In some cultures, it could create a situation where you are showing you're better than me and the person would feel humiliated. It's about the socioeconomic status[0] and how each person values that. In some countries that's valued more than other things like, say, being a kind person.

The author of this article seems to have lived in US/Canada which are very capitalist societies where people are expected to work hard and gather a lot of monetary resources. In these societies, showing you're better off than your friend might be considered a bad thing. People often hide things they bought or don't talk about that new house because it would create an awkward situation where people are comparing their socioeconomic status to others.

Is it stupid? Yes, but that's life.

0 - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of...

I can't even imagine what the relationship needs to be like where bringing some takeout and a 6-pack of beer would be considered as 1 person showing themselves to be better than another.

But it certainly wouldn't be called friendship.

The article mentions inviting 12 people to a GreenOlive restaurant and paying all expenses, not a 6-pack of beer.

Either way, you can interpret it as you wish.

I don't mean to be the grammar police... but inventing people at a restaurant is quite a delightful mistake.

Sometimes people can't reciprocate because they don't have the means. They can't rent a house or take you out to a restaurant.

That makes them feel uncomfortable.

Reciprocity differs culturally. My Japanese family get very uncomfortable if they receive gifts without having any prepared in return, and there's a sense of stress and urgency that doesn't let up until they've repaid. It's not negatively reciprocal, but it is immediately generalized.

Most of my American family uses delayed reciprocity. Gifts are gifts, totally unidirectional, and no one keeps a tally. Some people only receive kindness and rarely "pay out". The price of having family close is expecting that and making sure people are comfortable with being hosted. There's often a little pressure to offer to pay depending on the expense, whether by thanks, gifts, or cash. Some of them, however, only give things or do things for others so they can ask for something in return. They're not gifts as much as leashes.

Our Middle Eastern family are perpetual hosts. Not allowing them to host and treat you is akin to walking out on a tab in the US or trying to pay for something for a Japanese person. Even thinking about paying them back might actually be considered haram.

We have some older first-generation Filipino family friends who invited us to a home cooked dinner at their house... and then handed us a bill at the end of the meal. We were very confused until their children apologetically explained that it's customary to chip in for being hosted.

Weird is, of course, relative, but in places with extreme wealth inequality like the US, there can be tension between people who don't share either a mutual understanding of expectation or a way to reciprocate an expense. Nothing feels worse than accepting what you believed to be a gift and having the other person bring up how much it cost them or how much they've done for you for the rest of your life.

> there's a sense of stress and urgency that doesn't let up until they've repaid

Which then only causes the same thing to happen to whomever they’ve now ‘repaid’ to. There’s this weird network of gift giving between all the moms in our street that all feel obliged to each other for our kids playing together (they were in their house for 30 minutes? Oh no, better prepare a gift!).

> We have some older first-generation Filipino family friends who invited us to a home cooked dinner at their house... and then handed us a bill at the end of the meal

That's crazy to me, TIL.

So interesting though. So many different ways to go about life

In my case it's an issue of relative income - I have a large group of friends that have been together for more than a decade and our income levels have dramatically diverged. We're very comfortable with each other but there's an undercurrent of social implication whenever we go out to somewhere on the nicer side, or somewhere that's a little out of their normal routine.

Like several other commenters in this thread, I have more than I need and really enjoy spending time with my friends, so I naturally pick up the bill whenever I can. My friends are appreciative, but they also feel awkward about going out with me sometimes because it feels like they're implicitly asking me to pay, which in their minds is unfair and uncouth. It also could be interpreted as me suggesting that they couldn't pay for themselves.

Another layer of this is that most of my friends were raised in Asian cultures, where fighting over the bill is normal and even expected. It's hard to fight for a $500 restaurant bill for 10 people on near minimum wage, so you can imagine some real mixed emotions when the server obviously doesn't want to split it. I'll pick it up every time, but it's naturally a hit to your pride when compounded over the years no matter how gracious you are about it.

Like the OP of the article, I spend a lot of time thinking about the dynamics at play here. I love and respect my friends, but frankly a weekend at an AirBnB the beach or even a modest ski vacation is just out of their price range most of the time. Sometimes it really is easier if you phrase it with a little white lie about how it came to be in order to preserve their pride, because the real important thing is getting to spend time together.

Yeah. Inviting people to a rented house you live in doesn't feel weird - it's where you live at after all. They're paying it no matter if you arrive or not.

But if it was a rented AirBnB just for the occasion I'd certainly feel the obligation to chip in on the bill.

I think it’s this idea that they’ve rented it to entertain you. If someone had rented a place regardless of whether or not I show up I feel much more comfortable not paying.

I don't understand either - and I get that it's probably a cultural thing.

But how you present it still matters - which I think the article doesn't quite address.

Every year I host an event at a restaurant in the city where I grew up. It's an opportunity to gather and see my old friends. I pay for it. Costs perhaps $2k. I don't ask for contributions but several friends give me cash afterwards, which I accept.

Next year I'm gonna spend a month in Italy. I rented a villa in Tuscany. Decided to get a three bedroom so friends can come and visit. Several said they would, and asked how much they should contribute. I said they don't have to contribute towards the rental but can pay for events when we're there.

I agree. When I finished the article, I thought: File this one under "Problems I'd love to have." I can't imagine agonizing over any of the examples in the article, and I don't see the difference. I have a tiny handful of friends with gobs of money and that doesn't make hanging out with them awkward, regardless of who pays. Honestly, if one of them were to rent a house in some exotic location and invited me, I'd be thrilled! The article feels like it is from some alternate universe.

When I was poor(ish, not "can't afford food" poor) that never really was a problem either. For parties we often just pooled the money and went shopping for food/alcohol, or sometimes host provided the food for BBQ with guests getting and paying for alcohol.

Events when host paid for food/alcohol were usually only birthdays, and, well, then you "paid" with gifts.