Stephen Olivier writes:
I sometimes listen to the Tim Ferrris podcast and get email updates on his guests. Today I see he welcomed back Dr Matthew Walker of sleep infamy, and I couldn’t help noticing the final paragraph:
This is perhaps a perfect opportunity for a crowdfunding campaign to ensure that it gets the nice and accurate name it deserves.
“Note that this opportunity is in the 7-figure range.” Wow! Say what you want about this Why We Sleep guy, he’s got chutzpah!
I think it should be named the Alexey Guzey Center for Sleep Studies, or perhaps the University of California Center for Research Integrity.
I was all set to cut the check and fund this center, but then I realized . . . 7 figures, that’s a million bucks! Not that this would be a bad way to spend a million bucks, but for that same amount of money, I could pay to attend 59 exclusive off-the-record Dialog conferences, or buy 695,652 Jamaican beef patties. I choose the beef.
But if any of you have 7 figures available for this donation, you should definitely go for it. Imagine, an entire center named after you!
If it doesn’t end up getting named “Sleepy McSleepyFace”, then I quit this planet.
I came here for the learning, but I stay here for the patties.
Jrc:
695,652 Jamaican beef patties would destroy my arteries, but 59 exclusive off-the-record Dialog conferences might well destroy my brain. From that perspective, a million bucks for naming the Sleep Center would be an absolute bargain!
Noone says you have to eat the patties yourself. Hold a big Jamaican beef patty and statistics shindig!
Daniel:
It’s the whole buy goods vs. buy experiences thing. 59 exclusive off-the-record Dialog conferences is a set of experiences . . . but it’s an unpleasant experience. 695,652 Jamaican beef patties is goods . . . but it’s too much goods. Your solution is perfect: by throwing a party and inviting 695,652 people, I’ve converted those Jamaican beef patties from a good into an experience.
In all seriousness, this example demonstrates the ridiculousness of that framing, and also an example of how this sort of empirical behavioral economics research exists in a world in which standard economic theory (the idea that you could sell goods and convert them into experiences, or vice-versa) doesn’t exist.
Where’s the Beef? A Revealed Preference Approach to the Relative Value of Experience Goods
Abstract: Recent work in Behavioral Economics suggests that billionaires have preferences for experience goods over consumption goods. However, some (Gelman, 2023) have argued that the distinction between consumption and experience goods is poorly theorized and thus claims of preferences for experience goods as experience goods are misleading. We provide evidence that billionaires do, in fact, have preferences over the experience value of goods even when the private consumption values of those same goods are 0. We study the question in the context of elite status re-enforcement, an experience good that provides low self-esteem billionaires with the experience of being reminded they are rich and powerful. We employ a revealed-preference method and document two empirical facts: 1) billionaires will spend the money equivalent of 700,000 Jamaican beef patties on naming a research center after themselves; 2) billionaires will not spend the money equivalent of 700,000 Jamaican beef patties on feeding the 700,000 poorest people in Kingston, Jamaica with beef patties. We conclude that billionaires prefer the experience of being reminded of their elite status by other elites relative to the experience of having their elite status reinforced by being around poor people.
REFEREE REPORTS:
Reviewer 1:
– This work is questionable because of its valuation of beef patties in terms of their “street value” rather than their wholesale or production value; see Levitt and Venkatesh (2000).
– In addition, the paper provides no evidence of the assertion of the claim that “billionaires will spend the money equivalent of 700,000 Jamaican beef patties on naming a research center.”
Reviewer 2:
– You should include a comparison to a third available option, 59 exclusive off-the-record Dialog conferences involving Grover Norquist, a rabbi, and other elites.
– Your analysis lacks causal identification. I suggest an instrumental variables or regression discontinuity analysis.
Rahul said, “Tangential comment, but I always hesitate whether to call it Holland or Netherlands. Do the Dutch prefer one over the…”
My father’s brother-in-law was born in the Netherlands, and emigrated to Grand Rapids, Michigan which had a large Dutch population. He called himself a Hollander.
Interesting! Thanks.
I’ve come across South Americans who took offense if people referred to the US as “America”
Incidentally what’s the situation with UK / England / Britain. Do natives prefer one over the others?
I use scepter’d isle, that precious jewel set in the silver sea.
I read this name somewhere authoritative, but I forget where.
The UK, England, and Great Britain all refer to different groupings of land masses/countries. This diagram explains:
https://cdn.britannica.com/41/193441-050-13CCA6B5/Terminology-British-Isles-United-Kingdom-Ireland-Great.jpg
English natives unlikely to care. Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish likely to have stronger opinions! (Britain = England+Scotland+Wales; UK = Britain+Northern Ireland)
I’m a Brit and a Scot. On a message board I’m likely to use “Brit” where the context relates to something specific about the UK in relation to somewhere else (e.g. US or Europe). I generally don’t say I’m a Scot unless the context requires that specifically, tho when I used to travel as a youngster I’d make it clear I was Scottish so as to deflect any potential anti-English animosity!
When referring to the UK/Britain as a non-Brit it’s really not a good idea to use “England” unless you do really mean England (as in “England’s women rugby and football teams are doing rather better than the men’s”). Definitely don’t say “England’s Andy Murray is making a long-awaited comeback on the grass courts this year”!
Actually, I doubt many people in the UK are aware of the difference between “UK” and “Britain” as OliP helpfully reminded us below. I suppose people from Northern Ireland might be put out if you referred to them as “British” but never encountered that circumstance.
Note also that, in case the issue was not confusing enough, Ireland is one of the British Isles.
https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles
I spent a year there as an exchange student and “Nederland” was much more common, but I heard both. “Holland” seemed maybe less formal.
I suspect your father’s brother-in-law may have been, in fact, a Hollander. The Netherlands has 12 provinces, two of which are North and South Holland. Perhaps he hails from one of those.
Thanks for the information about North and South Holland.
“Do the Dutch prefer one over the”
Dutchman here. Over here, we prefer ‘Nederland’, not because ‘Holland’ is offensive or anything, but because it’s more accurate. All formal and official communication uses ‘Nederland’, and ‘Holland’ is fast becoming archaic language, used only in specific instances, like cheering for the national team (‘Hup holland hup!’). ‘Holland’ is used for the two provinces that bear that name. At this point, it is more a point of confusion for foreigners than a point of contention within the country.
Thanks everyone for the great insights.
You could publish 310.0775 A type articles in Frontiers in Psychology with a million dollars.
is that last paragraph real? seriously? 7 figures for a boring thing no one is gonna hear about, and probably shuts down after a few years???
I figure it’s just a mind game. Put it out that it’s a 7 figure opportunity. Then, privately offer it to a company for only 100k. They’ll take the offer and pat themselves on the back for getting such a good deal.
There may be some primacy bias going on here.
We now live in a world where the US government spends ~$2 million per minute just to pay interest on its debts. 7 figures is not much anymore for some advertising.
For comparison a superbowl commercial is now ~$14 million per minute and stadium naming rights are $1-10 million per year.
Assume he is still on Joe Rogan, etc and mentioning his institute for another decade. Then you are paying ~ 1/10 the rate of a smaller pro sports venue. And it seems Philanthropic, so seems in the right ballpark to me.
In the tech billionaire age a donation of $1M to get your name on a research institute is surprising, but not because it’s too big! That’s a Dr. Evil price! That’s about 2-3x the average NSF proposal at Berkeley
Seems like a bit of a slap for Walker. Shouldn’t such an illustrious researcher command a higher price? The Gates-Bezos class of donors? Or at least, you know, the $10B class. But one million? On a university campus that’s barely enough for a mop closet. That’s gotta be aimed at the faceless and dissatisfied failed unicorn tech company officer who thinks she’s never received the credit she deserves. Like maybe the former Chief Real Estate Officer of Yelp or the Chief Product Development Officer of SnakeFood.com.
It’s comical that they even mention that it’s $1M. To get your name on an institute at Berkeley you’d think the starting price would be eight figs at least. It’s almost like saying “here’s a cheap one if anyone’s interested. We’re *desparate*”. Another stinger for Walker.
Depends on where you put the decimal point.