Authority. What You Really Need.

We all have preferences.  And we all want to satisfy those preferences the best we can.  So we decide we want some thing, let's say a guitar or a pair of shoes, and we and we decide it based on a set of criteria.  And we go out into the world and we buy something or acquire something we think satisfies our criteria.

What we don't like very much when some party, say a friend, or a casual acquaintance, tells us, without us first asking, what could or would satisfy our preference better than what we decided independently would do so.   We especially don't like it when a friend tells us that our methodology for ascertaining what would best satisfy our preferences is wrong or could be improved.  To carry the analogy forward: if we're in the market for running shoes and our friend tells us that adidas is a better brand than nike, and that they'd be better for us, because of arch support, or some other reason, our friend has in a sense co-opted our ability to decipher what is best for us.  The second example is more pernicious.  In it, our friend tells us that we are wrong about our desire to buy sneakers because we should go biking instead, and should buy a bike, or the friend cuts deeper: running and exercise is a waste a time and what you really need is . . .

Which is all to say that the friend or relative asserts some level of authority over you when he or she suggests a different pair of shoes or a different mode of obtaining enjoyment generally. And that, I think, it is the balance between sharing this reasoning process with others that provides the basis for friendship or animosity. In other words, whether we share this process with others, open up to them as it were, and how deeply we do it, and importantly, how fast it happens, and what the market is that guides our ultimate decisions--what range of possibilities are for our criteria--will ultimatley determine who we associate with.

A few notable items.  There are a fair amount of instances when our friend will be right and we'll be wrong.  For example, when he or she has more information about the subject at hand, or more experience (or both).  A lot of times deciding whether to accept or reject advice is much more about style: how was it received?   After all, if the friend is in a better position to make a decision, you, by definition, cannot adjudicate between the advice and your own decision making process/outputs.  Not until you get more experience or knowledge, that is.

Second, to survive and exist, we can't just go around listening to everyone.  We need to have some filter for ascertaining who will be better than we are ourselves at certain problems that we'll nontheless face.  We need to be able to find indicia that gives us some knowledge of someone else's superior knowledge.  

Third, even if someone can give us better answers for specific problems, how those answers fit into our lives is still something we need our own judgment for.  After all, the advice we seek isn't always product related, it is behavioral.  How should we act?  How should we respond?  There's a tremendous amount of stress that's associated with ambiguity, and a consequent pressure to find certainty. That pressure definitely cuts both ways.