- Romantic or abusive: Why facts don’t matter in a viral love story
- Social media influencers invade China, make $4bn in 2018
- Police ordered to compensate DV victim they endangered, but the officer responsible is still on the payroll
- Filtered Darwinism: The 259 people killed by selfies may be the lucky ones
Some pioneering minds have discovered that the act of giving is far more beneficial if you also treat yourself. Fair enough.
Apparently the world of science follows the rules your parents do in the budoir, as they believe that it is better to give and receive. We’re talking of course about the giving of gifts. And not the type you present to bae when you decide to whitewash over the fact that you forgot to get her anything with your pale spotted bodice with a bow wrapped around it.
So, not sex.
Researchers hailing from the University of Wisconsin-Madison have stumbled upon the scientific method of ‘companionising’, a condition which articulates the borders of the self, stating that the good vibes of gift giving can be magnified by the simple act of buying yourself the same gift.
Move over, Enrico Fermi.
The author of the study, Evan Tolman, put his findings thusly: “The fact that a gift is shared with the giver makes it a better gift in the eyes of the receiver…they like a companionized (sic) gift more, and they even feel closer to the giver.” Simply put, sweet hat, bruh, now we’re hat buds, bruh. Sweet bruh.
However, while the same (but two!) hypothesis may fly with the agreeable subset of the dudebro, the other control groups refused to be pidgeonholed into a digestable sentence, with Tolman waffling: “If you are faced with buying a gift for somebody, and you’re uncertain if they’re going to like it, maybe you instead find something you would like for yourself,” he says. “Then buy the recipient the same thing, and communicate the companionizing. It makes the gift more special, like the giver is trying to communicate something: ‘I like this, and I like you. So maybe you’ll like what I like.”
At the risk of editorialising, I daresay that Mr. Tolman should substitute the pre-morning coffees for some space in his sentences.
That being said, there are some ground rules in Evan’s plot you should be aware of. While the depth of a relationship is apparently irrelevant, the timing is all. The purchase must be made as a pair. A recommendation of a primo product you discovered months earlier, is apparently out, and apparently negates the magic of companionising.
Apparently, the crux of the study is a akin to that of a commune. A group love in, of unified feeling – with added capitalism. You’re not buying for you. You’re buying for us. It’s a unified front. The extra money spent is irrelevant. As Tolman states: “When you receive a gift that someone has also bought for themselves, you feel more like them. That leads you to like your gift more.”
So get shopping. For yourself?