Monthly Archives: December 2009

Making Good Decisions, and Quick: Analysis Paralysis and How It Can Screw You Up

Posted on by
Reply

The pretense of Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink, is that we are able to make quick decisions based on relatively little information and discusses the downside of stereotyping, with the upside of the other adaptive mental processes we use to do this.

In a more general context, this is a concept called heuristics, which is when we find simple rules to make good decisions in a complex situation.  In most cases, too much information can be detrimental to your decision making; it just ends up confusing you.

The term for that — where your excessive analysis of the situation leads to a) a lack of a decision and b) emotional distress — is called analysis paralysis.

In sports, its called a “choke”, in board games, its called “running out of time and losing your turn”, and in life, its called “cognitive distortion”.

Tips on avoiding this very annoying situation:

1) Mental tallying:  when deciding whether he wanted to marry his wife, after only knowing her for a week, Charles Darwin decided he had to tally up the pros and cons of marrying her.  Turns out one of the “pros” he wrote on his list was, “for companionship, better than a dog, anyhow.”  But this mental tallying of a person for the purpose of a life-long relationship only took a week — and the man had a point: generally speaking, it doesn’t take that long to mentally tally.

2) Blink’s point was that the decisions we make spontaneously, with little information, are often just as good/correct as ones given more information and more time to think, thanks to our ability to do something called “thin-slicing”.  You’ll have to read the book for the exact numbers.

3) Maya Angelou said, very succinctly, “when people show you who they are, believe them.” Often times, getting more information about something, someone, a situation, will serve to reinforce what you already believe, which may or may not be right in the first place.  When it comes to people, just remember that most of the time, what you see is what you get.

My advice to you — if you’ve got a spontaneous, super-strong feeling about something, follow it.  It will often take a while for our conscious cognitive processes to catch up and explain what our subconscious already knew.

“No”

Posted on by
1

I’ve been reading an enlightening book on learning how to be more persuasive and it discusses how coupling less obvious things such as rhetoric, and the medium you choose, with more obvious ones like timing into your argument, will make you a more persuasive person.

I decided I really liked Chapter 22:  How Media Can Help Your Message and so would write about that one.

But not the entire chapter, which would take too long to write about, just one particular tidbit about the length of e-mails.

Heinrichs, the author, writes that when you address a professional e-mail to someone below or at your level, its best to keep it perfunctory.  Whereas, when writing an e-mail to someone who is a superior, you should not fail to include your reasons for making certain statements.  It is unlikely that your superior will be justifying himself to you.

In the example Heinrichs gives, if God were sending any one of us an email, it could simply read, “CUT IT OUT.”

How this applies to my life:

On several occasions, being the bottom of the totem pole in the client-provider relationship, I have found myself writing more explanatory e-mails only to be responded with a short “Yes”, “No”, or lack of justification.  My (work) boss tends to respond to my texts or e-mails with no greeting and the most brief of responses.

But, what’s more interesting is that I never found this to be an issue. I never found it unusual that I was explaining my every reason for x,y,z, and getting squat back.

However, on the flip side, I’ve found it extremely satisfying when I e-mailed a client or the boss and told him simply, “I did this” or “I made these changes” with no explanation and he either agreed (or not).  But no explanation was required:  it showed trust.

With that said, this is clearly something that can be turned into a useful tool.  E-mail is not the same as interacting in person.  I’m pretty sure if I walked up to my boss and said, “boss, I’m doing ___ now”, he could and probably would ask why. But e-mail, especially professionally is different — wanna see where you stand with your partner/boss/assistant? Shorten your e-mails and see what happens.

Also: writing this post made me think of something similar that happens in romantic relationships.  I’ll either write that later tonight or sometime tomorrow.

Today, I thought this article on cohabitation to the extreme was interesting.  And no, I could not live like that.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Reply

Really?

Posted on by
Reply

According to an article I just read in Newsweek’s November 23 issue, Israel has more tech companies listed on the NASDAQ than Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, and India combined as well as raising thirty times more venture capital per person than Europe and the US (not combined).

“How does it produce, for its size, the most cutting-edge technology startups in the world?”

Newsweek says its the military (Israel Defense Force aka IDF) and its counterintuitive approach to hierarchies — instead of relying on senior officials to take initiatives, the IDF keeps itself understaffed at senior levels, encouraging initiative at lower ranks.  ”Lower ranks” usually implies men 18-21 years old as service is mandatory.

Having several family members who have served in Israel’s armed forces, including a cousin who couldn’t even tell me the location of the underground building where she worked, and an uncle who was in one of Israel’s elite intelligence agency units, I can see why the kind of service and rigors the soldiers face would lead to innovative thinking and a maturity level unseen in your typical college aged student.

The article lists specific companies like Compugen (founded by three guys who met in the IDF), Given Imaging (inventors of the Pillcam, the camera that you swallow), amongst others, that adapted something they’d used/learned/developed in the military into something novel and profitable.

(Fun fact, Israel currently has 63 companies listed on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange.)

And oui, I know I’m about two weeks behind on my Newsweeks, give me a break, its finals!

The Thomas Theorem

Posted on by
Reply

In 1928, someone much smarter than I decided to formulate the following theorem, which states:  ”If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”  Its a sociological observation that supports the belief of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”.  The second item of discussion for today is my favourite, the “Tinkerbell effect”.  This is a more abstract concept that basically states that “certain things only exist because people believe in them”.  Examples include authority, the value of money as legal tender, amongst others.

Why discuss these two random theories?  Because in my short, twenty-three years being relatively short life, I have come to fundamentally believe that our expectations, our attitudes, our thoughts (whether we act on them or not) drastically shape our experience on this planet.

A British research, Dr. Richard Wiseman once performed the following experiment:Screen shot 2009-12-03 at 2.40.39 AM

He asked participants (who had either been classified as “lucky” or “unlucky” from previous assessments) to go to a cafe, order a drink, sit for a short period of time, and walk out.  But, Dr. Wiseman made sure the small cafe’s tables were all full, ensuring that the only way the participants could get a seat is by asking a stranger to share.  He also placed (the equivalent of $5) outside the cafe, a few pound note laying inconspicuously on the ground outside the door.

With cameras hidden, he watched the magic unfold.

The people who considered themselves lucky seemed to have had a great time.  They sat with a stranger, struck up a conversation, and walked out smiling — even more so after they noticed the $5 on the ground.

The unlucky bastards, however, would have a different experience.  They either stood uncomfortably or sat brooding at the end of a table, without engaging in conversation.  And some, probably so grateful to be done, walked out of the cafe so fast or so deep in their misery, they didn’t even notice the $5 on the ground.

In fact, Wiseman reported that almost 100% of the “lucky” people found the money but not the same could be said for the “unlucky” ones.

How does this apply to me?  Because I’m just one of those people that believes the world is inherently good.  I’ve been told I’m naive.  I’ve been told I live “in the clouds”.  But like the magic that brought Tinkerbell back to life, I truly believe that extraordinary things can happen. And because I believe that, they do.

Just some food for thought :-)