"Free" Is Not Necessarily Good

“FREE” IS NOT NECESSARILY GOOD

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.    7-11

 

ABSTRACT:  To receive something as “free” seems to most people to be a “good thing,” but it often undermines appropriate responsibility relationships and leads to distrust and dishonesty in society.

KEY WORDS:  free, free gift, personal responsibility, sales, deals, benefits, transparency in business

It might seem as if the more “free” things one receives, the better, but in fact “free” things offered by businesses usually embody deception and manipulation that are destructive to comfort and happiness for all in society, while “free” things offered by government impair personal responsibility and encourage competition among citizens.  It might seem that the value of free things that most of us receive is relatively insignificant, but can still be instructive to examine the subtle impact of free things in general.

In our society we use “free” things to attract customers, to appease the troubled, and to appear to have others’ best interests at heart in hopes of securing their trust and affiliation.  Banks give “free checking,” governments give “benefits,” and politicians give to their constituents in hope of receiving votes.  If giving is without strings and without desire for getting something back, then it can build healthy connections between people and encourage further generosity, but if the giving of something “free” is in hope of return, then it can distort responsibility relationships, putting significant limits on trust and on the possibility of open-hearted cooperation.  If all aspects of an exchange are known to both parties, even if something “free” is involved, then things are aboveboard and at least a transactional trust (if not a personal trust) can develop.

When banks offer free checking (or free ATM transactions), which actually costs banks something to provide, they hope that you will sign up as a customer and stay around as a customer.  In order to recoup what they spend on your free checking, though, they create other fees that other customers (and perhaps you, too) are paying, that actually pay for your free checking.  You also pay indirectly by receiving a lower rate of interest on your deposits.  These other fees would be smaller if they did not include the cost of your free checking, so other people are paying for part or all of your free checking.  Sometimes these fees are an understandable penalty, as for late payments or overdrafts, which cost the bank something, and sometimes they are for things that do not even cost the bank.  You are happy because you did not have to be responsible for what you received, and this creates a purely instrumental affiliation--you stay around in hopes of getting more things free that you will not have to be responsible for.  If you stay around but are perfectly clear that the bank is not doing you a favor but is in fact doing itself a favor by enticing you to use its supposedly “free” checking, then you will not be harmed, but if you mistakenly “like” the bank for giving you something free, then you have become dependent on the bank and can be manipulated by the bank in the future.

Governments give preferential treatment to those they favor, and these benefits are paid for by other citizens who are not getting these benefits.  Every law or regulation that benefits some people must be paid for by others who are not benefiting (or paid for disproportionately by others).  This makes government a battleground for gaining enough influence to get the government to give one of the vying parties preferential treatment (which other citizens will have to pay for).  Every time you get something free or extra from the government, other people are paying all or most of the cost.

Politicians try to “bring home the pork” in terms of government monies that will be spent in their districts for their constituents.  No one talks about the fact that other people in other districts are paying for this local spending.  Once again, government becomes a battleground for who can get the most “free” money.  (It is no excuse to say “The government has all this money, so why shouldn’t I get some of it?” since all of the money that the government “has” is tax money, paid by you and me and supposedly belonging to all of us, not to just a select few.)

Internet firms offer free e-mail accounts in hope that you will pay attention to the advertising on their web pages sufficiently that you will buy something from their advertisers.  The advertisers are paying for your free e-mail.  Mail and internet businesses sometimes offer free shipping, which is paid for not only by other customers but also by you, in terms of higher item costs (that include the amount that you would have paid for shipping, if shipping had been an identified cost).  No business really gives anything for free, since their costs for what appears to be free are made up for by other charges and fees.  What appears t be “free” is not free at all.  The willingness of many people to believe otherwise and to attribute personal value to the sources of free things is both naïve and amazing.

One of the most widespread examples of “free” items is the broadcast media.  Since there was no easy way to charge users when radio and TV were developing, advertising became the financial support for these media.  The cost of these media is hidden from listeners and viewers, who now pay in terms of exposure to advertising (and now also pay for delivery of more than just broadcast to their homes via satellite or cable).  Business persons might argue that advertising serves the function of alerting people to new products, but more importantly for their purposes, advertising is cleverly designed to induce customer allegiance and loyalty, as unconsciously as possible, as well as being the best public example (besides politicians) of misleading statements (thus teaching our youth that “distortion of the truth is the norm,” “cheating is OK,” and “you can’t really trust anyone”).  These evils could be avoided if every channel or station charged a monthly fee to support their operations and programming, and if consumers chose which to pay for and which not to pay for.  These payments could be readily collected by cable and satellite companies with today’s technology.  (It would be instructive to restrict advertising to one section of a publication or presentation, such as the last 20 minutes of a one-hour TV show or to only one section of a newspaper, so that people could more easily choose not to see it or view it, and then we would see a change in how media are supported!)

Every “free” item has a hidden cost, unless it has been provided through donations of others with no wish to get something back.  The essential point here is that all of these “free” things are not really free, and to receive them builds the notion in our heads that more things, perhaps everything, could be free, thus depriving us of our full realization that life is not like that and never will be.  Everything that human beings create, build, or obtain is paid for by human labor.  This has always been true and will always be true, since that is the nature of the environment that human beings inhabit.  Nothing is free.  Hunting “free” game takes effort, as does finding fruits and nuts to gather.  We may wish, unconsciously, to go back to being infants who are provided for totally by someone else, but even infants work to get fed, by crying!  The idea that each person should be responsible for himself or herself is essential to a well-functioning society and a well-functioning economy, and free things weaken this fundamental assumption.

Supposedly “free” transactions also distort the appropriate relationship between a provider and a buyer.  If the buyer does not know the true cost of the item or service to the provider, he has no way of judging whether the provider is honest and reliable (or is predatory, manipulative, or over-charging).  Most people like to know with whom they are developing a relationship and whether they should buy from that provider again.  The same goes for “deals,” “sales,” and “volume discounts,” all of which offer opportunities to providers to distort the production cost and profit margin of a product.

The distortion of responsibility inherent in “free” items is partly explained by the fact that we have lost any sense of inherent worth of objects (and of ourselves as well) in our loyalty to a market system that says that the worth of something is defined by what someone else will pay for it.  This transactional definition encourages us, then, to see price manipulation (and price gouging) as perfectly OK (at least as long as we are the ones benefiting).  There are advantages to a free market, of course, but having a free (or relatively free) market system means that people must be free to set prices as they wish.  This is feasible and undistorted as long as the provider offers only one item, and we can directly see his or her wealth, but as soon as a provider offers many products or services and is anonymous to us, deceptive pricing opportunities present themselves, and few providers are straightforward enough to be honest with buyers about the price of each individual item.  It would be more honest if every item was marked with (1) the amount of money that was spent getting that item to the buyer, (2) the profit margin, and (3) the asking price.  If you think that this is superfluous, consider that providers would object strenuously to such a system, not because of any difficulties in providing it (computers do it all nowadays) but because it would remove many opportunities for the provider to manipulate the buyer without the buyer knowing it.

To summarize, the deception (incomplete pricing information) and manipulation (psychological manipulation through advertising; discouraging self-responsibility; encouraging dependence) inherent in the use of “free” things by business and government decrease trust throughout society because recipients usually realize at some point that they are being manipulated by entities that do not want recipients to know their full intent or future plans for recipients.  This encourages people to believe that everyone is dishonest and that it is morally acceptable to deceive and to take advantage of others.  It also encourages people to accept receiving things for free that others are paying for indirectly.  “Free” things also weaken the assumption that everyone should be responsible for themselves, since “free” things encourage dependence and clinging to the source of “free” things instead of looking at the full range of one’s options.  This dependence undermines self-respect as well.

A society in which we can trust others not to try to take advantage of us leads to better cooperation and greater overall happiness, but the bottom line to all this, sadly, is that people don’t care enough about others to be fair and honest with them (especially others that they do not know personally), and people do not perceive that being fair and honest will “pay off” with significant future advantages.  This is the price we pay for having huge economies (with more products and opportunities) in which we do not have any personal knowledge of other participants.  Perhaps this problem can be reduced but only by individuals coming to believe that it is in their best interest to do so!  (See my essay “The Answer to All Human Problems!”, which advocates an increase in positive interactional behaviors by all of us.) 

  

blog\postings\freeisnotgood

Contentment

CONTENTMENT

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.  6-11

ABSTRACT:  Contentment is little sought by people in modern societies, but it can be a key determinant of quality of life.  Ways of seeking and increasing contentment are described.

KEY WORDS:  contentment, quality of life

In modern societies few people pursue or aspire to contentment, perhaps because it seems anachronistic and out of sync with modern life, which is filled with stimuli that compete for our attention, many offering immediate pleasure.  Pleasure seems so available, through entertainment, consumer goods, and internet-based activities that something as old-fashioned as contentment seems quite unnecessary, yet most of us still relate with some yearning to images of contentment—the old men in rocking chairs swapping stories on the porch of a home or country store, the cleaning person who is truly happy with what she has, or the serene expression of a saint or guru who is living a life based on the longer-term and hard-won pleasures of the spirit.  

Most people have no direct experience with contentment or with anyone who is basically content and do not know what is needed in order to feel contentment.  Most people imagine relatively enduring contentment to be like feeling constantly satisfied—i.e., feeling satisfaction with every new stimulation and accomplishment, but this would require the almost impossible scenario of everything going right in one’s life, and this would not be contentment anyway, since satisfaction occurs only after goal-related effort and soon fades, while contentment is a state of lack of pressing desire which can be prolonged or even lasting.  Webster’s Ninth New World Dictionary defines “contentment” as the state of feeling or manifesting satisfaction with one’s possessions, status, or situation, but this implies that contentment is the same as satisfaction, and I suggest that there is a meaningful and useful view of contentment that is qualitatively different from satisfaction.  Although one’s contentment will inevitably be challenged by life’s “problems,” and although one may certainly at times be content only with certain elements of one’s life and not with one’s life in general, I suggest that a general and enduring sense of contentment is possible and might be chosen over other lifestyle alternatives.

It will be helpful to clearly differentiate contentment from satisfaction and fulfillment, with which it is often confused.  Satisfaction is felt when a need is sufficiently met or a desire sufficiently fulfilled or when we judge that we have done what we needed to do to reach a goal (a small-step goal or a final goal), and we are pleased with our efforts and/or with the outcome.  We feel satisfied if we access and eat food that pleases us.  We may feel satisfied with being fed, regardless of the food, if our goal was to be pleasing enough for the preparer of the food to want to feed us.  We are satisfied with our jobs when we have gotten a job in which our work results in reaching the goals we had for being in a job, in terms of pay, interactions with others, working environment, quality of management, or other goals. 

Satisfaction or dissatisfaction can be attached to every new need, desire, or effort, and satisfaction is often short-lived (having our hunger satisfied, being satisfied with a memo we are writing or a painting we are doing).  One can be satisfied with one’s life as it is right now (i.e., satisfied with one’s need state and with one’s efforts and results in life up to this point) but still be engaged in strongly motivated efforts to have more or to be more, whereas if one is content with one’s life, there are no pressing desires or needs that demand one’s focus.

Fulfillment is felt when we have reached a goal by using aspects of our "real selves" (abilities, capacities, knowledge, talents) honestly and sincerely (as contrasted with pretending to be other than we are or to believe or feel other than we actually believe or feel).  We may feel fulfilled when we see our children thriving and consider our contributions to their growth.  We may feel fulfilled when we reflect on a career in which we have given to others using meaningful aspects of ourselves in creating results that are consistent with our values.  We would not feel fulfilled, on the other hand, if we obtained a reward by pretending to have done something that we in fact did not do (even if we appreciated and enjoyed the reward).

Contentment, on the other hand, is a positive emotional state that is based in feeling that we have enough or that we are sufficient, according to our own standards or expectations.  Since the contented person has enough (of material goods) or “is” enough (views self as acceptable, adequate, etc.), he has no pressing need to have more or to be more.  It is basically an emotional state of rest, in which there is no business that must be finished and no inner doubts or conflicts that must be resolved.  Contentment is probably never constant, because changes around us will inevitably occur that will require focus and effort toward regaining a status or condition that we like, but contentment could be the usual emotional state for some or even many people.  We can be dissatisfied with some elements of life (being hungry, for example) and still be contented in general (and this is perhaps the most that we can realistically hope for in this life).  (It might appear that religious mystics or ascetics go further toward contentment than anyone else, but if they are still trying to reach higher spiritual states, then they may not be content!)

It may be useful also to differentiate contentment from serenity, which is a state but not a feeling.  Contentment is a pleasant feeling that occurs when we have no pressing needs or discontents, while serenity is a state in which one “flows” through life untroubled.  The untroubled state is similar in both.  However, we “feel” contented when we are in a state of contentment, whereas we “are” serene and may view ourselves as serene, but we do not “feel” serene or “feel” serenity.

A feeling of well-being may be present along with contentment but probably only if one has all or most of one’s needs satisfied (according to what one has chosen to be satisfied with).  A person may be content even if some significant needs and desires are not satisfied or met.

Satisfaction is felt after goal-related effort that has succeeded (or goal-related effort that one is satisfied with), but it usually does not last long, whereas contentment can be a relatively enduring state if cultivated.  We feel fulfillment when we are pleased with having used our true selves to accomplish valued goals, while contentment, again, is not based in achievement but in having no pressing needs to accomplish or change.  Serenity is untroubled, similar to contentment, but serenity is a state and not a feeling.  Well-being is a positive feeling arising to varying degrees from one’s life being as it “should be” or as one wants it to be.

Contentment has the following defining elements and necessary conditions:  a positive emotional state; equilibrium (a relatively steady state emotionally); feeling that what we have is “enough” (and not being troubled by desires); relative lack of concern about personal shame, guilt, or inadequacy; and standards and expectations of self that have been met and are therefore not a source of discontent or dissatisfaction.

Equilibrium

As noted above, contentment is an emotional state of rest, in which there is no business that must be finished and no inner doubts or conflicts that must be resolved.  There are no desires or motives strong enough to push us “off center” into an emotional state where striving and dissatisfaction dominate.  A person who is generally content can live, most of the time at least, in this balanced, centered state of emotional equilibrium, even though external concerns will arise that will have to be handled, hopefully in a manner that allows the preservation of one’s equilibrium.  This will usually require viewing external concerns and stresses as passing and tolerable, so that even though they may call for action, this action can be taken without stress, and one’s equilibrium can be preserved.  (This untroubled emotional equilibrium is the key defining factor of serenity.)

External threats, both environmental threats and those created

by others, are viewed by the contented person as ultimately not catastrophic and not worth being disturbed about, even if one chooses to act to do something about them.  In order to do this, you must have developed confidence in your ability to cope adequately with these threats.  You must believe that you can overcome most environmental dangers, and you must be able to accept threats from others as inevitable and respond in ways that calmly give the greatest chance of peaceful resolution.  This confidence goes hand in hand with the confident acceptance of the fact that, even if you cannot take care of a threat (and even if you should lose your life as a result), you will have done the best you can and will have done well according to your own internal standards and expectations (which is all any of us can ever do).  Ultimately, one is satisfied with and content with doing one’s best, regardless of the outcome.

Feeling That What We Have Is “Enough” (and Not Being Troubled by Desires)

Modern consumer societies require consumption desire on the part of citizens in order to maintain production and exchange of goods.  Now that basic needs are routinely satisfied for persons in “advanced” societies, business has turned to a focus on selling stimulation and pleasure, in food and drink, entertainment, and the purchase of status.  The lure of such pleasures is sufficient to keep most people consuming and to keep them from ever feeling contented.  The capitalist ethos therefore acts against the achievement of enduring contentment.  By harnessing personal gain as motivation, capitalism has created great wealth and has increased general physical well-being, but the undermining and minimization of contentment is a notable loss for citizens.  If people were asked to choose between enduring contentment and a life of perpetual, recurring desires, some met and some unmet, a sizable proportion of us might well choose contentment (at least if it did not mean a clearly undesirable standard of living).

Contentment does not necessitate a low standard of living but simply asks that we not be particularly concerned about it, beyond having “enough.”  People who are basically content can still see the necessity of working for their bread and shelter and can do this work with equanimity and without undue concern.  Society-wide contentment would imply somewhat less consumer spending overall and also a lack of long-term ambition for status, so people who were content would not do extra striving in order to continue to “rise” in the socioeconomic hierarchy (even though they might still seek to fill positions that they considered important for the general welfare, in order to contribute).  (They would also not be harming others by trying to best or defeat them in order to “get ahead.”)

The question of what is “enough” is clearly central to being content.  Most human beings take what others around them have or do to be their standard for what is “enough,” without really considering the question for themselves.  To be content in a culture of consumption, you must decide for yourself how you want your life to be balanced between getting things, consuming them, and other aspects of life.  Those in modern society who are content would allot less time to getting more things and consuming them and more time to other pleasures (such as face-to-face interactions with others, play that does not require expensive equipment, long-term goals, fulfillment, serenity, etc.).  If you think about it, you will find that a good deal of what you have is not essential for having a good life.  Having five good friends might be just as satisfying as having ten; standard TV’s might be just as good as flat-screens for entertainment; you can have a happy life in a 1500 square foot house; a lesser car will get you to your destination, too; and infants don’t really need designer jeans or diapers (as long as you are content not to compete for status with the neighbors).

People who are content are also less concerned about desires and needs that might arise but that are not or cannot be fulfilled or met.  People who are content will certainly have needs, but as long as essential needs are met, they view others as optional—i.e., if they can be met, fine, but if they cannot, it is not a source of concern or dissatisfaction.  People who are content might say that it would be nice to have a particular object or a particular entertainment, but they would not say that they “have to have it,” and they would not be upset if their neighbors had it but they did not.  Also, if fulfilling a desire or meeting a non-essential need would require losing the basic feeling of contentment, they might well choose to stay content.

Contentment may conjure up an image of mainly just sitting or doing nothing, but this is simply the false contrast in our minds with our current activity level.  A person can be content and still look forward to and enjoy a fishing trip or a friendly competition or writing a book.  A person can be content and still work long hours serving others.  The definitional key is that one is not “driven” to do these things or prove something but does them for their own pleasures and rewards.

Making a choice for contentment while those around us are consuming as much as possible is difficult, since we have evolved as a species to conform and to act like those around us act, and if we act differently or demonstrate different values from those around us, they look on us as odd or even as a threat (since their choice to consume is usually not really a choice—they are simply doing what everyone around them is doing).  Also, if we choose contentment over consumption, we must find the results to actually be worthwhile, and it takes some time to fully realize and understand the benefits of contentment, which may mean holding onto the choice for contentment initially while being tempted by immediate pleasures and seeing others having those pleasures.  Usually, though, the choice to seek greater contentment is made after one has become jaded and discontented with consumption and its immediate pleasures.

We should consider whether our society could continue to produce everything that we consider important if a large number of people were to choose to be more content and less acquisitive.  For example, it is possible that with less economic activity in general, some productive activities, such as medical research, might be curtailed, and the total amount of medical care available might be lessened, since there might not be enough money to maintain them at their current levels.  Then if you believe that maximum medical research is essential for a good life, the responsible thing to do is not to choose contentment.  Serious consideration, however, might lead you to conclude that continuing to extend your life by a few months and a few months more is not very important, and that you might even be satisfied with the level of medical care that was available fifty years ago, which would mean a slightly smaller life span expectation and somewhat fewer treatments for some diseases.  It is even easier to accept with equanimity the current level of medical care together with slower future progress in research, since what we have currently always seems better than what we had in the past!

The above is a truly critical point regarding human beings and “progress.”  We may have perfectly good reasons for wanting ever better medical care, and we will always be motivated to find ways to have less pain (and more pleasure), but we do not have to have them in order to be happy, satisfied, content, or fulfilled.  We can have “good” lives without more “progress.”  It is the false assumption that every wish or desire “should” be met that keeps us from considering the alternative.

Relative Lack of Concern About Personal Shame, Guilt, or Inadequacy

In order to be content, it is important not to have self-criticism or other inner discontents disturbing one’s equanimity.  The major feelings that must be managed are shame, guilt, poor self-esteem, and inadequacy. 

You must grow emotionally and cognitively to the point where (1) you are little affected by others’ efforts to shame you, because you evaluate for yourself whether to be ashamed, rather than feeling shamed simply because someone else is trying to shame you, and (2) you manage your behavior so that you do not do things that you will be ashamed of.

You must grow emotionally and cognitively to the point where (1) you manage your behavior in such a way that you do not do things that you will feel guilty about, and (2) you manage your unanticipated guilt by working through the process of forgiving yourself (which includes having the integrity to not act in that guilt-producing way again).  (See the chapter on acceptance in my book How To Feel Good About Yourself:  12 Steps to Positive Self-Esteem (available through the internet) for steps in forgiving yourself.)

Feeling inadequate, feeling bad about being who you are, and feeling that you are not good enough are all aspects of negative self-esteem and are things that will undermine contentment.  Positive self-esteem (feeling positively about yourself most of the time, without excessive inner conflict and self-criticism) makes your daily experience of living so much better, by giving you a positive outlook in general and by releasing all of your energies for use in goal-attainment.  The methods of cultivating self-esteem are simple (see the book above), but they require considerable inner work on self-acceptance, self-respect, and self-love, as well as on taking control of your standards and expectations for yourself.

Standards and Expectations of Self that Have Been Met and Are Therefore Not a Source of Discontent or Dissatisfaction

Perhaps the greatest enemy of contentment (and of self-esteem as well) is holding standards and expectations for yourself that you are not meeting because they are impossible or inappropriate standards or expectations (such as parents expecting a child of moderate intellectual capacity to be a high academic achiever).  Usually these are standards and expectations that others (usually parents) have held for you and that you have taken on as obligations.  Clearly, if they are impossible or inappropriate for you, then you will always be troubled by self-doubt and poor self-esteem, and this will make overall contentment almost impossible.  The answer to this is to examine each of your expectations and standards for yourself and decide whether you really agree with it or whether you disagree with it and do not wish to hold yourself to it any longer, given who you are and given who initially tried to hold you to this standard or expectation.  Rejecting inappropriate standards can be frightening, since it may mean disappointing whoever set up the standard in the first place, but freeing yourself from standards and expectations that will keep you internally distressed for the rest of your life will be well worth it.

A person who has appropriate and humane standards and expectations of self can be content, because she is succeeding in life, according to the only standards that matter (her own) and because she is not troubled by feelings of inadequacy, self-doubt, and painful self-esteem.

A question worth considering is whether a person could be failing or unable to accomplish things important to her and still be content.  This would be possible if the failures and lack of achievement were with regard to things that the person knew in advance were likely to be impossible but that were felt to be worth working at anyway.  The expectation for these efforts would be doing one’s best, regardless of outcome.  An example might be working for desired social change, which an individual is unlikely to be able to effect alone but which each of us can work toward, believing that ultimately it can be achieved by working together.

Summary

Being more content in one’s life is a personal choice but one which in our society requires being different from others who are living lives of striving, stimulation, and pleasure.  Feeling relatively enduringly content in your life is possible and means basically not feeling pressure from needs, desires, and dissatisfactions.  Contentment is enhanced by developing greater emotional equilibrium and therefore becoming more centered and serene; by redefining your standards so that you feel that what you have is “enough” and that who you are is “enough;” by becoming better able to manage shame, guilt, inadequacy, and other negative feelings about yourself; by refining your standards and expectation of yourself so that you are truly OK with yourself; and by being confident in and satisfied with the results when you do your best and are truly yourself, regardless of the outcomes.

essays\contentment