh that's great".
You're the one being cynical... It's just a bias, people don't comment if the only thing they have to say is "oh that's great".
I disagree... there are a lot of things you can say other than just 'oh that's great'. This comment thread is a perfect example of that. It is an article about people paying it forward in fast food lines (a lovely story about everyday kindness) and the top voted comment is about how much someone hates Chick-Fil-A.
Not every interesting opinion has to be a negative one, and not every criticism needs to be posed in a really nasty way. Most members of the HN community have been pointing out how the quality of comments on HN has degenerated of late, I was just thinking out aloud rather than passing judgment on people who come and comment here.
Not every interesting opinion has to be a negative one, and not every criticism needs to be posed in a really nasty way. Most members of the HN community have been pointing out how the quality of comments on HN has degenerated of late, I was just thinking out aloud rather than passing judgment on people who come and comment here.
I come to HN for a balanced perspective. If the article is positive, then I want to hear the other side of it. Like the comment about how it has the feeling of being cooperative but not really effective in redistributing resources. I don't know if it's cooperation or altruism, but I'm okay with comments that don't necessarily reaffirm the positive tone of the article.
Am curious how this works. What amount do you pay forward or do you swipe your credit card for an amount?
When you're picking up your order at a drive-through, typically the person behind you had already placed their order.
You then just ask for your bill to include theirs as well. Or if you're part of a chain then just state that you'd like to pay their bill instead.
You then just ask for your bill to include theirs as well. Or if you're part of a chain then just state that you'd like to pay their bill instead.
I was always curious as to how this worked. Thanks for clarifying it.
What if you just ordered some fries and a shake and a minivan with five kids is behind you?
I've thought about doing this myself at Starbucks. But then I wonder if the person behind me is a car packed full of kids and their parents have rung up $25+ of frappuccinos. As I don't want the awkwardness of asking the drive thru barista the total cost of what the person behind me ordered, I haven't attempted it yet.
Naples has a "long standing tradition" of something called "suspended coffee". (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/04/24/178829301/eu-emb...)
Similar story here in the UK. I was paying for my McDonalds at the drive-thru when for whatever reason I looked in my mirror and saw a young girl sat crying in her car looking deeply depressed. I asked if I could pay whatever her meal, did so, picked mine up and looking in the mirror I could see a genuine smile appear.
I hope that if I cheered her up for even 2 seconds, she can see whatever happened to make her cry isn't going to keep her stuck feeling down.
I hope that if I cheered her up for even 2 seconds, she can see whatever happened to make her cry isn't going to keep her stuck feeling down.
Perhaps she was crying because she was about to have to eat a McDonald's?
Seriously, why the fuck would someone education enough to be on HN be eating that fast food crap? If you really want a burger in the UK, go to Byrons.
Seriously, why the fuck would someone education enough to be on HN be eating that fast food crap? If you really want a burger in the UK, go to Byrons.
why the fuck would someone education enough to be on HN be eating that fast food crap
Have you ever seen the food at a startup/hack-athon/all-nighter-in-the office? There is a time and a place for junk-food ! And doing stressful things in a hurry whilst maintaining high-levels of concentration is one of the physiological test-pieces for high caloric density nutrtion consumption. Its a strategy rooted in science, not gluttony. Fat, salt, sugar will impact your bio-chemistry and manage stress hormones (thus increasing concentration and performance). The "stupid" use of fast food is merely to engage in chronic, long-term consumption outside of such windows of appropriate use.
Have you ever seen the food at a startup/hack-athon/all-nighter-in-the office? There is a time and a place for junk-food ! And doing stressful things in a hurry whilst maintaining high-levels of concentration is one of the physiological test-pieces for high caloric density nutrtion consumption. Its a strategy rooted in science, not gluttony. Fat, salt, sugar will impact your bio-chemistry and manage stress hormones (thus increasing concentration and performance). The "stupid" use of fast food is merely to engage in chronic, long-term consumption outside of such windows of appropriate use.
You don't need an education to be on HN. Just Internet connection and some free time.
> someone education enough
Brilliant.
That'd be great if all the people in the UK actually lived in the predominately Southern areas Byron has stores.
..and if everyone could afford to pay 2x-4x the price of a McD's. And spend 3x-5x the amount of time sat around in a restaurant instead of grabbing and going.
Yeesh, what a useless comment GP is.
Yeesh, what a useless comment GP is.
I live in the North - about 30 minutes from Manchester. I've never see a Byrons around here. Is there one in the Trafford Centre or the Arndale?
because I'm in a hurry, and neither have time to cook, nor for a sit down meal.
This reminds me of Jonathan's card, which was shortly exploited as an 'experiment' and ultimately frozen by Starbucks
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2877779
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2877779
Jonathan's Card had one key characteristic that made it exploitable (even if Sam hadn't been able to transfer money off of it): there was a reliable way of knowing how much money was on the card, and therefore a reliable way of choosing when to spend (or siphon) money from the card to get high value. I'm not aware of a reliable way of knowing that the car in front of you is "paying it forward".
That makes me curious: is it possible to exploit by starting a pay-it-forward chain and then circling back around with a bigger order? Would there be a particular number of cars or time of day or order size that would maximize the likelihood of getting your final order paid for, and would it have a positive expectation when accounting for the initial outlay and the time commitment?
[Note that I am not advocating actually trying this; I'm satisfied with it as a thought experiment.]
That makes me curious: is it possible to exploit by starting a pay-it-forward chain and then circling back around with a bigger order? Would there be a particular number of cars or time of day or order size that would maximize the likelihood of getting your final order paid for, and would it have a positive expectation when accounting for the initial outlay and the time commitment?
[Note that I am not advocating actually trying this; I'm satisfied with it as a thought experiment.]
Happend to us on the San Mateo Bridge (westbound) a couple of years back. We felt special but did not pay it forward. Instead, told the lady at the booth to consider the fee a tip :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
ooh, that's evil and manipulative in the wrong hand. And explains a lot. Humans. All System 1...
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.
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.
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!
> 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!
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
It may be pointless to you. That doesn't mean it's pointless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
If everyone's day was brightened, then that seems pretty damn effective to me.
[deleted]
I thought the gesture was great, although I couldn't help wondering if it's an act of kindness to give away fast food in a nation that is struggling with obesity.
Could just be me.
Could just be me.
It's the thought that counts, but from a European perspective it's a bizarre thought nonetheless. Quaint and cute and gross all at the same time.
The expression was popularized by the best-selling novel “Pay It Forward” ... The protagonist does three good deeds and asks the beneficiaries to do three good deeds and so on.
The origins of this term are somewhat different, and worth noting. The normal mode of reciporocity is to 'pay it back'. However, there are certain times when this would be physically impossible. This is the origin of 'pay it forward'. It results from the humble notion: I can never pay it back, so I will pay it forward. It has nothing to do with scaling (3x), nor contingency (i did this for you, now you do this...etc). It is a response to an actual act of kindness or generosity that precisely lacks such a contingency (most usually because you will never interact with the person that helped you out, ever again). It would have been nice for the NY Times piece to note this correctly! Its just too bad that the actual understanding of the term could not be promulgated through what is otherwise a good piece (likely to be widely read).
The origins of this term are somewhat different, and worth noting. The normal mode of reciporocity is to 'pay it back'. However, there are certain times when this would be physically impossible. This is the origin of 'pay it forward'. It results from the humble notion: I can never pay it back, so I will pay it forward. It has nothing to do with scaling (3x), nor contingency (i did this for you, now you do this...etc). It is a response to an actual act of kindness or generosity that precisely lacks such a contingency (most usually because you will never interact with the person that helped you out, ever again). It would have been nice for the NY Times piece to note this correctly! Its just too bad that the actual understanding of the term could not be promulgated through what is otherwise a good piece (likely to be widely read).
Great comment, very interesting. Have you considered emailing the author/editor? Genuine corrections have a decent chance of being included.
"While confusing in the context of paying for the car behind you in a drive-through, “pay it forward” means to repay a kindness by being kind to someone else rather than the person who was kind to you."
The article didn't claim it had anything to do with 3x. That was simply explaining the version in the movie, which did in fact popularize the term.
The article didn't claim it had anything to do with 3x. That was simply explaining the version in the movie, which did in fact popularize the term.
A proper definition of any term should not be consistent with its mis-use. The term from the movie is a ~mis-use, and yet the term as elsewhwere defined (by your quote) is consistent with the mis-use. Its not technically 'false', but it suffers from an 'error of omission', for not having the correct level of granularity (to avoid confusion).
Of course, the only reason this works is that it is not socially acceptable to break the chain in this circumstance. For instance, if there was a tip/charity jar (and I'm guessing there isn't in the cases this works) I would simply put my surplus into the tip jar and break the chain, because I find this idea annoying. If there is no tip jar, I would have no choice but to continue the chain.
Surprised the article didn't mention the original source of the expression - sci-fi author Robert Heinlein, over 50 years ago.
And what is the point exactly?
What good does to pay a meal for a person that could very much be paying their own meal? They can pay hundreds of dollars for a car, tens of dollars for a full tank of gasoline, yet they can't pay for a 4 dollars Big Mac?
If I had no money the last place for spending it would be on a fast-food place. There is much more you can do with 4 dollars. You can get better and healthier food.
So, instead why not help people who actually can't afford a Big Mac?
What good does to pay a meal for a person that could very much be paying their own meal? They can pay hundreds of dollars for a car, tens of dollars for a full tank of gasoline, yet they can't pay for a 4 dollars Big Mac?
If I had no money the last place for spending it would be on a fast-food place. There is much more you can do with 4 dollars. You can get better and healthier food.
So, instead why not help people who actually can't afford a Big Mac?
>They can pay hundreds of dollars for a car, tens of dollars for a full tank of gasoline, yet they can't pay for a 4 dollars Big Mac? //
I've been in this situation. We need a car for work and so the outlay on the car and the gas is required if we want to earn money with the car. We can't however afford to eat at McDo' so you wouldn't find us in the line [also I disprove of drive-through].
I've been in this situation. We need a car for work and so the outlay on the car and the gas is required if we want to earn money with the car. We can't however afford to eat at McDo' so you wouldn't find us in the line [also I disprove of drive-through].
"Pay it forward." THIS is why I'm a programmer.
Sure, I'm a professional and I earn quite well, but any customer I've ever had will tell you that the value they received from me far exceeded what it cost them.
Delivering customer value. That's it for me. I'm really much less interested in all the other things we talk about here: languages, algorithms, hacks, investments, technology, etc. I'd rather hack my customers' problems than my own.
Why do I consider this paying if forward? Because of everyone who ever helped me get where I am: teachers, mentors, customers, peers, but mostly my parents and grandparents who all had difficult lives and made great sacrifices. They never had the opportunities I have now, a relatively easy life and the ability to turn nothing into something for someone else. I can't (literally) pay them back any more, but I can by paying it forward to others.
I always felt this way but never knew how to verbalize it until I heard the phrase "Pay it Forward". Thanks. Great HN post.
Sure, I'm a professional and I earn quite well, but any customer I've ever had will tell you that the value they received from me far exceeded what it cost them.
Delivering customer value. That's it for me. I'm really much less interested in all the other things we talk about here: languages, algorithms, hacks, investments, technology, etc. I'd rather hack my customers' problems than my own.
Why do I consider this paying if forward? Because of everyone who ever helped me get where I am: teachers, mentors, customers, peers, but mostly my parents and grandparents who all had difficult lives and made great sacrifices. They never had the opportunities I have now, a relatively easy life and the ability to turn nothing into something for someone else. I can't (literally) pay them back any more, but I can by paying it forward to others.
I always felt this way but never knew how to verbalize it until I heard the phrase "Pay it Forward". Thanks. Great HN post.
My mom is a single mother who worked really hard to give my brother, sister, and me what we have today. Even now she's still working in some awful factory to pay the bills. While I'm in some office making much more with less stress. Its crazy an depressing. So, I'm paying it back I guess. I help her with a good chunk of her bills. I hope one day I have enough income to pay everything for her, it'll be her reward for being a great parent. That day is coming soon!!
www.marcoledesma.com
> any customer I've ever had will tell you that the value they received from me far exceeded what it cost them.
That's the whole point of capitalism (as opposed to what our non-representatives in DC call capitalism) -- with free trade everyone is better off.
That's the whole point of capitalism (as opposed to what our non-representatives in DC call capitalism) -- with free trade everyone is better off.
That's a curious effect. Consider:
Situation 1) You drive up to pay for your food, you pay the price you were expecting, you leave with the same mood you arrived with.
Situation 2) You drive up to pay for your food, you find the person ahead has paid for you, you pay nothing, you leave happier because someone has been kind to you and you get a free lunch.
Situation 3) You drive up to pay for your food, and you find the person ahead has paid for you. You feel happier because someone has been kind to you, and in turn you pay for the person behind you. You pay an unexpected amount, possibly more than your own food cost. Now you leave with a lunch you may as well have paid for, but you leave happier.
In situation 2, the free lunch looks like the thing that makes you happier.
In situation 3, you might pay more than your lunch price and yet still leave happier.
In situation 3, everyone in the chain has gone to get some lunch, got some lunch, paid for some lunch ... and left happier.
And yet, if you tried to set it up to work this way - either the drive thru had a rule where you always paid for the person behind you (and if nobody was there you paid a random amount, or the average price of the previous N orders), or if there was a social expectation of same (i.e. like tipping, unwritten but obligatory), then I don't think it would work. In fact, going there expecting to pay an unknown amount seems like it would make me feel worse; and going there expecting a 'free' meal would tend to make me either order much more (it's free) or feel obliged to order less (someone else is paying), but either way be less comfortable about the whole deal.
It's not surprising to me that in the small scale, receiving kindness and/or doing something kind feels good. But it is surprising that on a wider scale, one system where everyone orders/pays/eats has minimal effect on mood and another where everyone orders/pays/eats results in a chain of tens of people feeling happier. (Side questions: It's easy for the article to present this as a chain of happiness, but how many people in the chains of tens of cars didn't feel happier, and felt indifferent? And how many felt worse yet obliged to participate to avoid looking stingy?)
My guess is that if it expands to be a social norm, it will hit the same kind of backlash as tipping does - arguments about whether taking your food and not paying for the people behind makes you a horrible person, or whether it's okay to pay for just the price of your meal for the people behind / whether you should be willing to pay 10% or 20% more than your meal, or whether if you're paying a random price because there's no car behind you, is it okay for the restaurant to come to depend on pocketing the difference for its profits.
Could we systematise the kindness/happiness effect without ruining it?
Situation 1) You drive up to pay for your food, you pay the price you were expecting, you leave with the same mood you arrived with.
Situation 2) You drive up to pay for your food, you find the person ahead has paid for you, you pay nothing, you leave happier because someone has been kind to you and you get a free lunch.
Situation 3) You drive up to pay for your food, and you find the person ahead has paid for you. You feel happier because someone has been kind to you, and in turn you pay for the person behind you. You pay an unexpected amount, possibly more than your own food cost. Now you leave with a lunch you may as well have paid for, but you leave happier.
In situation 2, the free lunch looks like the thing that makes you happier.
In situation 3, you might pay more than your lunch price and yet still leave happier.
In situation 3, everyone in the chain has gone to get some lunch, got some lunch, paid for some lunch ... and left happier.
And yet, if you tried to set it up to work this way - either the drive thru had a rule where you always paid for the person behind you (and if nobody was there you paid a random amount, or the average price of the previous N orders), or if there was a social expectation of same (i.e. like tipping, unwritten but obligatory), then I don't think it would work. In fact, going there expecting to pay an unknown amount seems like it would make me feel worse; and going there expecting a 'free' meal would tend to make me either order much more (it's free) or feel obliged to order less (someone else is paying), but either way be less comfortable about the whole deal.
It's not surprising to me that in the small scale, receiving kindness and/or doing something kind feels good. But it is surprising that on a wider scale, one system where everyone orders/pays/eats has minimal effect on mood and another where everyone orders/pays/eats results in a chain of tens of people feeling happier. (Side questions: It's easy for the article to present this as a chain of happiness, but how many people in the chains of tens of cars didn't feel happier, and felt indifferent? And how many felt worse yet obliged to participate to avoid looking stingy?)
My guess is that if it expands to be a social norm, it will hit the same kind of backlash as tipping does - arguments about whether taking your food and not paying for the people behind makes you a horrible person, or whether it's okay to pay for just the price of your meal for the people behind / whether you should be willing to pay 10% or 20% more than your meal, or whether if you're paying a random price because there's no car behind you, is it okay for the restaurant to come to depend on pocketing the difference for its profits.
Could we systematise the kindness/happiness effect without ruining it?
Could we systematise the kindness/happiness effect without ruining it?
Kindness by definition isn't kindness if it is not voluntary.
I think the best you can hope for are social systems that don't reward cruelty.
Kindness by definition isn't kindness if it is not voluntary.
I think the best you can hope for are social systems that don't reward cruelty.
What definition? Why not?
Unkindness and cruelty still exist if they are built into systems, don't they?
Unkindness and cruelty still exist if they are built into systems, don't they?
Well, we seem to be talking about kindness in regards to how it makes you feel.
Kindness does not work if it is forced. You can force people to do "kind" things, but that won't make them happy. Likewise, when we have unkindness built into systems, it doesn't necessarily make people feel bad, because they're being forced to do it (or at least, not as bad).
Kindness does not work if it is forced. You can force people to do "kind" things, but that won't make them happy. Likewise, when we have unkindness built into systems, it doesn't necessarily make people feel bad, because they're being forced to do it (or at least, not as bad).
Yes. I think the key here is that it probably makes us happier to see two choices and choose the kinder, rather than simply living in a kindness-enforced society. At least for me, I derive a lot of happiness simply from my sense of agency, and choosing to be an agent of good will is powerful.
In the reddit thread for this same article, I found this the best comment:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/elal2/have_you_ev...
A much better "pay it forward" story.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/elal2/have_you_ev...
A much better "pay it forward" story.
Thanks for posting that very relevant reddit. Oddly enough - and this is not a point that we should all get religious - to anyone brought up in church traditions (and rejected them or not) it likely reminds them of the parable of the good Samaritan. The idea that the guy you look down upon is actually the guy that may well be the one that helps you in your hour of need. The learning obviously being that you shoudl stop being such a snotty git and love your neigbour.
You don't need to be religious to love this story, but it's worth noting that this is ancient and useful wisdom from sages of older times. (and, why I tend to reject organised religions nowadays, the kind of good thing co-opted, hegemonised and bastardised into all sorts of controlling and political things by subsequent institutions)
You don't need to be religious to love this story, but it's worth noting that this is ancient and useful wisdom from sages of older times. (and, why I tend to reject organised religions nowadays, the kind of good thing co-opted, hegemonised and bastardised into all sorts of controlling and political things by subsequent institutions)
I have reddit blocked on my computers because for a very long period I wasted so much time there, but I bet I already know what story you're linking to. "Today you, tomorrow me". It spawned a subreddit by the same name.
I avoid reddit because it's a time black hole (100x worse than HN for me), but I really wish I could still benefit from the few things like this that get posted 1 out of 1,000,000+ comments.
I avoid reddit because it's a time black hole (100x worse than HN for me), but I really wish I could still benefit from the few things like this that get posted 1 out of 1,000,000+ comments.
Read this reddit article. It is likely the best thing many of us will hear for years. It's a life-changer.
I read the whole thing as well.
So much good in the world -- I hope it keeps inspiring people to do the same =]
I'm guessing by the time I get to the window to pay, they have already taken the person behind me's order, and know the expected price right?
Sometimes I wish I had the option of tipping the fast food joint employees, as I think it would make them happier. Starbucks too, if you pay with credit card (as we are increasingly doing so), then we don't have that option anymore.
To add to the last point, I'd like to be able to give money direct to the employees, as I feel they wouldn't get a fair piece of it if the company was allowed to disburse it.
Sometimes I wish I had the option of tipping the fast food joint employees, as I think it would make them happier. Starbucks too, if you pay with credit card (as we are increasingly doing so), then we don't have that option anymore.
To add to the last point, I'd like to be able to give money direct to the employees, as I feel they wouldn't get a fair piece of it if the company was allowed to disburse it.
Reminds me of a story from Japan about a fly-by-night café based on a similar idea: in addition to paying for the person after you, you would choose what food they would receive as well. http://www.cabel.name/2009/09/kashiwa-mystery-cafe.html
this almost cancel's out the societal effects of the (still active) KKK.
How about paying for food for the homeless instead?
Someone in a car at a fast food place is probably well off enough to afford the car, maintenance, gas, etc.
Someone in a car at a fast food place is probably well off enough to afford the car, maintenance, gas, etc.
So the US is pretty demographically heterogeneous. Instead of a "we're all in this together" attitude like they have in (for example) Iceland, a lot of people here have a "us v. them" attitude. I think a lot of this is fueled by conscious or subconscious racism.
I believe this is why we have trouble passing a lot of social welfare programs, education reform, healthcare, etc. You hear a lot of complaints that boil down to "THEY will abuse the system" meaning whoever the speaker thinks is undesirable.
And that's why people like the "pay it forward in the drive-thru" style charity: the people you are helping are more likely to be just like you.
I believe this is why we have trouble passing a lot of social welfare programs, education reform, healthcare, etc. You hear a lot of complaints that boil down to "THEY will abuse the system" meaning whoever the speaker thinks is undesirable.
And that's why people like the "pay it forward in the drive-thru" style charity: the people you are helping are more likely to be just like you.
That's a pretty sad but true realization.
Trickle-Back economics?
I think this is cool but there's more charitable ways to go vs. buying the rear-view clunker a milk shake.
I think this is cool but there's more charitable ways to go vs. buying the rear-view clunker a milk shake.