Human beings: Hardwired for superstition

[Lagmonster]

A number of years ago, there were some articles that proposed that human beings are naturally geared towards superstition and intuitive thinking rather than rationalism.

One professor Bruce Hood, for example, ran a much-publicized experiment where he asked a sampling of people to put on a blue sweater for a financial reward. Everyone was willing to do it, until he mentioned that the sweater was the one worn by a famous serial killer. In a similar stunt, he found that self-proclaimed atheists when polled said that they would not be comfortable accepting an organ transplant from a murder.

Even though a thinking person knows there's no connection between the clothing the man wore or his organs, and his acts, people shied away as if they had latent evil attached to them. In short, he argues that we're all naturally superstitious; that the difference in superstition between someone who would feel irrationally uncomfortable putting on Hitler's boots and someone who is a religious fundamentalist is merely an issue of degree.

I'm curious as to what people here think about this avenue of thought. We're a crowd of rationalists, for the most part, so I'd be interested how we view ourselves as potentially superstitious people, or if we admit to our own irrational behaviour in turn.

[haard]

I've seen this in action; I bought a weapons case for a new rifle for next to nothing because the gunstore could not get it sold. The reason? It was pre-owned, but not used, and the owner had died. Nothing 'evil', just an old man dying, and people did not want the case. I don't seem to be a victim of this particular irrationality, and have always found it curious in others, but I suspect I have different irrational vices.

'Mild' ocd qualifies as irrational behavior, perhaps...

[Broomstick]

Earlier in our history there may have been a useful role for superstition. It is only relatively recently that we learned something of where disease comes from, after all, but contagion has existed since the dawn of time. It may be that humans who had an aversion to death and perceived evil contamination were less likely to become ill and thus left more descendants. To the extent that genes play a role in propensity to superstition this may, for much of our history, been a survival trait even if now it gets in the way more often than not.

[Bottlestein]

We have to figure out what our subject's "maximal set of assumptions" are, before we figure out if he or she is irrational. Also, if we are testing for superstition, then we have to separate "cognitive laziness" from "irrational behavior".

The second experiment sounds like a good one. Ellen Langer at Harvard published a series of experiments based on the illusion of control. Essentially, Anglo-Americans who knew probability were the subjects. Their risk aversion was analyzed through a series of bets in a game of cards. The control cards were blank on the "other" side. Then the game was replayed with the standard bicycle type card that's common in the US, and was familiar to the test subjects. Then it was replayed with cards that had Egyptian or Turkish symbols on the other side. The people became very risk-averse when playing the same game with the Egyptian cards, and risk-neutral or risk-taking when playing with the familiar bicycle card. Thus, they had a superstition that they could control the outcomes more with the "familiar" card.

If anyone has a link to this experiment, that would be well appreciated - Langer published a bunch of other similar results, so you'll have to sort through her work.

[Gil Hamilton]

I wonder how much of it is biological. Suspicion and paranoia isn't as great a trait now, but a proto-human who isn't bothered by things bumping in the night might find himself murdered by another proto-human or by a predator. The heebie-jeebies may have been a valuable survival trait when mankind really didn't understand the world and our place in it was tenuous.

[Themightytom]

Oh I am hardwired.



Now that I have that out of my system, the thought occurred to me that some of the ramifications of the research done in the Political Brain study and similar ones, is that if the brain rewards a person for rationalizing away information that contradicts core ideological beliefs, it would certainly do this for superstition as well. Superstition is a problem solving method that addresses situations in which a person feels powerless.

Superstitions are a set of predictable rules which generate a predictable result for supernatural situations. If something terribly unlucky happens to my friend and the thought even crosses my mind that perhaps this could happen to me, and i am not the True master of my destiny, I can simply keep vigilant, avoid any black cats, take extra care with any mirrors I might encounter, and perhaps find a rabbits foot. My brain rewards me for using any of these devices because it reinforces the core belief that I can control my destiny.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wonder how much of it is biological. Suspicion and paranoia isn't as great a trait now, but a proto-human who isn't bothered by things bumping in the night might find himself murdered by another proto-human or by a predator. The heebie-jeebies may have been a valuable survival trait when mankind really didn't understand the world and our place in it was tenuous.

Exactly. Selection will also drive a conscious mind into committing false positive threat identifications than false negatives. Why?

Think of it this way. A twig snaps behind you. There is a certain probability that it is a predator, a murderer, or a harmless herbivore. If you have a false negative for threat identification, you die. On the other hand if you have a false positive, you may look a bit silly when you freak out but other than that no harm done. As a result selection will tend to favor those who are paranoid and superstitious over those that do not. Superstition is the same thing, just a different set of stimuli. In the case of not touching something belonging to a dead person, that something i probably fear of disease.

This is also probably how proto-religion evolved as well. The mechanisms that permit you to minimize the type 2 error--agency detection, pattern recognition, theory of mind--they are also what allows us to think that there are gods. It did not rain because there is some sort of malign force preventing it from raining. From those basal animistic religions it is just a matter of cultural evolution to get to something like catholicism.

[Simon_Jester]

I've seen this in action; I bought a weapons case for a new rifle for next to nothing because the gunstore could not get it sold. The reason? It was pre-owned, but not used, and the owner had died. Nothing 'evil', just an old man dying, and people did not want the case. I don't seem to be a victim of this particular irrationality, and have always found it curious in others, but I suspect I have different irrational vices.

'Mild' ocd qualifies as irrational behavior, perhaps...

There's something a bit (for lack of a better term) 'real' here too.

Let's say I take a sweater that belonged to a serial killer. The sweater is now associated in my mind with the killer; every time I think of the sweater, or think back to the experiment that had be wearing the sweater, I will also think of the killer, because memories create associations like that. That will probably make me unhappy; it will "spoil" my memory of the experiment and "taint" the reward I receive for participating- because once again, when I spend the money I will likely think of the killer. Depending on the size of the reward, it may not be worth it.

Would I wear Charles Manson's sweater for $0.25? No, because it's not worth the increased frequency with which I will think about Charles Manson over the next few days.

For $2.50? Probably not; I'm not that hard-up for money.

For $25? Most likely.

For $250? Certainly.

In this case, I'm not deterred from wearing the sweater by the supernatural fear that the ghosts of the Manson family's victims will haunt me or that I'll suddenly "catch" serial killing from the sweater. I'm deterred by the fact that my own memory will build an association between the sweater and the killer whether I want it to or not.

[Samuel]

Charles Manson wasn't a serial killer.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Charles Manson wasn't a serial killer.

Technically he was a Spree Killer by proxy....

[Surlethe]

Enough one-line nitpicking.

[Shroom Man 777]

Is that really superstition? Associating feelings/emotions with objects doesn't strike me as a particularly superstitious, it's just standard association. Simon Jester already explained it. Though I personally wouldn't mind wearing Hitler's jackboots. Still, it's perfectly understandable that a person would avoid things that causes negative emotional stimuli. Killer's clothes and stuff like that? Yeah. I mean, if the person's naked, I don't think he'd choose to stay naked because the clothes offered to him belonged to a serial killer. He'd wear it. Just like how if you're hospitalized, you won't mind it if the bed you're lying on in the room belongs to a whole bunch of dead people.

Though, certainly, I don't think anyone would want to use a used hospital bed for their own bedroom beds in their houses. Especially if a patient died on that bed. It's just not a happy thought, even if you're not superstitious or don't believe in the supernatural, it's not pleasant to think about dead people. Also, it might have germs. And cooties.

[Simon_Jester]

Charles Manson wasn't a serial killer.

No, but I wouldn't wear his sweater anyway. It's not like serial killers are the only people whose sweaters I wouldn't wear. I wouldn't really want to wear Bernie Madoff's sweater either, and to the best of my knowledge he's not a serial killer.

Is that really superstition? Associating feelings/emotions with objects doesn't strike me as a particularly superstitious, it's just standard association. Simon Jester already explained it. Though I personally wouldn't mind wearing Hitler's jackboots.

For one, you're crazy. For another, that arguably crosses the line twice: from "I am creeped out by the association" to "Holy shit this was owned by the most evil guy ever."

Though, certainly, I don't think anyone would want to use a used hospital bed for their own bedroom beds in their houses. Especially if a patient died on that bed. It's just not a happy thought, even if you're not superstitious or don't believe in the supernatural, it's not pleasant to think about dead people. Also, it might have germs. And cooties.

Really, "cooties" can be explained that way: people avoiding things that raise associations they don't want to think about. Sometimes it's because they're bigoted or stupid, but sometimes it's something most people have legit reasons not to want to dwell on (like death).

You don't have to believe in ghosts or supernatural influences to think this way, but if you already do, you are "rewarded" for thinking about it in supernatural terms. You feel like you have more control and understanding, and there's always the option of taking the item to the witch doctor and getting it scrubbed with a healthy dose of placebos rather than having it be permanently tainted by its history.

[Kanastrous]

In the house-hunting process I ran across a startling concession that's made to people's superstitions, by state fiat - if you are selling a house in which a person died (within the last ten years, I think it is) you are legally obliged to advertise the fact to any prospective buyer.

That's right! Never mind that the death is 100% irrelevant to the condition, quality, or encumbrances of the property, no matter that a death under that roof means...nothing at all, really, save a line on the coroner's paperwork: as the seller you are required to give prospective buyers ammunition to try and negotiate you down (or just pass on the sale entirely) because the state wants you to play to their stupid superstitions regarding the special character of a spot where someone carked it, just because someone carked it there.

Makes me angry just thinking about it.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, consider how this relates back to the aforementioned sweater case. If you sell me a sweater and only then do I learn that it belonged to some guy who killed twenty people and ate their eyeballs, I'm going to be rather put out with you, because now I have a sweater that makes me think of Eyeball Serial Killer every time I think about it. I wouldn't have paid for the sweater in the first place if I'd known it happened.

Now, "someone died in this house" is a different story, since that's a fairly routine occurence, but then again you pay a LOT of money for a house. If sleeping in the same room where someone was shot to death raises bad associations in your head, and if it is not somehow a secret that someone was shot in that room... I think you can make a case that the seller should be obliged to disclose that information, rather than keep it a secret and let them find out for themselves.

If it doesn't bother you, personally, that someone died in the room, fine. Buy the house and don't complain about it. If it bothers someone else, they have a right to know that the product they're buying has a trait which bothers them.

[Kanastrous]

What if a man beat up his wife and kids in that house? What if there was once a rape in that house? What if the back yard extends over an old Indian burial ground? What if someone died in the house eleven years ago, rather than ten? What if the house was once regional headquarters for the White People's Party? Any of these things could set someone all a-flutter. None of these things have dick to do with the actual qualities of the house itself, and the house's actual qualities are all that a seller should be obliged to disclose.

The litany of things that some random person might find off-putting for their own personal reasons is Not My Problem.

As a seller I acknowledge a responsibility to disclose anything that's defective, damaged, out-of-code or otherwise legally or physically problematic with the property. There is zero reason that your superstitions concerning immaterial things that can't even be detected should be my concern. The right to know about a 'trait' that bothers you doesn't extend to superstiitous nonsense with no relevance to the actual real-world-where-grownups-live qualities of the property concerned.

[Kanastrous]

addendum - what if the previous occupants of the house kept a pot-bellied pig? Does that imply an obligation to advertise the fact just in case a Muslim or Jewish buyer might worry about it? Do I have to mention that there was a well-stocked bar, because a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon buyer might balk at the idea of occupying a house wherein alcohol was once stored and consumed?

If you can't point to a practical effect that really makes a difference in the structure's soundness or safety, the rest of it is bullshit.

[Broomstick]

addendum - what if the previous occupants of the house kept a pot-bellied pig? Does that imply an obligation to advertise the fact just in case a Muslim or Jewish buyer might worry about it?

Actually, a Jew wouldn't give a damn about a pig in the house. The Jewish prohibition about pigs is just on eating them, nothing else. It's the Muslims who get all wigging about pigs even existing.

If you can't point to a practical effect that really makes a difference in the structure's soundness or safety, the rest of it is bullshit.

While I'm not superstitious about death (my in-laws were flabberghasted that I'd not only sleep in the room where my father-in-law died, but I'd sleep in the very same bed he died in. Why not? The bed was quite comfortable....) I've seen far too many people for whom that superstition was severe enough to cause injury or some degree of disability (such as being completely unable to sleep in a particular room). I'd prefer to not cater to such things, but I have recognize they do exist.

Anyhow, I can think of a few circumstances where knowing a death occurred might, in fact, be relevant. For example, if the house belonged to a notorious gang member who pissed off a lot of bad people, and he was killed there, I might still be concerned about other gang members burning the building down because he used to own it and not giving a damn that it's now owned by someone else. However, that's a pretty bizarre and unusual circumstance and far different from, say, granny expiring of old age in her bed during an afternoon nap. Another instance might be a recent suicide by shotgun which, if not properly cleaned up, could pose a potential health hazard (you really need to remove drywall and carpeting with bits of brain and bone embedded, spackling over that shit and then just repainting with cheap paint doesn't cut it.)

So, my non-superstitious concern with a death in a home I'm interested in buying would be "was the mess properly cleaned up?", but if answered in the affirmative I wouldn't be bothered by living there.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let me ask you this Kanastrous:

Would you rather find out that something which gives you the HeebyJeebies happened in a house after you bought it from the neighbors, or before you bought it from the seller? Just because something is not rational does not mean you have zero obligation to the feelings and desires of a person who may potentially buy a house. Given that the majority of people would be creeped out by someone dying in a house, it is perfectly reasonable to inform someone as such, and allow them to make an informed choice.

[Simon_Jester]

If you can't point to a practical effect that really makes a difference in the structure's soundness or safety, the rest of it is bullshit.

Question.

Do I have a right to have preferences?

If so, do I have a right to be informed, when making a purchase, about whether or not the item I am purchasing matches my preferences? Or am I obliged to buy pig in a poke and hope for the best?

If the former, and if there is a category of information where many people share a preference, why shouldn't information on the preference be made available routinely, so that people get what they prefer?

Is it because you object to the reason they have the preference? Why does that matter? I mean, I may not understand why some people like green better than blue, but that doesn't mean I advocate depriving them of the option to get green instead of blue. You are sometimes allowed to do things because it amuses you to do so, or because you would feel unhappy not doing them, and not just because Straw Vulcan says "it is logical to do things this way."

[Kanastrous]

Proper cleanup of shotgun splatter is covered by the already-acknowledged obligation to disclose damage or safety-related concerns. So long as a professional cleaning crew licensed for that kind of bio-hazard-type cleanup did the work to spec and signed off on it, I don't see any reason to disclose because the health issues are removed as part of that process.

And in fact some Jews would be put off by the idea of a pig once having occupied the space; I know a few myself. Are they crazy and out-of-the-mainstream? Yes, but they still feel that way as a consequence of their Jewish beliefs.

The gang-boss-died-there business is admittedly creative but still not relevant because while you are legally obliged to disclose the fact that someone died in a house, you have zero obligation to disclose who they were, or how they died. So the salient information is *not* required, while the least-useful bit of information is.

[Kanastrous]

If you can't point to a practical effect that really makes a difference in the structure's soundness or safety, the rest of it is bullshit.

Question.

Do I have a right to have preferences?

Sure. It does not follow that you have the right to expect that others will cater to your preferences.

If so, do I have a right to be informed, when making a purchase, about whether or not the item I am purchasing matches my preferences? Or am I obliged to buy pig in a poke and hope for the best?

Since your specific preference regarding whether or not someone died in the house is completely irrelevant to the house's safety, integrity, code compliance, amenities or legal encumbrances - like an endless litany of other peculiar preferences that any other buyer might bring to the table, and which the seller is not ethically obliged to indulge - and since houses are valuated and purchased on the basis of those qualities...no, I don't think so. Maybe a Muslim family lived there previous and you wouldn't like the idea of eating dinner where they used to roll out rugs and pray towards Mecca (an actual objection I once heard raised). That has as much to do with the real qualities of the house as a death in the back bedroom; should sellers be obliged to disclose to religious practices 'soaked into the walls' too? If you can point to at least one way in which the death-or-no-death-in-the-house actually directly effects the real qualities of the house without recourse to woo-woo-bellyfeelingness, I will have to reconsider.

If the former, and if there is a category of information where many people share a preference, why shouldn't information on the preference be made available routinely, so that people get what they prefer?

Because the fact that someone has a preference does not automatically mean that it needs to be indulged? Particularly when there is not one jot of actual practical reasoning behind it.

Is it because you object to the reason they have the preference? Why does that matter?

I don't actually know why someone would have that particular preference, so I can't address their reasoning. Or more accurately (I suspect) their lack of reasoning.

I mean, I may not understand why some people like green better than blue, but that doesn't mean I advocate depriving them of the option to get green instead of blue.

This is a totally unwarranted reach, because the buyer can look and see whether a house is green or blue. Green-vs-blue is a distinction that exists in the real world. Some sense that there is a qualitative difference between a house in which no one has died and the same house wherein someone has died is illusory and without reference to the real qualities of the house itself. Particularly when - as you have sort of pointed out yourself - the 'difference' only exists when the prospective buyer is told about it. There's no hidden defect. There's actually no defect, at all.

You are sometimes allowed to do things because it amuses you to do so, or because you would feel unhappy not doing them, and not just because Straw Vulcan says "it is logical to do things this way."

Okay. It amuses me to market a house based upon its real qualities and value, and not upon some silly superstitious woo-woo tingle that someone might get for reasons that are 100% irrelevant to the actual qualities of the house itself.

[Kanastrous]

Would you rather find out that something which gives you the HeebyJeebies happened in a house after you bought it from the neighbors, or before you bought it from the seller?

I would rather discover anything I don't like about a property before purchasing it, rather than after. But no one else is responsible for what may give me the HeebyJeebies when selling me a house (insert list of all manner of silly things that might bother me for no good reason at all). They're responsible for disclosing actual physical or legal issues that exist in the real world. And that should be where their obligation ends.

Just because something is not rational does not mean you have zero obligation to the feelings and desires of a person who may potentially buy a house.

Okay, where does it stop? Why should we only honor people who experience one particular sort of HeebyJeebies? Why shouldn't a seller then be obliged to research and disclose every last possibly imaginable irrelevant minor thing which doesn't affect the actual qualities of the property at all, that might bother every last prospective buyer? Hey, maybe the geomancy of the place is attracting Death Arrows in through the front door - good gods, dare we sell an unsuspecting buyer a home saddled with bad Feng Shui? That's at least as reasonable a concern as OMG one of the billions of people to die over the course of human history happened to cark it within the perimeter of this structure. And I point out again that there is a time limit: if someone died eleven years ago rather than ten, there's no obligation to disclose. Should *that* actually make a difference? Why not 100 years ago? Why not 200? Is there an expiration date on how long a structure can be haunted? Is it somehow unclear how utterly stoopid this is?

Given that the majority of people would be creeped out by someone dying in a house, it is perfectly reasonable to inform someone as such, and allow them to make an informed choice.

I'm almost hesitant to go there, but what the heck: can you imagine anyone who might be 'creeped out' by anything that you have, do, or enjoy? Should their personal sense of creepitude enjoy status sufficient to affect or influence your legal and financial dealings with them?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would rather discover anything I don't like about a property before purchasing it, rather than after. But no one else is responsible for what may give me the HeebyJeebies when selling me a house (insert list of all manner of silly things that might bother me for no good reason at all). They're responsible for disclosing actual physical or legal issues that exist in the real world. And that should be where their obligation ends.

Do you not see the disconnect there? Your interest as a buyer is to find out as much as you can about the product before you purchase it, so as to make an informed decision. Why is it that the seller is under no obligation to inform you of any of these potential things which may be relevant? You can trot out any odd instance of particularly fanatic jews all you want, but most people (if stats on the number of people who believe in ghosts can be reasonably implied) may be disturbed by the (albeit irrational) prospect of sleeping in a room that someone died in, and it is reasonable on the part of the seller to expect that this should be the case and that it may alter someone's decision. Why is it, given this, that a seller should be permitted to lie by omission?

Okay, where does it stop? Why should we only honor people who experience one particular sort of HeebyJeebies? Why shouldn't a seller then be obliged to research and disclose every last possibly imaginable irrelevant minor thing which doesn't affect the actual qualities of the property at all, that might bother every last prospective buyer?

There is a rist-cost ratio involved as well. HeebieJeeebies from death is fairly common, and any seller will probably have that sort of information because it is a matter of public record. A muslim who will care if the house has touched pork (most are not nearly that bad) are fairly rare, and getting that information could potentially be fairly difficult. As a result, unless asked, the seller ought not be required to indulge.

You have set up a false dichotomy where one is either obligated to disclose everything or nothing. In reality some superstitions etc are just so common that it is probably wise just to disclose the relevant information and let people make their own choices.

I'm almost hesitant to go there, but what the heck: can you imagine anyone who might be 'creeped out' by anything that you have, do, or enjoy? Should their personal sense of creepitude enjoy status sufficient to affect or influence your legal and financial dealings with them?

What? Like the fact that I may have rat snakes in my attic? Actually everyone around here has rat snakes in their attic, they just dont know about them.

[Simon_Jester]

If you can't point to a practical effect that really makes a difference in the structure's soundness or safety, the rest of it is bullshit.

Question.Do I have a right to have preferences?

Sure. It does not follow that you have the right to expect that others will cater to your preferences.

If so, do I have a right to be informed, when making a purchase, about whether or not the item I am purchasing matches my preferences? Or am I obliged to buy pig in a poke and hope for the best?

Since your specific preference regarding whether or not someone died in the house is completely irrelevant to the house's safety, integrity, code compliance, amenities or legal encumbrances - like an endless litany of other peculiar preferences that any other buyer might bring to the table, and which the seller is not ethically obliged to indulge - and since houses are valuated and purchased on the basis of those qualities...no, I don't think so.

So if you can somehow conceal, say, the color of the wallpaper from me, and spring it on me as a surprise after we seal the deal, that's fair?

The wallpaper being vomit yellow doesn't affect the house's safety, integrity, code compliance, amenities or legal encumbrances- but it just might knock a few hundred dollars off the price I'd have been willing to pay. Likewise if the doors tend to stick in humid weather, or there are stains on the carpet.

It seems to me that if I the buyer wish to know something about the product I am paying many thousands of dollars for, I have a right to know, whether you, personally, agree with my motives for wanting to know or not. You do not get to decide "well tough shit you don't have a right to care about whether there are stains on the carpet." That is not up to you. If I am paying for the carpet (as part of the house), I have a right to know about the stains, even if they in no way directly affect the "amenities." The carpet still works if it's stained; that doesn't make the stains irrelevant.

If the former, and if there is a category of information where many people share a preference, why shouldn't information on the preference be made available routinely, so that people get what they prefer?

Because the fact that someone has a preference does not automatically mean that it needs to be indulged? Particularly when there is not one jot of actual practical reasoning behind it.

That kind of cavalier treatment of one's clients strikes me as extremely poor business practice. I don't want to do business with someone who decides what I do or do not need to know about their product. It's not their choice what I need to know, because they're not the ones paying for it.

Would you accept that standard from people you do business with, that as long as they meet safety regs they can flat out refuse to tell you details about their product?

Is it because you object to the reason they have the preference? Why does that matter?

I don't actually know why someone would have that particular preference, so I can't address their reasoning. Or more accurately (I suspect) their lack of reasoning.

So yes, then.

As far as I can tell, you're arguing that other people don't have a right to make choices you don't deem justified. Or even to be informed in order to make such choices.

I mean, I may not understand why some people like green better than blue, but that doesn't mean I advocate depriving them of the option to get green instead of blue.

This is a totally unwarranted reach, because the buyer can look and see whether a house is green or blue. Green-vs-blue is a distinction that exists in the real world. Some sense that there is a qualitative difference between a house in which no one has died and the same house wherein someone has died is illusory and without reference to the real qualities of the house itself. Particularly when - as you have sort of pointed out yourself - the 'difference' only exists when the prospective buyer is told about it. There's no hidden defect. There's actually no defect, at all.

There most certainly is, if I ever find out. And it's not like the seller is the only way I might find out- there are, after all, neighbors.

Again, what this boils down to is that if you personally don't care about something, you don't see why anyone else has a right to information about it, even if they are paying for the item in question.

You are sometimes allowed to do things because it amuses you to do so, or because you would feel unhappy not doing them, and not just because Straw Vulcan says "it is logical to do things this way."

Okay. It amuses me to market a house based upon its real qualities and value, and not upon some silly superstitious woo-woo tingle that someone might get for reasons that are 100% irrelevant to the actual qualities of the house itself.

And if you don't take anyone else's money, you can do whatever you please.

If you take people's money, you are under an obligation to disclose information about the product. If you refuse to do so, they are fully justified in telling you to take your product and stuff it up your ass, because no one should be expected to do business with a bunch of cavalier self-righteous pricks who take it upon themselves to dictate to the customer what the customer's preferences ought to be.