Okay, another pet peeve of mine.

[conuly]

I'm tired - tired I say! - of hearing people complain that they feel they have to invite so-and-so's kid to their party (after all, so-and-so invited *their* kid to *their* party! Nevermind that the two kids aren't that close....) or wondering if once getting a wedding present from somebody 20 years ago means they have to send them a wedding present now...

Here's the rule about invitations and presents and the like. If you want to invite somebody to your party, if you want to get them a present? Go ahead and do so! And then... forget about it! Don't write it down on a little scorecard so, three decades down the line, you can throw it back in their face that they owe you $4 for that lousy little figurine of a duck you got them but they never reciprocated... oh, wait? You don't do that? Then why the heck do you think they do? What sort of horrible, niggling friends do you have?

Your friends aren't horrible soul-sucking excuses for human beings? Great! Then they probably aren't keeping track either. They aren't going to spend the rest of their lives cursing you just because you didn't exchange favors for them in an equal-or-greater-value deal.

Promise.

And if they do? If that's the case then they're defying every last rule of manners known to mankind, at least, all of the important ones that matter to me at this moment. Specifically the ones that state that your social affairs aren't to be arranged in a tit-for-tat fashion. They're presents and invitations, people! They aren't binding contracts wherein the first party agrees... if the second party... but only if the umpteenth party also....

Okay, yes. If your friends routinely invite you places and give you stuff and you never, ever, ever do the same for them? In that situation you'll probably be labeled the local cheapskate and - unless you have some other redeeming value or a very good excuse - rapidly find yourself unpopular.

But in the normal course of things everything will even itself out without having to do things "fairly" and "equally". (It's like listening to children squabble over who has more juice, almost!)

So yes, go to the party (or don't) and accept the gift (or don't) and buy a gift (or don't) and don't worry about it so much! Sheesh!

_{Oh, and always RSVP. Were you born in a barn?}

Comments

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

Mom? I didn't know you had a blog...

[conuly]

Your mom is a wise woman indeed to break free of all the "do I have to" nonsense.

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

It's not the "do I have to" people that bug me, it's the ones who think they don't need to write thank-you notes. I get bugged to death with questions in the communities from silly nitwits who can't be bothered to sit down for two minutes and jot out a quick note. Gah! Someone took time, effort, and/or money to give you (or your kid) a gift - you can spend $.42 on a stamp and send them a little bit of gratitude!

[conuly]

I don't know. I'm of the school of thought that says that if it's not an exceptionally wonderful gift, a verbal thank you is just as good and saves trees besides.

But you know what gets me? Forget about when people don't RSVP but then show up anyway - that's annoying, but livable. What really annoys me is when people *do* RSVP, decide at the last minute not to come - and then don't bother to inform you of that!

If you told me you'd be here, and you're not, and you haven't called you had damn well better be dying because that's about the only excuse I can think of for not telling me you're ditching me.

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

Looking at it from an evolutionary and ethological perspective, then tit-for-tat is very common among social animals. Thinking in a tit-for-tat way is in all likelihood ingrained in most humans, as those that seriously fail giving tit for tat are revealed as cheaters and will therefore be far less likely to be given tat.

In fact it is highly debated whether true altruism is to be found among non-hominids. Almost all of our social actions are in some way fuelled by self interest, although we are not aware of it in most cases, and as such true altruism is considered very rare in humans as well.

[conuly]

Yes, but you're not supposed to talk about it or admit it! Or, for that matter, go at it like a lawyer balancing scales. It's not polite and it ruins the story that we do nice things just to be nice.

[pne.livejournal.com]

If that's the case then they're defying every last rule of manners known to mankind, at least, all of the important ones that matter to me at this moment. Specifically the ones that state that your social affairs aren't to be arranged in a tit-for-tat fashion.

The feeling I got was that your little world might be a pretty place to live in, but I'm not sure whether it corresponds well to the world around you.

Different cultures have different values they place on reciprocating, and while it's true that there are cultures that are even more exacting on this point, I don't think it's completely true in the US or in Europe that social interactions are completely tit-for-tat-free, and saying it shouldn't be like that won't change it. (Nor will saying that it isn't like that.)

[conuly]

Whether it is or isn't like that isn't the point, nor whether it should or shouldn't be like that. The rules of manners, as put down by Miss Manners and many others in that vein, are that you aren't supposed to keep a record of who does what and hold people responsible for providing exact reciprocations.

[conuly]

At any rate, I certainly think that, more or less, you should reciprocate favors and invitations and whatnot. Just that it doesn't have to be "Well, ten years ago she got me a gift, now I have to get her one" or "Well, 15 people invited my kid to their kid's party last year, now I have to invite all 15 to *his* party... even though he doesn't like all 15 and I don't have the money or time or energy for all those kids".

[pne.livejournal.com]

Ah, OK, I thought you were against tit-for-tat at all.

In which case I think we agree: tit-for-tat is important in principle but not in exact numbers.

[conuly]

Yeah, as I said, if you never reciprocate you'll find yourself friendless, but your real friends (and most of your fake ones) don't care if you've got the precision of a banker.

[conuly]

And yes, I was just commenting to see myself type.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*cheers loudly* Well said!

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

Mom? I didn't know you had a blog...

[conuly]

Your mom is a wise woman indeed to break free of all the "do I have to" nonsense.

[breakableheart.livejournal.com]

It's not the "do I have to" people that bug me, it's the ones who think they don't need to write thank-you notes. I get bugged to death with questions in the communities from silly nitwits who can't be bothered to sit down for two minutes and jot out a quick note. Gah! Someone took time, effort, and/or money to give you (or your kid) a gift - you can spend $.42 on a stamp and send them a little bit of gratitude!

[conuly]

I don't know. I'm of the school of thought that says that if it's not an exceptionally wonderful gift, a verbal thank you is just as good and saves trees besides.

But you know what gets me? Forget about when people don't RSVP but then show up anyway - that's annoying, but livable. What really annoys me is when people *do* RSVP, decide at the last minute not to come - and then don't bother to inform you of that!

If you told me you'd be here, and you're not, and you haven't called you had damn well better be dying because that's about the only excuse I can think of for not telling me you're ditching me.

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

Looking at it from an evolutionary and ethological perspective, then tit-for-tat is very common among social animals. Thinking in a tit-for-tat way is in all likelihood ingrained in most humans, as those that seriously fail giving tit for tat are revealed as cheaters and will therefore be far less likely to be given tat.

In fact it is highly debated whether true altruism is to be found among non-hominids. Almost all of our social actions are in some way fuelled by self interest, although we are not aware of it in most cases, and as such true altruism is considered very rare in humans as well.

[conuly]

Yes, but you're not supposed to talk about it or admit it! Or, for that matter, go at it like a lawyer balancing scales. It's not polite and it ruins the story that we do nice things just to be nice.

[pne.livejournal.com]

If that's the case then they're defying every last rule of manners known to mankind, at least, all of the important ones that matter to me at this moment. Specifically the ones that state that your social affairs aren't to be arranged in a tit-for-tat fashion.

The feeling I got was that your little world might be a pretty place to live in, but I'm not sure whether it corresponds well to the world around you.

Different cultures have different values they place on reciprocating, and while it's true that there are cultures that are even more exacting on this point, I don't think it's completely true in the US or in Europe that social interactions are completely tit-for-tat-free, and saying it shouldn't be like that won't change it. (Nor will saying that it isn't like that.)

[conuly]

Whether it is or isn't like that isn't the point, nor whether it should or shouldn't be like that. The rules of manners, as put down by Miss Manners and many others in that vein, are that you aren't supposed to keep a record of who does what and hold people responsible for providing exact reciprocations.

[conuly]

At any rate, I certainly think that, more or less, you should reciprocate favors and invitations and whatnot. Just that it doesn't have to be "Well, ten years ago she got me a gift, now I have to get her one" or "Well, 15 people invited my kid to their kid's party last year, now I have to invite all 15 to *his* party... even though he doesn't like all 15 and I don't have the money or time or energy for all those kids".

[pne.livejournal.com]

Ah, OK, I thought you were against tit-for-tat at all.

In which case I think we agree: tit-for-tat is important in principle but not in exact numbers.

[conuly]

Yeah, as I said, if you never reciprocate you'll find yourself friendless, but your real friends (and most of your fake ones) don't care if you've got the precision of a banker.

[conuly]

And yes, I was just commenting to see myself type.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*cheers loudly* Well said!