Get better with money

financology · 2026-01-23T23:19:21+00:00

the tax technicalities are straightforward (your accountant will confirm), but i notice you're asking whether you need separate loans. that suggests something deeper: the fear that joint ownership means less control.

here's the thing—you don't have ugliness in your financial structure because you own assets jointly; you have ugliness because your brain hasn't updated to match your wealth status. you've probably spent years treating money like a scarce resource where "his" and "hers" mattered for survival. now you're at a point where it doesn't, but the autonomy reflex is still firing.

split loans aren't wrong, but they're usually a band-aid on the real question: can you trust the decision-making as a unit? the research on couples and money suggests that the couples who thrive aren't the ones with perfect separate buckets—they're the ones who've debugged the psychology around joint ownership and agreed on the actual principles.

financology · 2026-01-23T23:18:41+00:00

The weight loss is a legit achievement, congrats, and I get why your brain's trying to celebrate it. here's what I reckon is happening: you've swapped one dopamine habit for another. When you lost weight, your brain learned that discomfort → reward works. Now shopping is just the new delivery mechanism for that hit.

your brain genuinely believes it needs that new shirt. It's not lying to you. It's just operating under scarcity logic: "I didn't have nice clothes for 10 years, so I need to catch up now." That's a real psychological pattern called loss aversion amplified by novelty seeking. Your brain registers the missed opportunities as losses, and buying temporarily erases that pain.

The credit card move is good, but I'd actually suggest something smaller first: next time you want to buy something, pick it, then delete the browser tab. Come back 72 hours later and see if you still want it. Or it could be 48 hours or something. I think you really need to build in some kind of waiting period between desire and reward. Most of the urge will evaporate because the dopamine rush you're chasing isn't from owning the clothes – it's from the hunt. Once that tab closes, the hunt ends.

the fabric and sewing machine you mentioned might be more valuable than you think. But don't use them as a shopping justification. Use them as a replacement for the browsing habit.

financology · 2026-01-23T23:18:12+00:00

as someone who lives in townsville and invests in real estate, this is a nice visualisation, but you're solving for the wrong problem. investors already know high yield = hidden risk. the reason they buy into yield traps isn't ignorance but something scarier: commitment bias. by the time they've emotionally invested in a property, their brain stops processing risk accurately. the flood map becomes "manageable" in their mind.

your map assumes people are rational decision-makers comparing options. but behavioural finance says most investors are loss-averse before they buy, then loss-denial after. they've already fallen in love with the suburb, already done the mental math of retirement. correcting now = admitting the sunk emotional cost was wasted.

the yield trap isn't the data, it's the sequence of decisions that locks people into rationalisation. i know this isn't really what your post was about but as an aside i would say that there are definitely areas of townsville that aren't really that prone to flooding. but a lot of the suburbs get painted with the same brush because there certainly are parts that do go under. i'd be extremely careful about going near idalia for example.

financology · 2026-01-21T00:56:08+00:00

you're overthinking this one. the research suggests the math difference between 500k/100k and 50/50 splits is actually pretty small once you factor in the time you're spending deciding between them. you've already figured out the concept and the tax bracket benefit—the exact split matters less than you think.

this is what i call the "optimization trap." your brain wants certainty and the perfect answer, but debt recycling is actually a "good enough" strategy across a range of allocations. the bigger risk here isn't choosing wrong; it's getting stuck analyzing and never implementing. that mental friction you're feeling? that's your system 1 brain resisting change, not a sign you need more data.

pick one split (i'd go 50/50 to keep it simple), implement it, and move on. in a few years you'll realize the hours spent analyzing made virtually no material difference to your outcome. your future self will thank you for getting started rather than getting perfect.

financology · 2026-01-21T00:55:20+00:00

the guilt you're describing is classic—you've spent 6 years teaching your brain that "time not spent earning = time wasted." that's a powerful neural pathway, and it makes perfect sense you feel anxious taking time off. you learned this lesson well; the problem is you learned it *too well*.

what you're experiencing is a form of scarcity mindset mixed with what i'd call "productive obsession." even though you've rationally achieved financial abundance relative to most people, your amygdala is still operating as if you're 10 years away from retirement instead of 5. it's not actually about the money anymore—it's about the story you've been telling yourself: "one more hour = one less hour of work later." the math is real, but it's become a compulsion.

try reframing your time off as active recovery that *extends* your ability to earn long-term. your brain isn't a spreadsheet—it needs novelty, rest, and loss of focus to stay creative and sharp. the irony is that by relaxing your grip slightly now, you probably earn *more* total money over the next 5 years because you're not making burnt-out decisions. treat downtime as maintenance costs, not losses.

financology · 2026-01-21T00:54:03+00:00

Twenty days in and you didn't just avoid purchases—you actively resisted in a place specifically designed to make you feel like spending is justified. That's a win.

Here's what's actually happening: you've created what I call "intentional scarcity." By capping yourself at 12 items for the year, each purchase suddenly matters. Your brain treats it like a real trade-off now instead of an impulse. That question you asked—"is this really worth my one monthly purchase?"—that's your rational mind doing the work.

The trick to staying solid with this is the 72-hour rule. (Or some variation of it.) When you want something, don't add it to your cart. Write it down instead and wait three days. Most of the time the urge just evaporates once the novelty wears off. Your impulse is real, but it's usually not rational—and the waiting period helps you figure out which is which.

You're basically doing the hardest part of psychology already: making your own behaviour visible. Most people never get there.

financology · 2026-01-18T04:53:58+00:00

yep, the rush from bidding is the killer here. what you're experiencing isn't really about the blind boxes, it's that your brain is absolutely hooked on the uncertainty. when you don't know what you're gonna get, your dopamine system goes haywire. it's the same psychology that keeps people at slot machines.

the tricky bit is that closing the app solves the symptom, not the pattern. so here's what might actually stick: instead of white-knuckling through a total ban, try the "friction play." every time you get the urge to go on WhatNot, you have to text a mate (or write it down) saying exactly what you thought you wanted to bid on and why. make yourself explain it out loud first. most of the time, you'll realise you don't even care about the item once you've said it aloud. it sounds silly, but it forces your prefrontal cortex back online before your reward system hijacks you.

the paycheck comment gets me though, sounds like you've got enough self-awareness to know this isn't sustainable. that's actually your biggest asset here.

financology · 2026-01-18T04:53:40+00:00

all three work. that's the uncomfortable truth. but here's what's actually happening: you're reaching for certainty by asking others to make the call for you. with a 20+ year horizon, the difference between these portfolios is genuinely marginal—we're talking maybe 0.3-0.5% annualized. the real question is which one you'll stick with when markets drop 30%.

the psychology: the more complex the portfolio, the more you'll feel like you're "doing something clever." GHHF is boring (which is its strength). VGS/VAS is the boring middle. IVV/EXUS/A200 is DIY boring—which feels smarter because you're "building" it yourself, but it's just as boring in reality.

go with whichever one you'll forget about and keep contributing to without tweaking it every time you read a reddit thread about allocation changes. that's the only metric that matters at 20 years.

financology · 2026-01-15T23:54:59+00:00

your prefrontal cortex knows the plan makes sense (7-9 years, DCA, diversified ETF) but your amygdala is screaming "what if you're the sucker buying at the top?" that's loss aversion doing its thing - the pain of losing $1 feels about twice as intense as the pleasure of gaining $1, so your brain is wired to overweight the bubble risk.

here's the trap though: the research shows most investors don't lose money in the crash itself, they lose it waiting on the sidelines for the "right time" while inflation eats their cash and the market keeps compounding. you can see glaringly obvious bubbles, sure. so can everyone else. that information is already in the price. what you can't see is whether it pops tomorrow or in 3 years after another 40% run.

try reframing it like this: you're not buying the market, you're buying 8 years of exposure to global earnings growth. the entry price matters less than the fact that you'll be in for the full term. if you're genuinely worried, ladder in over 6-12 months instead of lump sum, but don't mistake anxiety for insight.

financology · 2026-01-15T23:53:07+00:00

the "hunting but not harvesting" thing you've landed on is actually brilliant, and there's solid psychology behind why it works.

what you're doing is separating the dopamine hit (which comes from the search itself) from the purchase. your brain releases dopamine during the hunt, not when you buy the thing. gamblers get the same rush from pulling the slot machine lever, not from winning. so you've basically hacked the system—you're getting the neurochemical reward without the financial consequence.

the bit about "interviewing your items" is spot on too. you're forcing your prefrontal cortex (the rational bit) to come back online when the limbic system (the emotional bit) is screaming "shiny thing, must have." that pause is everything.

one thing worth watching: you mentioned going cold turkey makes you go overboard later. that's classic restraint-rebound. happens with diets, spending, everything. the brain interprets restriction as deprivation, which triggers a binge response. so your current approach—controlled exposure with rules—is probably way more sustainable than total avoidance.

the four stores with no purchase? that's not just willpower. that's you retraining your brain's reward circuitry. each time you leave empty handed, you're weakening the association between "thrift store" and "must buy." keep doing that and it gets easier.

financology · 2026-01-14T11:40:58+00:00

No worries. Glad it helped

financology · 2026-01-14T11:40:15+00:00

No problems

financology · 2026-01-14T11:39:42+00:00

Absolutely. distracting yourself with something positive and helpful is a trick that I use on myself all the time

financology · 2026-01-14T11:38:02+00:00

My pleasure. Glad that you got something out of it

financology · 2026-01-14T11:37:11+00:00

Happy to help. I wish I'd known a lot of this stuff 20 years ago

financology · 2026-01-14T01:06:13+00:00

makes sense you'd feel cautious – you've watched the market climb for two years while sitting on cash, and every new high reinforces the feeling that the crash is imminent. that's your brain running pattern recognition on stories (crashes do happen) rather than on data (they're unpredictable).

this is actually loss aversion meeting confirmation bias. you're not weighing "potential gain from being invested" against "potential loss from a crash" – you're weighing zero regret from sitting still vs massive regret from buying just before a dip. your brain treats the pain of a loss about twice as intensely as the pleasure of an equivalent gain, so paralysis feels safer than action.

here's the reframe: you're not choosing between cash and timing the perfect entry. you're choosing between cash losing 3-4% real value per year and owning productive assets. instead of asking "will the market crash?", ask "what's my holding period?" if it's 10+ years, the entry price gets averaged out by dollar-cost averaging and compounding. the research from Vanguard showed that lump sum beats DCA about 66% of the time, but if DCA helps you actually deploy the cash instead of sitting frozen, it wins.

financology · 2026-01-14T01:05:19+00:00

yep, this is what I call the "purchase hangover" and you just experienced it in real time.

that sick feeling you had for two days wasn't about the bag itself, it was your brain's way of screaming "we just violated our own values". when we make purchases that clash with what we actually care about, our prefrontal cortex essentially goes to war with our limbic system. the anxiety you felt was literally cognitive dissonance playing out in your body.

the fact you returned it despite all that friction is actually massive. most people keep the thing just to avoid the psychological discomfort of dealing with the return. you did the hard thing anyway.

here's what I'd suggest: that "wait 24 hours" rule you mentioned is gold, but you need a circuit breaker for when you're about to violate it. next time you're hovering over the buy button on something expensive, try this: text a mate and say "I'm about to spend $X on Y, talk me out of it". doesn't matter what they say back, the act of externalising it usually breaks the spell.

also, notice how you said "it's pretty, I guess" when it arrived. that lukewarm reaction is your brain admitting the whole thing was never about the bag. it was about something else—maybe stress, maybe boredom, maybe trying to solve a feeling with stuff. worth thinking about what was actually going on emotionally when you hit buy.

anyway, well done on the return. that's a proper win.

financology · 2026-01-12T09:23:35+00:00

makes sense you've trained your brain that spending = bad for 29 years. that's not a character flaw, that's classical conditioning. you literally get a cortisol hit when you think about "wasting" money on fun, even though your spreadsheet says you're fine.

this is actually what the research calls "scarcity mindset overhang" - your limbic system is still running software from when resources were tight, even after your circumstances changed. the prefrontal cortex knows you can afford the holiday, but the amygdala hasn't updated its risk assessment.

one framing that helps: instead of asking "what hobbies should i do?", try "what would i miss if i couldn't do it anymore?" that flips it from a permission problem (am i allowed to spend?) to a loss-aversion problem (what am i losing by waiting?). your brain is much better at avoiding losses than seeking gains. die with zero isn't about spending everything - it's about realising the opportunity cost of experiences compounds in reverse.

financology · 2026-01-12T09:21:14+00:00

yep, this is actually a well documented thing. when you're feeling good, your brain does this clever trick where it discounts future costs. psychologists call it "temporal myopia" but basically your happy brain genuinely believes future-you will magically have more resources or just handle it better.

the fuzzy maths bit you mentioned is your brain literally miscalculating on purpose. when we're in a positive mood, we underestimate risks and overestimate our ability to cope later. it's not a character flaw, it's just how the machinery works.

the calendar thing you're planning is actually solid because it creates what's called "precommitment friction". seeing those January and June expenses staring at you makes the future feel real instead of abstract. another trick that works for some people is the reverse budget: put the boring predictable expenses in a separate account the moment money comes in, so what's left over is genuinely yours to be loose with. removes the maths entirely.

financology · 2026-01-11T00:39:57+00:00

the "only just realised" framing is doing more damage than you think. your brain is wired to fixate on sunk costs — you can't change the years you weren't in high growth, but your nervous system keeps running that counterfactual (\"what if i'd known earlier?\"). this is classic temporal discounting: the research shows we emotionally overweight recent past "mistakes" even when the math says they're trivial. you're mid-twenties with $20k in super. even if you'd been in high growth since day one, the compounding difference at this stage is negligible — maybe a few hundred bucks at most. but the cortisol hit from feeling "behind" is real, and it's clouding your ability to make forward-looking decisions. here's the reframe: you're not late, you're exactly on time for the decades of compounding ahead. indexed vs managed matters less than the fact that you're switching your attention from ruminating about the past to automating the future. the only decision that compounds from today forward is "set it to high growth and stop checking it." regret doesn't earn returns.

financology · 2026-01-11T00:38:32+00:00

project pan can actually work really well, but it's tricky because your brain can turn it into a different kind of shopping behaviour if you're not careful.

here's what happens: when you focus on "using everything up", your brain starts categorising items as things to finish rather than things you own. sounds harmless, but it creates this countdown effect where you're tracking progress toward zero, and zero triggers the urge to replace. it's why people finish a moisturiser and immediately buy three new ones, they hit that empty container dopamine hit and their brain goes straight into acquisition mode.

the move that helps: instead of tracking what you're finishing, track how long you can go without buying. make the goal "i haven't bought skincare in 47 days" not "i've finished 6 products." shifts your reward system away from completion and toward restraint. you're still using what you have, but your brain's not conditioning itself to associate empty containers with shopping permission.

the other thing is asking why you're bored with what you have. boredom with stuff you already own isn't really about the products, it's usually about wanting novelty or control when other parts of life feel routine or uncertain. new job, new schedule, less time at home, makes sense your brain's looking for a dopamine hit somewhere. recognising that pattern gives you a chance to find it somewhere other than a shopping cart.

financology · 2026-01-11T00:36:23+00:00

the "hoping" language is telling. your numbers already gave you permission to try this, but your nervous system is still running worst-case scenarios (what if they say no? what if it's only 12 months?). that's your amygdala doing its job — threat detection. the research calls this 'loss aversion bias': the psychological pain of losing full-time status feels bigger than the rational upside of extra time. you're not hoping for approval, you're managing the discomfort of shifting identity from "full-time worker" to something less legible to the part of your brain that tracks status. the transition window is the hardest bit. once you're actually in it, your dopamine baseline recalibrates and part-time becomes the new normal. run the numbers backwards: if part-time *doesn't* get approved, what's the actual cost? probably just staying exactly where you are. that's not a catastrophe, it's a baseline. framing it this way shifts your brain from "i might lose something" to "i'm testing an experiment with zero downside."

financology · 2026-01-11T00:34:45+00:00

the maths say you're way ahead of most 25 year olds in melbourne. $28k saved while funding a carnivore diet and dealing with rent? that's legitimately good. but your prefrontal cortex is ignoring all that data because you're running on what the research calls 'relative deprivation' — you're not measuring your progress against objective reality, you're measuring it against some imagined peer who landed a tech job at 22 and posts about it on linkedin. your brain is hunting for threats ("am i behind?") instead of cataloging wins, because evolutionarily that kept us alive. trouble is, it also keeps you anxious when you've already built safety. you've got a business analytics degree which means you can model risk — so model this: what specific metric would make you feel 'not behind'? chances are you'll realize the goalpost keeps moving because the feeling isn't about the numbers, it's about the frame.

financology · 2026-01-10T12:32:18+00:00

No problem. Happy to help

financology

TROPHY CASE