We have to do the work...
In reaction to @Deeperblue and her Bites: this started out as a comment, but it was way too long, hence the new post.
In her Editors thoughts Kaysia questions her motives and buying behaviour and is quite hard on herself. It shows you're only human, @Deeperblue ...
The hardest thing in this ridiculous hobby of ours is to find out what your connection is with all the watches out there. Apart from all the hype and trends and reviews and YT video's. And that is hard work! And here is the best part: most of us don't want to do the work...
I highly recommend Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking Fast and Slow.' It's the popular adaptation of his ground breaking scientific work of how the human mind uses the capacity to think and makes decisions. Let me just Wikipedia some text here, because I'm lazy:
"In the book's first section, Kahneman describes two different ways the brain forms thoughts:
System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, unconscious.
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious.
Kahneman describes a number of experiments which purport to examine the differences between these two thought systems and how they arrive at different results even given the same inputs. Terms and concepts include coherence, attention, laziness, association, jumping to conclusions, WYSIATI (What you see is all there is), and how one forms judgments. The System 1 vs. System 2 debate includes the reasoning or lack thereof for human decision making, with big implications for many areas including law and market research."
The problem arises when we use System 1 thinking for choices that actually need System 2 thinking... It is the root for a lot of problems we are dealing with today and one of the reasons why his work is so popular in this day and age of polarisation and division. We reduce big, complicated and nuanced issues to bite sized portions for out own convenience.
To break it down to our context of first world problems:
'Hublot is bad'
'Rolex sucks'
'MoonSwatch is stupid'
'I don't like divers'
The hardest thing to do is to keep an open mind. In my case: 'I don't like chronographs/date windows/over 40 mm/etc.' is just my System 1 thinking kicking in because I don't want to do the work. It makes things easy, simple. But also uncreative and uninteresting.
In my opinion we want a quick fix. We want to be told what to like and what to want and there is a whole army of social media warriors to provide us with just that. In the interview, Kiran clearly states that she feels uncomfortable if her exclusivity is taken away from her. For me that is a sign for 'lazy' thinking. 'I like it because nobody else has it' says nothing about the quality of the product, the design choices, your connection with the product or how the story of the brand and/or product resonates to you. Instead, it says more about the way you want to project yourself to the outside world, your insecurities and how peer pressure and social constructs define your identity.
A great example you show is the gold/green Speedmaster: I really don't want a Speedmaster. Not because it's popular, but because I don't use the complications and for me to buy a watch with complications I don't use is just silly. But then there is that terrific gold green example and all my logical thinking goes out of the window!
And also: it can be both! Why not buy a watch because everybody else has it and you want to belong and it bonds you to a certain group AND buy a watch that is so weird and quirky and nobody cares but you have to have it!?
If we really, truly wants to appreciate watches and our silly hobby, we need to do the work. That's why I like WC so much, here you meet all the people that take time and effort to explore this. Amen!
Dutch guy living in Gran Canaria, Spain. Started way back to collect Bulova Accutron, but sold them all (but one...) when moving to Spain. Started over again, because, well... You know! Impressed and...
Amazing book, it is a must read for everyone. Not sure how this applies to a completely arbitary hobby of watches though. In my opinion when you pay more than 50$ you are already doing a irrational choice. Watch collecting doesnt need to be anything other than 'this looks cool so I will buy it'.
I have heard so much about this book, I definitely need to get a copy.
Thank you for your insights 🍻
I think quite often I go with an initial gut feeling about a watch when I see it and I would probably do myself more favours if I spent some time considering where that initial reaction comes from.
There is more than 'I like it because nobody else has it'. There is "I found a better/just as good option that others are unaware of so I'm cleverer than others." At least that's how I feel about my unique choices.
It's also a check on myself so that I don't get caught up in hype. By not going the obvious route I am certain I did the research and wasn't swayed into an inferior choice.
Addition 1: Me accusing Kiran of ‘lazy’ thinking is a perfect example of System 1 thinking. So please ignore my remarks on her.
Addition 2: Kahneman did not research the effect of the subconscious of decision making, but others did, like Ad Verbrugge and others. I think the subconscious plays an important part in decision making especially with things concerning art, design and beauty.
Addition 1: Me accusing Kiran of ‘lazy’ thinking is a perfect example of System 1 thinking. So please ignore my remarks on her.
Addition 2: Kahneman did not research the effect of the subconscious of decision making, but others did, like Ad Verbrugge and others. I think the subconscious plays an important part in decision making especially with things concerning art, design and beauty.
I don't find it 'lazy' thinking. Sometimes our initial assessment of people is spot on .. especially that gut feeling that we get. I couldn't make it more than a few min into the interview. She harps on 'exclusivity' which almost by definition is snobbery. I couldn't stand watching it.
On your more general point, I'm very much a system 2 thinker, sometimes to a fault. For example, instead of thinking of which watch to purchase, I'll spend time on developing a system of evaluation and specific criteria to apply to my watch purchases. I'm always thinking in terms of system and processes. But not everything needs a decisional flow chart.
I don't think that it's that simple, ie I don't think we're overusing fast or emotional decisions. Mistakes go both ways and I believe there is no solution.
First of all, I don't think there is a wrong reason to like stuff. If that lady likes watches because nobody else can have them then that's okay. Maybe that's how she's wired. And maybe no amount of thinking and rational processing will ever change that. So there's that.
But on to what I actually want to say. In theory you are right, a logical and thought through purchase is better because greater care and consideration went into it. Where I think the issue lies is that most people's brain cannot process the same signals via path 2 as it can via path 1, not in a reasonable time frame.
Say you see a watch and you really like it at first sight. Path 1 says GO. But upon close examination and thinking it over path 2 says NO. So now what? Well, path 2 supersedes path 1 so you don't buy. But what if the only reason path 2 said no is because you couldn't figure out why you liked it so much? If you have a brain the size of a planet which can rationally process all you see, feel and interact with then maybe you could have figured it out why you liked it so much in a timely manner. According to my theory, the result is watches you regret no buying (there is a recent post on WatchCrunch about that). In other words, overthinking results in mistakes, sometimes.
Chances are that's down to a lack of experience, ie you won't know what aspects of a watch will result in a lasting connection unless you give it a try (or have a galaxy brain)... which can only be gained by making path 1 induced mistakes ... and so there is no solution.
Okay, okay, path 1 induced mistakes are much more common you say. And I hear you. So on the surface you'd make fewer bad choices by thinking and that's true. However, without many of them you'll never be able to optimise path 2. In other words, once you stop making emotional and irrational choices your ability to find an even better watch will flatline, you stop evolving.
Maybe I didn't get it right 😀 I have that book on my shelf but never got around to reading it.
I don't think that it's that simple, ie I don't think we're overusing fast or emotional decisions. Mistakes go both ways and I believe there is no solution.
First of all, I don't think there is a wrong reason to like stuff. If that lady likes watches because nobody else can have them then that's okay. Maybe that's how she's wired. And maybe no amount of thinking and rational processing will ever change that. So there's that.
But on to what I actually want to say. In theory you are right, a logical and thought through purchase is better because greater care and consideration went into it. Where I think the issue lies is that most people's brain cannot process the same signals via path 2 as it can via path 1, not in a reasonable time frame.
Say you see a watch and you really like it at first sight. Path 1 says GO. But upon close examination and thinking it over path 2 says NO. So now what? Well, path 2 supersedes path 1 so you don't buy. But what if the only reason path 2 said no is because you couldn't figure out why you liked it so much? If you have a brain the size of a planet which can rationally process all you see, feel and interact with then maybe you could have figured it out why you liked it so much in a timely manner. According to my theory, the result is watches you regret no buying (there is a recent post on WatchCrunch about that). In other words, overthinking results in mistakes, sometimes.
Chances are that's down to a lack of experience, ie you won't know what aspects of a watch will result in a lasting connection unless you give it a try (or have a galaxy brain)... which can only be gained by making path 1 induced mistakes ... and so there is no solution.
Okay, okay, path 1 induced mistakes are much more common you say. And I hear you. So on the surface you'd make fewer bad choices by thinking and that's true. However, without many of them you'll never be able to optimise path 2. In other words, once you stop making emotional and irrational choices your ability to find an even better watch will flatline, you stop evolving.
Maybe I didn't get it right 😀 I have that book on my shelf but never got around to reading it.
In my opinion you're confusing my take on 'doing the work' with 'overthinking', hence my comment about the subconscious. The work is not so much at the moment you're buying the watch, but the conscious and subconscious preparation before that. In a way you're 'loading' yourself with data, so if the time comes, you can decide within a heartbeat.
For anyone who wants to skip to video time where she speaks about the “Cartier story”
4:40 - Propt to the “Cartier story”, Hermes Bag collecting
8:20 - actual story
Kudos for bringing Kahneman into horology!
Thanks for bringing me the concept of type 1 and type 2 thinking.. So many watches I’ve bought with type 1 (when if I let type 2 kick in I’d realise it’s not a great idea!)
There is more than 'I like it because nobody else has it'. There is "I found a better/just as good option that others are unaware of so I'm cleverer than others." At least that's how I feel about my unique choices.
It's also a check on myself so that I don't get caught up in hype. By not going the obvious route I am certain I did the research and wasn't swayed into an inferior choice.
My brain is hugely guilty of this. “Look at those (imaginary) guys in their overpriced Daytonas. I got so much more for my money.”
In my opinion you're confusing my take on 'doing the work' with 'overthinking', hence my comment about the subconscious. The work is not so much at the moment you're buying the watch, but the conscious and subconscious preparation before that. In a way you're 'loading' yourself with data, so if the time comes, you can decide within a heartbeat.
Well, okay but that's really no different except for the chronological order of events. In other words, if you want to load yourself with data to the point where you can make the best informed decision in a heartbeat then it will take you forever... unless you have made the mistakes to speed up the process.
Let's look at something simpler. How are you going to find out whether you like a fruit? Well, you can do the work and see whether similar tasting stuff that you're familiar with was to your liking or you can just impulsively take a bite and get the quick fix. Doing the work seems only worth it, because it takes much longer and the fruit might go bad, if there is serious risk involved (poison in the fruit or expensive watch purchase make it relevant again). With watches there is typically some financial risk (they are expensive) so doing more work than with mostly harmless food does makes a lot of sense, not denying that, but there still is a non-trivial limit at which point I think one should just buy it and get rid of it in case it turns out differently than expected.
Whichever way you look at it, to me it seems like an "impossible", in the sense that there is no objectively correct way of doing it, balancing problem between doing the work and impulsive buying. I certainly can't figure out whether I'll truly like something before I try it but I am a very basic dude... maybe too slow of a thinker 😉
thanks for the thoughtful post!
yes, have read this book as well.
However, I'm not sure the interview is a story about system 1 and 2?
For me it seemed like meeting was simply showing personality of a narcissist. Maybe not her fault, I'm sure it's difficult to stay a humble and think about others' feelings when you start life as an VINB (very important nepo baby)
If someone of less means than me wants to buy a Seiko I have, it doesn't affect whether I like mine or not 🤪