Slashdot Mirror
Why We Love Things We Build Ourselves
RichDiesal writes "The IKEA Effect refers to the tendency for people to value things they have created/built themselves more than if made by someone else – in fact, nearly as much as if an expert with much greater skill had created the same item. Is this the reason that open source software proponents are so 'enthusiastic' about their products while the general market resists them – because those proponents had a hand in developing them?"
Yes.
Sure, the world has it's share of deadbeats but there are plenty of parents out there who would do anything to watch their kids succeed. Isn't that what an application is to its developer?
Maybe its something else though. I know that when i was going through my programming lessons I really wanted to get things done perfectly. Sure, the lessons from the texts were cookiecutter, but i went on to play with the concepts learned from the text. I played with my own small applications and wrote features I thought would be interesting or necessary. It wasn't anything big. It would never be a huge success, but it was mine.
are also more likely to appreciate worthless chipboard so it makes sense that after they put together a worthless disgrace of a table that to gloss over their pathetic nature they react as if they built the empire state building all by their very own selves.
A person who has fashioned an item from the start will implicity trust it in operation until proved otherwise, because they saw it's construction. This is true of any tool in any era. That trust is extended to "experts" generally because those are individuals whom other people you trust (that have tools provided by said expert) have recommended for that same "the tool works for me" reason.
Quite why we need to ascribe a brand name to this offends my sensibilities. Not everything requires a brand.
For me at least the economic element of building something myself is the driver in the first place. I put in place my kitchen because I was capable and I'd rather have spent the money a fitter would have cost on something else. If I'd been offered the same kitchen same price, fully professionally fitted I'd have taken it.
I could build certain electronic items, however the cost of the components vs the premade version makes it uneconomic. Even at the higher level of this, I used to be able to put together a PC from parts, these days I wouldn't bother.
I'm not sure the open source stuff works, the vast majority of open source users don't have an involvement in writing the software, and the software is largely written by experts anyway. Perhaps there is something in the idea of user customisation, tweaking it to make it just so, but I suspect a large amount of users go for an out of the box configuration of and just add additional software they are interested in. That's no real different to a windows user.
The main reasons for me and people I know are
1) cost effectiveness
2) the option to modify software as needed
3) no fear of lock-in
Also many 'enthusiastic' open source software proponents have never even looked at the code. In academic environments people write/use open source programs without giving much thought to who wrote something. The main points are usability and time requirements. If something is usable and can be used quickly then we use it no matter who wrote it.
I usually like Open Source software but the reason has very little to do with the source being available.
What I really like is projects that are made on hobby basis without an economic driving force behind them.
This is because those things are usually made to solve a problem and do it well.
Once a project goes commercial marketing enters the picture and suddenly the application gets a splash-screen for no apparant reason. Then the buttons grow and become bulky. The interfac will be reworked to be "userfriendly" which is marketing speak for "easy to demonstrate a simple function but if you actually are going to use it you will no longer be able to find the functions you are looking for" or possibly "friendly for beginner but not for users"
I am probably not representative for open source proponents since I don't mind closed source on an ideological basis.
Training customers to accept cheap shoddy goods
If you can't tell the difference between something built by somebody that has more skill than you do, so there is no reason not to be proud of yourself. For entry to moderate level DIY or craft, the main difference between an amateur and a professional is the productivity: i.e. how much time it takes the professional and his consistency in result.
For high level stuff, that is another matter. I can only talk personally, but since I have started metal smithing as a hobby, I value a lot less the average piece you can buy all assembled (not even talking about the mass produced shit). However, I began to be amazed by what master craftman can do. ( and as collateral damage, I have paid price for piece that I would not have considered reasonable before )
Of course we love what we make even if it sucks, but interesting choice of words. "Market" refers to people buying stuff, but OSS isn't necessarily for sale. Nor do people advertise or "sell" as do those who cater towards "markets". Red Hat sells service, not OSS.
So, "resist" is not the reason why OSS isn't selling. The problem is more about the lack of sales and marketing. People need to be told what to buy as with Apple with great ads, or get cornered into it as with Windows pre-installed in everything.
The ecosystem of OSS is what is resisting OSS becoming a market.
If the culture is so "do-it-yourself" why does someone else need to release tracks for others to mix?
So I suppose the twit who dubbed this "the Ikea effect" never heard of this neckbeard from the 19th century and his theory of alienation?
Of course I'm enthusiastic about using software I've contributed to, but remember that the reason I spend time contributing to them is because I was using them in the first place. There's other free software I have nothing to do with, which I'm still very fond of, mostly because they're constantly improving for free (with a few arguable exceptions in Ubuntu's case).
I do agree that the IKEA effect is real but I don't think that FOSS is a pile of crap like the OP hints ... while the general market resists them ... "
from the summary: "
I'm no expert here but I think the general market embraces FOSS software. I mean look at firefox, openoffice, vlc, mpc-hc... and when you get to smaller utilities it is even more open source stuff: ffmpeg (and many other codecs), hundreds of browser plugins, you name it they have it in open source.
If the OP meant FOSS OSs then I partially agree, the genpop is not interested and mainly avoids FOSS OSs but the reason behind it is not the IKEA effect but the "I am afraid to learn new things" effect which has plagued humankind for that best part of last century and the full ongoing one..
just my 2c
-- no sig today
1) Most OSS enthusiasts cannot code. It's unfortunate, but true.
2) The study cited is not publicly available. Psychology studies are often very flawed in various ways and until it becomes freely available and we can be sure that many more eyes, also (or should I say especially) outside the field, have had a look at it.
There is also something asinine about citing a closed paper in an OSS-related article.
I hate assembling IKEA stuff but it's is still much easier than trying to move a prebuilt furniture to the room. First you have to pay extra for delivery as it doesn't fit into a car. Then you need to rearrange your home to make way for it. After that you need two people, who, in perfect unison, try to move it through the house without hitting any lamps or mirrors, painfully forcing it through every door. And if one of your doors is too small, when then you are out of luck.
Indeed. Ikea is a pile of incompatible crap. And frankly, I don't subscribe to that mindset at all. I have enough Ikea crap here to know I don't like Ikea crap. And when it comes to software I write myself vs someone else's who did a better job? I'm going to go with what's better.
My Linux is in primary use by me because it is good. It is used in countless reliable devices because it is good.
The main thing the mainstream has against "alternatives to Windows" is that they can't just get any software to run and most software is for Windows. Apple/Mac users understand this much. And when Windows users try Mac, that's the first thing they realize. It's a huge problem to let go of an entire software ecosystem in favor of a smaller, less known one.
The Ikea effect is a nice idea and might have been more true a decade or more ago, but not so much now.
As far as I can tell, we're hard-wired to derive pleasure from independence and self-reliance, probably because it's an advantageous trait in evolutionary terms.
Many years ago, I was into vintage Volkswagens for a while. As anyone who has owned one of these beasts can tell you, they're extremely unreliable and require more or less constant maintenance to keep running, and unless you're prepared to do it yourself, you'd better have a lot of money to hand to the dwindling number of mechanics who know how to work on the damn things. I had never worked on cars before or been particular interested in doing so, but I adapted to necessity, and after a while, I got good enough at it to keep my ancient VW running most of the time.
On one hand, it was annoying to have the thing break down by the side of the road, but on the other, there was a really quite profound sense of satisfaction in being able to open the engine compartment, figure out what was wrong, fix it, and pull back into traffic. In practical terms, this was pointless, of course -- my time and money would have been better spent on buying something more reliable, which I eventually did -- but the emotional payoff surprised me with its intensity. I've heard similar sentiments come from hobbyists of all kinds, farmers, craftsmen, etc.
All that said, I'm not sure it's the main factor in OSS evangelism. The type of person who programs for fun is generally attracted to exploring complexity and mastering it, and the parallel seems to be more like what puzzle fans of all kinds get out of their hobby. When someone tries to convince someone else to use a complex (if powerful) tool over the droolproof commercial product they're currently satisfied with, it has a lot more in common with trying to turn them on to a favorite hobby than with an expression of self-reliance.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Quite right. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a damn good song reduced to crap by some muppet "DJ" who should have stuck to spinning the disks rather than trying to make them.
I hand-crafted this comment all by myself and it's worth more than any other on the page. Of course, all the other commenters will disagree...
I agree with the IKEA affect, at some level, but believe people are wrong about what it means. Just because someone has worked on an open source project does not mean they have rose colored glasses and expect it will solve every problem more efficiently than another alternative. In my view, it means that they have a more sophisticated view of what the project actually can do, in part because it is open, and are ready to share that information.
I own an open source company that deals with Drupal and CiviCRM. It is not uncommon to be in a conversation where someone is telling me of course I think Drupal is the greatest thing out there, and assumes I am not well versed in anything else. I can go on about the virtues of Drupal all day long, but that is besides the point. I have an in-depth understanding of Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla (and it's predecessor Mambo), Plone, Xoops, and a number of other open source tools.
I have contributed to each of these platforms at one time or another and understand the way they work in great detail. Compared to Sharepoint, where I don't understand the internals, I am not going to have a lot to say. If you come to me asking what you should be using, I am going to talk about Drupal, but am also going to ask what you currently use.
There are parallels with the automotive industry that can help explain what is going on there.
My mechanic actually makes cars. He purchases transmissions, chassis, all the component parts you need to assemble them. He has a large lot, looks almost like a junkyard on the outside, and he keeps a fleet of jumkers around to restore them and sell them off. On the inside, his shop is a paradise of tools, diagnostic machines and the like.
His obsession with cars extends to his personal life. His house is filled with cardboard boxes that contain custom parts he picked up because he knows what he can do with them. He can explain them in terms of torque, output and a lot of other factors that go beyond my ability to appreciate a car and what it does.
My neighbor is also someone I would call a car guy and drives a german supercar. It was top of the line when he bought it. I mention the car to the mechanic, and he can tell me about every part in it and why it is good or bad. He has strong opinions about the car and why it is poorly designed, with several prognostications about parts that will die prematurely due to flaws.
When I speak to my neighbor about it, all he knows is he has an expensive car. that impresses people. He can talk about all the luxury lines and his knowledge of the component parts extends to the makeup of the interior, the warmth of the seats, the placement of cup holders, and the like. What he really cares about is not under the hood, it's how the car looks to other people.
If you put the question to both of these kind of people about what kind of car to drive, you are going to get very different answers because one understands how cars are built, the other understands what the car means to other people who see it. There is a qualitiative difference there people don't always appreciate between different types of afficinados.
That said, there are ideological zealots out there who will always tell you to use a platform for it's own sake. I don't always get the sense these people always know what they are talking about, and generally get the feeling they cling to one platform due to their ignorance of the benefits of others. They have a tendency to become very defensive when confronted and make very bold assertions in the absence of facts.
This later class of people generally don't have much to do with how the platform is built. They tend to be the ones who are proponents of the platform and have strong opinions based on their participation in the community. While they can be fun to spend time with, there are situations where you get sick of being around them. To be candid, there are a lot of people in open source communities who are like this, and I think that's where the confusion comes from.
But don't mistake them for the people who actually love open source and understand it's benefits and drawbacks in comparion to other platforms.
You must remember windows 95 and windows ME and take it as a reference...
I have had the EXACT same sentiments about Linux with this process:
Ubuntu etc has been a step up
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Because without opensource, IE6 is all you would have. Love it, it is the only way.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How many out there remember Heathkits? I guess you could call it that theIKEA effect on steroids. Back in the 70's I built my own Heathkit TV. I thought it was the best performing TV set I'd ever seen, and we did look in the stores at sets before buying that one. Many people built their own stereo receivers, portable radios (me too), and television sets from kits by Heath.
Then there was this guy on PBS with a show called the "New Yankee Workshop". Norm Abrams also wrote a few books on furniture construction and offered plans to all of the projects he built on the TV show. I bought some basic wood working power tools (table saw, drills, router, etc) and learned how to use them thanks to Norm's "instruction". I build a number of small furniture items including two chests of drawers that were based on a project from the NYWS. Those two chests are (IMHO) better constructed than anything I could buy (REAL WOOD instead of particle board or cardboard and limited use of plywood).
If you don't want to make your own from scratch, or bolt it together from IKEA there is always "Wood You". Wood You stores sell assembled furniture that is un-finished. They provide you with the materials to fine sand, stain or paint, and finish the product. I've gotten several pieces of furniture from them, and they are quite nice. The money saved on not finishing them allows Wood You to use better materials in construction (REAL WOOD!).
I don't think that's very rare to be honest..
which is totally what she said
People get a sense of accomplishment from making things. That provides a psychological boost.
That's all there is to it.
Of course making things isn't the only way to get a sense of accomplishment, but making things does create a physical object that re-enforces that good feeling whenever we see/use it.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
IKEA is more comparable to desklets or plasmoids (or whatever the KDE applets are called these days), though. The basics are done already, so its appeal is accessibility and ease. The real DIY "open source" furniture is more like this stuff. Anyone can do it with simple tools and the right materials, but it still takes some effort. When it's easier to start a project, a steady increase in required effort builds a reluctance to let the initial investment go to waste. The trouble is biting off more than one can chew from the start. I think that is often the case with FOSS.