This article makes no sense. It claims I frequently fake positive responses to getting gifts. Being Dutch I fake it less than I probably would in USA culture, but I also just very rarely get a gift I don't want. Is this the norm elsewhere? For me it's just my grandma that doesn't understand what my life is like and gives me a book about local cooking history or some similar crap. Everyone else will remember if I tell them what I actually like and is able to actually go beyond a 1km range for stores, so she's the exception where I don't say what I want and subsequently get crap that I pretend to be thankful for. Everyone else gives me things they think I'll like and they're almost always right. (And a simple thank you suffices, no need to claim you'll treasure this regular blender forever...)

It goes on to claim that the giver cares about the aspects surprise, desirability, materiality, and social responsibility. All well and good: I can see myself fitting to those values the way I can see myself fitting to a horoscope.

But then the receiving side. The receiver is supposed to care about:

- Usefulness: correct.

- Versatility: what do I care about it being able to do multiple things if it's already useful? This is a variant on the first if anything and really not a quality in itself.

- Quality: what do I care? It was free. If it breaks after a single week, I still got value from it. It's not about how much money the person saved me (three years of not having to pay for my own blender versus one week) but that they knew or figured I wanted the product and took the effort of earning the money to buy it for me as well as the buying itself. What does "is it going to last" matter? At best that's a duplicate of "materiality" but the author tried to claim the values or giver and receiver are completely misaligned so that can't be what's meant.

- Whether I asked for it: huh, a gift is much better if I didn't ask for it! Then the giver really thought of something original that I love.

The only correct aspect was usefulness but it failed to mention any other aspects I care about in a gift, two that come to mind are: sustainability and surprise (I feel really fake when someone gives me something I asked them to buy for me; instead I have a construction where my girlfriend collects my wishes over the year(s) and passes those on upon request, then I honestly forget about it and am thrilled to get something I forgot I wanted but that indeed I will love).

> Bonus: Nobody Actually Likes Charity Gifts

I'm sure a friend asked for a donation in their name because they didn't want that. It enabled me to spend quite a bit more on their present as well because I don't mind if some of my own money goes to the cause under another name.

Given all this, the conclusion is not as wrong as I was lead to expect, but it also doesn't help me. It tells me to either not bother at all, or tells me to do what I already do (ask them what they want and consider usefulness). It offers no advice on one of the aforementioned (true) problems: wanting to give experiences to those that (probably) like such a gift without the giving moment being an anti-climax.

Which brings me to...

TL;DR of the article: ask people what they want, make the gift useful to them, or if you can't come up with anything then just give cash to maximize value to the receiver.