I am so confused. But sure, here are some examples:
The other day we had an event at Lighthaven that was louder later into the night than usual. I knew our neighbor was going to be bothered by it. So I went to them and said “hey, I am really sorry, I know we are louder until later into the night, and I know this is bothering you. Is there any way I can make you whole? For example, I would happily pay you $200 for the inconvenience”. She thought a bit about it, then seemed to agree that $200 would make her whole.
Like, most of the time when I apologize, the thing we do afterwards is not for me to change my behavior in a way that avoids the harm, it’s to use any of the other much more fungible resources that I have to make the other person whole. Usually that’s just social capital. “Hey, sorry about that, I owe you one”, is a totally normal sentence to say.
In group house contexts being like “hey sorry about it repeatedly falling to you to take out the trash because you are most bothered by it piling up, what’s your happy price for dealing with the inconvenience?” is the kind of thing I say like every second house meeting or so.
The other day we had an event at Lighthaven that was louder later into the night than usual. I knew our neighbor was going to be bothered by it. So I went to them and said “hey, I am really sorry, I know we are louder until later into the night, and I know this is bothering you. Is there any way I can make you whole? For example, I would happily pay you $200 for the inconvenience”. She thought a bit about it, then seemed to agree that $200 would make her whole.
But do you think this is normal? Seems like a weird rationalist thing to me to frame it in this way.
It seems to me that the only odd thing is treating money as the unit of caring. If Oliver had instead offered to help with something else he knew the neighbor cared about, that would be normal.
The way things like this work in many US subcultures is often pretty indirect. Humans are very good at tracking indirect and diffuse forms of reciprocity over long periods of time. Often, this is based less on a 1-for-1 exchange, and more on building a reputation as a helpful person who’s happy to reciprocate.
One approach would be some combination of:
Be generally pleasant and helpful to your neighbor.
Apology hugely for any inconveniences.
Admit that this event is kind of a big deal for you, and that you’re going to owe them one.
But having studied anthropology, I also have to admit that “offering cash to neighbors to compensate them for a loud evening event” isn’t even in the top 10 weirdest things actual cultures do. And given the cost of living these days, probably somebody is in fact delighted with cash.
Just be warned that this kind of gesture can easily become “standardized”. If you give the king a specific gift three years in a row, it’s now tradition. And you’ll probably need to keep doing it.
To clarify, I’m mostly saying that lots of cultures do lots of things.
For example, there are places where significant chunks of the economy are based on elaborate, competitive gifts of pigs. There are places where if someone admires the best fish you caught today, you have to give it to them. (And if this rule is abused constantly, you still can’t say “no”. Violence, however, might be culturally permissible.) There are a lot of cultures which customarily give cash gifts in situations where people in the US would find it tacky.
But the specific case of “cash gifts as apologies for inconvenience” is actually murkier than I expected. There are a few Japanese customs that are mentioned in passing in English-language sources. Spending 20 minutes with Google Translate does find examples like this, which discusses various forms of non-business compensation, and distinguishes between “actual expenses” and supplementary money used to indicate apology:
If you’re unsure about the amount, it’s common to include a few thousand yen as an apology for the inconvenience caused, in addition to the actual expenses that need to be reimbursed.
All the sources I can find on these traditions suggest that cash compensation for inconvenience is a social minefield, and that if it’s seen as “buying someone off” insincerely, it may backfire.
(Other traditions, like weregild and diya, don’t really fit this framework, because they involve things like death, disability, and/or trying to prevent good old-fashioned blood feuds.)
What? That is… a total normal sentiment? It also works the other way, I am confident that neighbors that I have helped with gardening will give me more slack in running loud parties.
i believe the second thing but do not think it’s normal to frame neighborly relationships in a transactional way like that, at least in none of the communities i’ve lived in
Making it too obviously transactional is usually bad, because that suggests that you’re very carefully keeping score. It means you’re envisaging a short-term relationship where every negotiation restarts from zero. This can be read as slightly hostile, unless your relationship is already quite distant and likely to remain that way.
Whereas a more indirect exchange suggests a longer-term relationship where one side or the other can occasionally “run a tab” for a while. Doing favors without worrying about the exact balance says that you’re the kind of person who does favors and who is willing to hear people out when they need it, which is more valuable than being someone who keeps an exact balance at all times.
This is presumably why the Japanese compensation ettiquette I linked elsewhere in the thread kept empathizing things like sincerity, apologies, and clearly indicating that the money was intend as a symbol of your feelings (and not something which exactly balanced out the original offense).
But all this stuff gets mediated by culture. One of the things I have always loved about anthropology is trying to figure out how mostly universal principles actually manifest in a specific culture.
Whereas a more indirect exchange suggests a longer-term relationship where one side or the other can occasionally “run a tab” for a while. Doing favors without worrying about the exact balance says that you’re the kind of person who does favors and who is willing to hear people out when they need it, which is more valuable than being someone who keeps an exact balance at all times.
No, this is the wrong way to think about it. Allowing people to run a tab is a signal of trust, which in turn signals cooperativeness. If you’re interacting with a person who feels the need to do close accounting of the tab, that’s a sign they expect you to defect otherwise, which is in turn a sign that they’ll defect.
I am so confused. But sure, here are some examples:
The other day we had an event at Lighthaven that was louder later into the night than usual. I knew our neighbor was going to be bothered by it. So I went to them and said “hey, I am really sorry, I know we are louder until later into the night, and I know this is bothering you. Is there any way I can make you whole? For example, I would happily pay you $200 for the inconvenience”. She thought a bit about it, then seemed to agree that $200 would make her whole.
Like, most of the time when I apologize, the thing we do afterwards is not for me to change my behavior in a way that avoids the harm, it’s to use any of the other much more fungible resources that I have to make the other person whole. Usually that’s just social capital. “Hey, sorry about that, I owe you one”, is a totally normal sentence to say.
In group house contexts being like “hey sorry about it repeatedly falling to you to take out the trash because you are most bothered by it piling up, what’s your happy price for dealing with the inconvenience?” is the kind of thing I say like every second house meeting or so.
It’s also common, in the broader culture, to provide small gifts of food, wine, etc. bundled with apologies, which supports Habryka’s view.
But do you think this is normal? Seems like a weird rationalist thing to me to frame it in this way.
It seems to me that the only odd thing is treating money as the unit of caring. If Oliver had instead offered to help with something else he knew the neighbor cared about, that would be normal.
It still seems unusual
“Hey, I’m gonna have a loud party you don’t like, can I help you with your gardening later? Is not a normal sentiment ime
The way things like this work in many US subcultures is often pretty indirect. Humans are very good at tracking indirect and diffuse forms of reciprocity over long periods of time. Often, this is based less on a 1-for-1 exchange, and more on building a reputation as a helpful person who’s happy to reciprocate.
One approach would be some combination of:
Be generally pleasant and helpful to your neighbor.
Apology hugely for any inconveniences.
Admit that this event is kind of a big deal for you, and that you’re going to owe them one.
But having studied anthropology, I also have to admit that “offering cash to neighbors to compensate them for a loud evening event” isn’t even in the top 10 weirdest things actual cultures do. And given the cost of living these days, probably somebody is in fact delighted with cash.
Just be warned that this kind of gesture can easily become “standardized”. If you give the king a specific gift three years in a row, it’s now tradition. And you’ll probably need to keep doing it.
is there a specific culture in which this specific thing is normal?
or are you just saying that lots of culture do lots of things?
To clarify, I’m mostly saying that lots of cultures do lots of things.
For example, there are places where significant chunks of the economy are based on elaborate, competitive gifts of pigs. There are places where if someone admires the best fish you caught today, you have to give it to them. (And if this rule is abused constantly, you still can’t say “no”. Violence, however, might be culturally permissible.) There are a lot of cultures which customarily give cash gifts in situations where people in the US would find it tacky.
But the specific case of “cash gifts as apologies for inconvenience” is actually murkier than I expected. There are a few Japanese customs that are mentioned in passing in English-language sources. Spending 20 minutes with Google Translate does find examples like this, which discusses various forms of non-business compensation, and distinguishes between “actual expenses” and supplementary money used to indicate apology:
All the sources I can find on these traditions suggest that cash compensation for inconvenience is a social minefield, and that if it’s seen as “buying someone off” insincerely, it may backfire.
(Other traditions, like weregild and diya, don’t really fit this framework, because they involve things like death, disability, and/or trying to prevent good old-fashioned blood feuds.)
What? That is… a total normal sentiment? It also works the other way, I am confident that neighbors that I have helped with gardening will give me more slack in running loud parties.
i believe the second thing but do not think it’s normal to frame neighborly relationships in a transactional way like that, at least in none of the communities i’ve lived in
Making it too obviously transactional is usually bad, because that suggests that you’re very carefully keeping score. It means you’re envisaging a short-term relationship where every negotiation restarts from zero. This can be read as slightly hostile, unless your relationship is already quite distant and likely to remain that way.
Whereas a more indirect exchange suggests a longer-term relationship where one side or the other can occasionally “run a tab” for a while. Doing favors without worrying about the exact balance says that you’re the kind of person who does favors and who is willing to hear people out when they need it, which is more valuable than being someone who keeps an exact balance at all times.
This is presumably why the Japanese compensation ettiquette I linked elsewhere in the thread kept empathizing things like sincerity, apologies, and clearly indicating that the money was intend as a symbol of your feelings (and not something which exactly balanced out the original offense).
But all this stuff gets mediated by culture. One of the things I have always loved about anthropology is trying to figure out how mostly universal principles actually manifest in a specific culture.
No, this is the wrong way to think about it. Allowing people to run a tab is a signal of trust, which in turn signals cooperativeness. If you’re interacting with a person who feels the need to do close accounting of the tab, that’s a sign they expect you to defect otherwise, which is in turn a sign that they’ll defect.
in iterated prisoner’s dilemma with noise, this strategy is approximated by “contrite tit-for-tat”. it works well!