Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
Imagine unwrapping a Christmas present to discover \u2026 a 2024 calendar dedicated to dogs pooping in beautiful places. How about a cushion with Nicolas Cage\u2019s picture on it? Or an impossible jigsaw puzzle of a plain blue sky? They\u2019re all part of the growing selection of eccentricities available through Amazon\u2019s search function proudly titled \u201cuseless gifts\u201d.<\/p>\n
Gift selection remains for many of us \u2013 including me \u2013 an anxiety-producing experience akin to a dentist\u2019s waiting room or a Reserve Bank decision on interest rates. The \u201cAmazon-ification\u201d of our struggle \u2013 systematising the useless for our convenience \u2013 suggests that surrender may be the easiest way out.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
What to do with all those stocking fillers?<\/span>Credit: <\/span>iStock<\/cite><\/p>\n Recently released research suggests the average Australian will spend about $800 on Christmas presents this year. Statistically, our most commonly given gifts continue to be clothing, vouchers, food, toys, games and books. Not much to see here. However, a closer look at (and through) the science of gift-giving suggests that maybe it\u2019s not the gift \u2013 or even the thought \u2013 that counts.<\/p>\n The economists, psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists have all weighed in on giftology<\/em> \u2013 the study of giving and receiving stuff. As you\u2019d expect, the scholarship valiantly tries to science<\/em> its way to how we can crack the code of Christmas shopping. Gifts are studied in the context of optimising happiness, maximising utility and \u2013 that old chestnut \u2013 a cost-benefit analysis.<\/p>\n In his book Scroogenomics<\/em>, economist Joel Waldfogel estimates that $4 out of every $10 spent on gifts is \u201cdeadweight\u201d \u2013 meaning it\u2019s not valued by the receiver at the level of its cost to the giver. Oxford economist Tim Harford agrees. He gives the example of receiving tea as a gift. \u201cIt might be thoughtful, but I don\u2019t like tea. It\u2019s a waste \u2026 dead weight,\u201d he says. Tough crowd.<\/p>\n The Yale Centre for Customer Insights offers a diagnosis. Apparently, too many givers lack psychological proximity to their receivers. They simply don\u2019t know them well enough. Meanwhile, receivers \u2013 ever-focused on what they want \u2013 tend to judge gifts (and their givers) based on usefulness.<\/p>\n Just what you wanted for Christmas: a Nicolas Cage cushion.<\/span><\/p>\n To overcome these obstacles, some of the experts call for a more economically rational approach. To maximise happiness, we need to make our gifts useful, functional and valuable. And when that\u2019s too tricky, cash works just fine.<\/p>\n Are you discouraged and dehumanised yet? Be of good cheer. There\u2019s more to the story.<\/p>\n Many Christmases ago, my father gave me a watch. It was nice. Not fancy, but nice. I didn\u2019t particularly want a watch. I already owned one. But it was important. Why? Because he paid for it with some money he\u2019d been gifted for his 50th birthday, just a few months earlier. The watch \u2013 which I still treasure \u2013 reflected our bond and underlined our relationship.<\/p>\n In contrast to the Scroogenomics <\/em>scholarship, less lugubrious studies have shown that gifts can strengthen the giver-recipient connection, even if they have low economic value. \u201cGift-giving is a sign we care about the people in our lives,\u201d says Dr Michael Norton from Harvard Business School. Regardless of what they are, gifts given in the right spirit catalyse human connection, release oxytocin (the cuddle hormone) and increase generosity, happiness, honesty and even cardiovascular health.<\/p>\n That <\/em>we give and how <\/em>we give seem more important than what <\/em>we give. We are homo relationalis<\/em> more than we are homo economicus<\/em>. We seek connection before we seek material gain. \u201cThe only gift is a portion of thyself,\u201d said the American essayist, philosopher, and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson.<\/p>\n The Bible\u2019s account of the birth of Jesus tells of a group of learned and wealthy men from the east who visited Jesus and his parents. We aren\u2019t given many details, but we\u2019re told they brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. They may have failed the practical test of value. What use does a baby have for a lump of gold and some perfume made from tree sap? But these gifts had a deeper significance. At the time, they were \u2013 symbolically and culturally \u2013 gifts fit for a king.<\/p>\n Whether you give clothes, cash or Nicolas Cage cushions this Christmas, the story of these mysterious travellers defies our modern sensibilities. Clearly not proponents of a cost-benefit analysis, they came to champion something else. They sought connection.<\/p>\n They travelled for months with gifts to offer honour and esteem. They came believing that somehow this baby was a king, and he had written himself into their story, and all our stories. They knew that gifts could weave the threads of our stories together. They knew that, by giving, we can write ourselves into each other\u2019s worlds.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n