Like most probably children do, Smallsteps is going through a phase of running a shop, which involves lining up items to sell to us. Of course, we are just playing around here and we aren't actually buying (mostly our own) stuff back, but it is interesting to see the lack of understanding of value, or cost. For instance, last night I bought an apple, a toy bunny and a book from her shop and it cost me 28€. That price is likely a bit expensive for all three, but maybe in the ballpark.
However, the apple cost me 14€, the bunny 10€ and the book 4€.
"Value" is something often talked about and like doctors being non-committal when they don't know if something is good or bad for us and say "in moderation" - we will often take the position that value is subjective. And it is of course, but does that mean there are no heuristics possible? Is it always in the eye of the beholder?
Today at work (first day back after vacation sucks), we were talking together about the differences between reading books and news on paper or in digital format. While digital is far more convenient,, it seems that the connection between the content isn't as good, nor are the memories formed. I think that this is partly due to the tactile feel of reading and turning pages, as well as the associated sounds and even smells.
Then there are other factors, because buying paper has a more visible cost to it, compared to digital purchases, so there is also an emotion ascribed to the costs involved. We tend to value what we pay for more, than what is for free or removed from our sight in some way. This is why I believe that using cash over card and digital payments, means that we will likely spend less, because we get the feel of the loss and it impacts on all of our physical senses.
And I raised a question.
Is an e-Book a book?
It seems like an easy answer, until you lool at the definition of a book.
An e-book is referenced, but actually has a separate definition
It seems like a silly question still, but consider that a person growing up in the near future may have close to zero reference point for what a book actually is, does an e-book still qualify as a book, considering that it also seems to change the experience of consuming between the two.
I was thinking about this in terms of my own content and remember a while ago trying to change my own vernacular to stop calling my Articles "posts", because they are different things.
An apple and an orange are both fruit, but they don't offer the same experience to the consumer.
Their values are different.
The nutritional makeup of the two fruits are different, as are the implications and effects each have on our bodies. Similarly, there is a difference in the way we consume content and this means that the value of the content is at least party defined through the medium it is consumed, even if it is the same content. Potentially, an identical article could have a different effect on an individual if they consume it through a physical or a digital form, in the same way that we evaluate something said based on the speaker. For instance, whether we listen to investment advice from a millionaire, or a homeless person.
The way we value things has changed, though I believe that we are often confused in what we value and possibly when we look back, we will regret our decisions. For instance, we tend to value free time a lot, often filling it with entertaining activities that don't offer much nutrition to our experience. However, somewhere down the track of our lives, will we wish we had used the time better?
The other thing that seems to have changed with the shift in the mediums we use to consume, is our value on trust. In the past (right or wrong) we would likely read from narrow sources of information, the TV news or newspapers. We would likely trust what was written or what we saw, and because so many were consuming from the same sources, there was likely more checks and balances on accuracy. However, now people are source agnostic, so they consume from anywhere, often trusting that what they read is correct, because they agree with the premise, no matter where it comes from.
This opens up a couple issues, as firstly, the gullibility is higher as we have less resistance to our own beliefs, as we are picking and choosing what we want to consume. Secondly, the incentive for the sources is to gain viewership based on individual articles, rather than building up trust through their entire offering. This means that they are competing for views and clicks, by giving individuals what they want, rather than what they need.
Value isn't based on whether it is likeable.
Using food as an example, a diet of "what we like to eat" is unlikely to lead to our improved health, because we favor sugar and fat, and the more we eat of those in combination, the worse we not only get physically, but also mentally and emotionally. And, the more we eat, the more we crave, even if we know it isn't good for us.
And, the way we move through content, the way everything has been created to be on demand, is convenient, but it doesn't encourage us to learn the skills necessary for planning our future, being patient, and investing for a larger return. The skills of wealth generation and ownership are not being encouraged through our behavior, because we don't have to commit to anything long term, nor do we have to learn the skills necessary to be able to trust, whether it be the content we consume, or the people with which we interact.
So many of the skills we learn are developed through childhood games, like "playing shop", but instead of the practical, hands-on training, we are removing ourselves and turning it into second hand experiences, like digital gaming. While I do not know for certain, I believe that there is a fundamental difference in what is learned and what is retained, based on whether we are playing virtually, or physically, with the second hitting more of our senses, making the lessons more impactful.
The value is higher.
We often talk about the value of things on Hive, whether it be the value of a post (or an article like this one), the value of tokens, the value of engagement, or the value of building relationships in the community, but I do think we each need to consider what we value as an individual too. Talking about it isn't enough, we also have to apply it, practice it, fail at it and reevaluate so that we improve our sense of what is valuable for us, even if no one else values what we do.
For a hungry person, that apple might be worth 14€. Does the value of the book depend on what it contains? And for a lonely child, perhaps that bunny might be worth everything.
It is hard to put a value on something, without context or reference. But, once there are enough variables known, it is possible to make a pretty good guess.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
