Only-Person Purchase Test
Remove the audience and see whether the purchase still serves you
- Difficulty
- Starter
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 97%
Ali offers a simple spending test: if you were the only person in the world, would you still buy the item? Imagining the audience removed separates private utility from social signaling. He says he would still value a better computer or screen because it supports work, while an Apple Watch would hold less appeal for him because, in his case, more of its value relates to identity signaling than useful functions. The answer does not automatically forbid the purchase; it clarifies what is being bought. The final decision compares the utility that remains without an audience against the cost and the buyer's priorities. Because some products are intentionally social or professional, the test is a motive check rather than a universal spending law.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01Private utility and public signaling are different motives
- 02A thought experiment can expose status-driven demand
- 03A purchase can still be chosen after its motive is understood
How to run it
- 1
Name the desired item
State the exact purchase and the practical or emotional benefits you expect from it.
- 2
Remove the audience
Imagine that nobody else could see, recognize, or judge the item.
Pro tip Keep its functional capabilities unchanged in the thought experiment.
- 3
Separate utility from signal
List what would still improve your life and what appeal disappears with other people's attention.
Watch out Social value is not automatically illegitimate; the aim is honesty.
- 4
Make the purchase decision
Compare the remaining personal value with the cost and your financial priorities.
Pro tip If you still want a signaling purchase, label it accurately rather than inventing utility.
In the wild
Ali says a better MacBook or display would still help him work if nobody else existed. He contrasts that with an Apple Watch, which he believes would offer him less private utility because he is not a runner and associates more of its appeal with identity.
→ The thought experiment distinguishes functional value from signaling for his own use case.
Common mistakes
Treating signaling as immoral
The framework identifies a motive; it does not prove that every social motive is wrong.
Ignoring inherently social uses
Some purchases are useful precisely because other people interact with or interpret them.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for discretionary purchases whose appeal may depend on how other people perceive them.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for inherently social goods, gifts, professional dress requirements, or business purchases meant to communicate.
From the transcript
“if you were the only person in the world, would you still buy the thing?”
From the episode
Productivity Expert: How To Finally Stay Productive: Ali Abdaal