At the risk of sounding irrational, that last post wasn't emotionally satisfying enough!

That's because I barely explored the underlying issue of why people don't mind spending more money on things that are not in their apparent rational interest, while refusing to buy things (or do things) that are.

This begs the question of what is rational. In my haste to utilize logic and reason in analyzing these things, I often forget that what people seek is emotional satisfaction. The latter is such an important component of life that without it, people flounder around aimlessly. That is, until someone or something comes along and offers them emotional satisfaction.

Let me return to the example of the intelligent cashier who dared to disclose his employer's deep dark secret (the knowledge that people don't check the unit prices). The man is intelligent and witty, and spices up his checkout line with all kinds of remarks. Flattery for some, sarcastic asides for others -- he's a natural entertainer who knows what his customers enjoy hearing. For that reason, his checkout lines are much longer. (Something which I am sure does not go unnoticed by management, so I'm not disclosing the store name or location.) People who are in a hurry or don't like him use another line, but as to the people who like him, well, I suspect that some of them come to the store just because he's there, and if he quit they might go to another supermarket. (There are a number of choices.) Is it in the rational interest of these customers to spend more time in line? That depends on what you consider rational. Far be it from me to declare that emotional satisfaction is irrational, because what we like and what we don't like are of paramount importance in deciding what to do.

This principle can be carried too far. When I used to sell real estate in California, I prided myself in knowing what people wanted, and matching them with what I thought would be the perfect house. I found one couple a house in the Berkeley Hills which was underpriced because an elderly owner had died there, and no one had bothered to spiff the place up. No big deal; just minor cosmetic stuff. This house had everything they wanted -- the view, the right number of rooms, big kitchen, but there was a problem. The husband liked the house, but his wife could not stand the fact that the kitchen was painted green.

"I HATE green kitchens!" she said. No amount of rational talk on my part (that it would cost less than $1000.00 to paint it, etc.) could get her past that.

"Sorry, but my wife will not consider a green kitchen," was the husband's final answer.

I thought they were crazy. But then, I'd bought and sold enough property, and been a landlord long enough that I was color blind about such things.

You think that's crazy? Let's look at the shiny-car-door-handles-and-shiny-hubcaps principle. I will never forget as long as I live my experience as an auto mechanic at a used car dealer in Richmond, California. He extended credit to "high risk" buyers no other dealer would touch, and among other things, he'd occasionally press me into service doing repossessions, which went a long way towards instilling in me an appreciation for our Second Amendment. But what I learned above all from this guy was the P.T. Barnum principle that people are not rational. That they don't mind being swindled as long as they acheive emotional satisfaction in the process.

I'll never forget a 1965 Dodge Polara which barely ran, for which my boss paid $25.00 and turned around sold for $799.95 (on credit of course). I'll spare most of the details, but the car was a rustbucket which a dying man had managed to drive all the way to California, where he promptly unloaded it to my boss. As the old man took the money and slowly walked away, I wondered how long he had left. Much like the old man, the car was literally falling apart; it leaked oil, brake fluid, transmission fluid, power steering fluid, and probably embalming fluid. Plus, the engine ran on four or five out of its eight cylinders, and if you could get it to start it smoked and belched. Instead of euthanasia, I performed a down-and-dirty valve job (which consisted of pulling the heads, removing a couple of badly burnt valves, then pulling valves out of a couple of extra heads we had lying around and hand grinding the valves with lapping compound so they more or less fit). Considering the overall state of the car, this resulted in a miraculous resurrection. The car stop smoking, and actually sounded as if it had a real engine.

But a functional engine, while of interest to me as a mechanic, was a secondary consideration to my boss. His (and his customers') primary concern involved shined hubcaps and sparkling door handles -- on the inside and out. Never mind the huge rust holes! I was forced to use SOS pads on the hubcaps and the door handles, and a missing door handle had to be replaced with a shiny Buick door handle from our scrap pile (the fit was incompatible, so it had to be drilled and screwed on in a manner offensive to my then-still-snobbish sense of what was right).

As it turned out, the customer (a female convict recently released from prison) cared more about the door handles and hubcaps than anything else. She liked the shiny Buick one more than the existing Dodge Polara one on the other side and asked me to put another Buick one on so they'd match. Concerns with such trivia in the face of this wreck of a car struck me as insane at the time. But looking back, I see the same mechanism which I saw years later with the green kitchen.

To most people, these apparently minor things are not rational. But to complain that they are not misses the issue of whether emotional satisfaction is rational. Considering that emotional satisfaction is a driving force in the economy, the question is probably worth asking.

Years ago, I didn't find slide rules emotionally satisfying, but others did. Even today, there are a lot of things I don't find emotionally satisfying while others do.

Might emotional satisfaction be one of those things where the irrational can become rational? Or are we talking about appearances of rationality? Do irrational people get emotional satisfaction from being told falsely that they're actually more rational than others? (Er, more reality based?)

Gee. What if emotional satisfaction is a factor in people's political thinking? Can such things be?

Actually, the process is probably more rational than is commonly believed. As I keep saying, I have no quarrel with emotional satisfaction as a motivational factor, and like nearly everyone I need emotional satisfaction, and I will spend more time and pay more money to get it -- even at the risk of being irrational. I just have this sneaking feeling that the pursuit of emotional satisfaction can either create or take advantage of a certain blind spot, and that a lot of people who think they are behaving in a rational manner (myself included) are actually seeking emotional satisfaction without realizing it.

In short, I worry that emotional hucksters get away with more than they should, and that this can lead to emotional exhaustion -- especially when Huckster B tells his suckers that they're "victims" of Huckster A and vice versa.

I hate to be emotional, but find the whole process emotionally unsatisfying in the extreme. While it's bad enough seeing victims line up to be swindled time and time again, what really galls me is when I have to hear them complain. I wouldn't mind so much if the complaining occurred because they've finally figured things out for themselves. But when another swindler comes along and tells them they're victims, I fear that the "new converts" are just repeating the same old emotional satisfaction cycle, and my dark side wishes they'd just smarten up.

(Or at least stop yelling.)

MORE: Via Pajamas Media, Dean Esmay explores a related version of the scam involving religious huckster Hal Lindsey, who's been rewriting and re-spinning his Apocalyptic interpretations almost too many times to count. As Dean says, the man has no shame. But since when did shame have anything to do with offering people the emotional satisfaction that they crave? I think it takes great talent to get people to keep coming back and lining up for more even after your original hoax has been discredited. Having shame would only get in the way.

Lindsey reminds me of the people who claim that they are going to get socialism right this time. Interestingly enough, both groups share a common need to elevate emotional satisfaction above reason. Whether the leaders truly believe what they say or are shameless demagogues is tough to pin down in every case. The bottom line is that if enough people want something, someone will offer it.

(Welcome to the marketplace of ideas, I guess . . .)