4 ms·

This is harder than it sounds because the bottom of the market is often well below a minimum viable level, to the point that you're actively making learning har

This is harder than it sounds because the bottom of the market is often well below a minimum viable level, to the point that you're actively making learning harder for yourself if you go there. You might not feel the difference between $100 and $1000 shoes, but Walmart has $15 shoes which are probably bad enough they make it harder to start running and learn proper technique. I've experienced this pretty directly with skis. If you get the cheapest boots and skis you can, you'll find it harder to learn, to the point where your feet hurt at the end of the day. I pretty much associated skiing with pain until I got decent equipment. There is a level above which it isn't worth spending as a beginner, but it's a level that looks high to people on the outside. These days, I don't look for the cheapest tool I can find, I look for the cheapest tool people seriously use—which is often 5–10 times more expensive than the cheapest option. I've had enough experiences in the past sabotaging my own progression with awful tools that I know it's not worth it.

z3t4 6y ago
You literally felt the pain though. And could appreciate the more expensive gear. But I agree with your point. In cross country skieing its much more fun if you have better gear. Some sports and professions is just gear dependent. You won't win a rally with a slow car.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  It’s not just feeling the difference, it’s preventing injury and allowing yourself to progress at a speed which keeps you interested at all. I only finally started running regularly after years of trying and failing after buying proper shoes. The difference was immediate.
  - smoll 6y ago
    What made you keep trying running even though you failed multiple times at it? And had you failed even with excellent running shoes, would you have even kept trying? (Maybe you would have thought: "Well, I already have the best shoes. If I still can't get good, maybe I should give up forever.")
    - ubercow13 6y ago
      Well, I was always fundamentally motivated by wanting to be able to run for the health benefits, but that motivation was tempered by lack of progress. If I hadn't changed shoes I might have given up eventually.
Nacraile 6y ago
I think this is kind of missing the "if it's inadequate" clause of the heuristic. In your example, the painful boots were clearly inadequate, and by the heuristic, it was time to upgrade to the best equipment you could afford ;) Skiing does make for some examples of a couple weaknesses in the heuristic, though: First the "best equipment you can afford" part is pretty poorly defined. Suitability of ski equipment is contingent on the skill of the skier and the type of skiing, so you can't just pick the most expensive thing and expect it to be the best for you. Skis are especially nasty in this regard in that the most expensive equipment often makes performance trade-offs that are actively hostile to beginners or use in the wrong conditions. Additionally, ski equipment is consumable (at least in the hands of an aggressive skiier), which largely invalidates the cost-optimization rationale of the heuristic. Skiing probably wants a somewhat modified heuristic, along the lines of "Start with the cheapest tool, use it until it wears our or you find an intolerable problem, and then choose a replacement that solves the problems with the previous iteration."
- dllthomas 6y ago
  > I think this is kind of missing the "if it's inadequate" clause of the heuristic. I feel like you're running into an issue a lot of rules of thumb have, where there are words that provide plenty enough wiggle room that the heuristic is accurate... but if you know enough to know how they should be wiggled then you don't need the heuristic.
projektfu 6y ago
True for bicycles too. The gears get bent by the chain, the tires pop at normal pressure, the brakes don’t stop the bike. Buying the cheapest bike from a reputable bike shop is much better than buying one from Walmart.
- porknubbins 6y ago
  This is the example I was thinking of. Target and Walmart bikes are literally toys (not even pejoratively), that won’t hold up well to regular exercise or commuting, but then real entry level bikes are 500 - $700. Tools from Home Depot are a little better because most people don’t use them to build houses so will never notice a hammer that doesn’t perform well.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
paulryanrogers 6y ago
While true of plastic, no edge, snowboards it does hold true to a point. Rentals of middling quality and some instruction go a long way to get a rough feel for something before dropping top dollar.
FridgeSeal 6y ago
Same with mountain biking. If someone starts riding trails on the cheapest, or near cheapest option, they're going to at best have a bad enough time to be dissuaded from doing it, and at worst actually end up hurting/endangering themselves or others. Not to say you need to run out and buy the most expensive bike one can, but there's certainly a balance to be had.
kakwa_ 6y ago
Buying the cheapest tool can also easily discourage newcomers to a field. As an example, I was nearly completely discourage from learning the guitar by the first guitar I bought. It was a really cheap stratocaster clone (<100$) with a really bad amp. The thing was so bad that playing it was uncomfortable, and it was not even able to stay tuned thanks to the crappy machine heads. Looking back, I would have been better off buying a decent guitar from the get go, something in the range of 200$ would have ensure that (brands like Ibanez or Cort are able to produce quite decent guitars in this price range, even Squier (Fender low price brand) could be decent enough). The point is to at least invest a little, usually avoiding the absolute lower price items, but targeting items one level above.
snarfy 6y ago
Walmart has their own SKUs. A lawnmower at Walmart is an entirely different product than one sold at any other store with the exact same name and company. They will work with the manufacturers to cheapen their products as much as possible. It's like the tool already was the minimum viable level, then Walmart stepped in. I won't buy anything with a motor in it from harbor freight either.
amgutier 6y ago
Another option for sport equipment is to rent before you buy. You can rent skis and boots for a week for less than a cheap kit, learn, and then choose to invest. More difficult with some items (shoes), though. I had a homework problem in some math class about the optimal online algorithm for deciding when to rent vs. buy. It works out to "rent until you've spent as much as you would spend to buy, then buy," and I think that applies well here. You may spend up to double the cost, but you avoid spending _a lot more_ on incremental upgrades before getting gear that actually fits your needs.
Graziano_M 6y ago
An example for me is soldering irons. I bought a crappy $5 weller and used it for some time, and I never enjoyed soldering. When I used a nice one, everything changed. I bought a $100 iron and now I enjoy it quite a bit, and I feel like my electronics skills have suffered because I could have been a lot more enthusiastic about soldering if it wasn't always such a chore.

z3t4 6y ago

You literally felt the pain though. And could appreciate the more expensive gear. But I agree with your point. In cross country skieing its much more fun if you have better gear. Some sports and professions is just gear dependent. You won't win a rally with a slow car.

ubercow13 6y ago
It’s not just feeling the difference, it’s preventing injury and allowing yourself to progress at a speed which keeps you interested at all. I only finally started running regularly after years of trying and failing after buying proper shoes. The difference was immediate.
- smoll 6y ago
  What made you keep trying running even though you failed multiple times at it? And had you failed even with excellent running shoes, would you have even kept trying? (Maybe you would have thought: "Well, I already have the best shoes. If I still can't get good, maybe I should give up forever.")
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    Well, I was always fundamentally motivated by wanting to be able to run for the health benefits, but that motivation was tempered by lack of progress. If I hadn't changed shoes I might have given up eventually.

Nacraile 6y ago

I think this is kind of missing the "if it's inadequate" clause of the heuristic. In your example, the painful boots were clearly inadequate, and by the heuristic, it was time to upgrade to the best equipment you could afford ;) Skiing does make for some examples of a couple weaknesses in the heuristic, though: First the "best equipment you can afford" part is pretty poorly defined. Suitability of ski equipment is contingent on the skill of the skier and the type of skiing, so you can't just pick the most expensive thing and expect it to be the best for you. Skis are especially nasty in this regard in that the most expensive equipment often makes performance trade-offs that are actively hostile to beginners or use in the wrong conditions. Additionally, ski equipment is consumable (at least in the hands of an aggressive skiier), which largely invalidates the cost-optimization rationale of the heuristic. Skiing probably wants a somewhat modified heuristic, along the lines of "Start with the cheapest tool, use it until it wears our or you find an intolerable problem, and then choose a replacement that solves the problems with the previous iteration."

dllthomas 6y ago
> I think this is kind of missing the "if it's inadequate" clause of the heuristic. I feel like you're running into an issue a lot of rules of thumb have, where there are words that provide plenty enough wiggle room that the heuristic is accurate... but if you know enough to know how they should be wiggled then you don't need the heuristic.

projektfu 6y ago

True for bicycles too. The gears get bent by the chain, the tires pop at normal pressure, the brakes don’t stop the bike. Buying the cheapest bike from a reputable bike shop is much better than buying one from Walmart.

porknubbins 6y ago
This is the example I was thinking of. Target and Walmart bikes are literally toys (not even pejoratively), that won’t hold up well to regular exercise or commuting, but then real entry level bikes are 500 - $700. Tools from Home Depot are a little better because most people don’t use them to build houses so will never notice a hammer that doesn’t perform well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

paulryanrogers 6y ago

While true of plastic, no edge, snowboards it does hold true to a point. Rentals of middling quality and some instruction go a long way to get a rough feel for something before dropping top dollar.

FridgeSeal 6y ago

Same with mountain biking. If someone starts riding trails on the cheapest, or near cheapest option, they're going to at best have a bad enough time to be dissuaded from doing it, and at worst actually end up hurting/endangering themselves or others. Not to say you need to run out and buy the most expensive bike one can, but there's certainly a balance to be had.

kakwa_ 6y ago

Buying the cheapest tool can also easily discourage newcomers to a field. As an example, I was nearly completely discourage from learning the guitar by the first guitar I bought. It was a really cheap stratocaster clone (<100$) with a really bad amp. The thing was so bad that playing it was uncomfortable, and it was not even able to stay tuned thanks to the crappy machine heads. Looking back, I would have been better off buying a decent guitar from the get go, something in the range of 200$ would have ensure that (brands like Ibanez or Cort are able to produce quite decent guitars in this price range, even Squier (Fender low price brand) could be decent enough). The point is to at least invest a little, usually avoiding the absolute lower price items, but targeting items one level above.

snarfy 6y ago

Walmart has their own SKUs. A lawnmower at Walmart is an entirely different product than one sold at any other store with the exact same name and company. They will work with the manufacturers to cheapen their products as much as possible. It's like the tool already was the minimum viable level, then Walmart stepped in. I won't buy anything with a motor in it from harbor freight either.

amgutier 6y ago

Another option for sport equipment is to rent before you buy. You can rent skis and boots for a week for less than a cheap kit, learn, and then choose to invest. More difficult with some items (shoes), though. I had a homework problem in some math class about the optimal online algorithm for deciding when to rent vs. buy. It works out to "rent until you've spent as much as you would spend to buy, then buy," and I think that applies well here. You may spend up to double the cost, but you avoid spending _a lot more_ on incremental upgrades before getting gear that actually fits your needs.

Graziano_M 6y ago

An example for me is soldering irons. I bought a crappy $5 weller and used it for some time, and I never enjoyed soldering. When I used a nice one, everything changed. I bought a $100 iron and now I enjoy it quite a bit, and I feel like my electronics skills have suffered because I could have been a lot more enthusiastic about soldering if it wasn't always such a chore.