A similar activity was performed as part of a behavioral economics study to try to understand people’s openness to new experiences compared with the amount of change they were experiencing in their lives. Those that had recently moved, changed jobs, or experienced other large changes more often chose the mint-ginger-acai instead of the strawberry lemonade. Those with more constancy chose the opposite.

This surprised me. Why would those with so much uncertainty gravitate toward something more uncertain? When we’ve attained some sense of comfort, it’s easy to simply try to maintain that and not to explore something new and uncertain. Without a doubt, change is stressful, but with it, we open ourselves to entirely new experiences in life.

(Photo Courtesy of Len Wick)

• The Black Swan – Nicholas Taleb
• Amusing Ourselves To Death – Neil Postman
• Revising Prose – Richard Lanham

These three books are all extremely well written and all deal in one way or another with our epistemology — how we know what we know.

The Black Swan illustrates how poorly we, as humans, understand random events. We proudly predict the future, then something happens that we didn’t expect. We then rationalize that it was totally predictable, thereby returning our pride in our predictions. Knowing how much you don’t know is critical. Many of my blog entries illustrate this very theme. We delude ourselves into believing our perspective is whole when it is only partial.

Amusing Ourselves to Death is a polemic on how our culture establishes its standard for truth. A cultures media for discourse affects its standard of truth. We’ve moved from an oral culture, to a written culture, to a pictorial culture. Postman’s well written polemic reveals the TV’s inadequacies as a medium of discourse.

I’ve long had a hard time watching most news programs and this book enumerated why. Recently, my mother-in-law was watching the news and one reporter made a passionate plea for the US to exit Afghanistan. People are dying for a reason that no one knows, he argued sincerely. This was then followed by: “The Rockies lost the game against the Dodgers 3-2 last night…”. *sigh*

Revising Prose is the most specialized of these three and may only interest you if you’re interested in writing. Nevertheless, it shows the horrendous nature of the “Official Style”. He revises sentences like:

“The purpose of an environmental scan is to obtain a general understanding of the external business environment we are currently in and expect to be in over the near-term”

into:

“An environment scan surveys the current and foreseeable business environment.”

Revising Prose requires us to consider how we write is an expression of how we think. Writing vaguely indicates vague thinking.

We are limited in our ability to know. We prefer to think without considering how we think. All three of these books will challenge and provide clarity on how we can swim in the world of ideas with greater clarity.

I was reminded of him this last week when I met with a cadre of sales and marketing people. People full of opinions they want to share. I decided that one way to measure someone is by the ratio of periods to question marks they use. Question marks indicate a desire to listen and share. Periods simply mean you’re talking.

Some people presume to know exactly what we need to hear and are full of periods. Some don’t have enough information yet to target their comments, and so instead of adding insight, add frustration. Others know they don’t know things and wait for questions and ask some of their own.

Of course, when I judge others like this, my first thought is to wonder about my ratio. Like when I was eating dinner at a friend’s house, and his wife said sternly to his daughter: “You’ve spilled spaghetti all over your shirt!” At which point both my friend and I looked down at our own shirts just to check before making any further comments.

So have you ever considered your ratio of question marks to periods?

The New York Times had an article on this tendency: Carpe Diem? Maybe Tomorrow. They say:

Once you start procrastinating pleasure, it can become a self-perpetuating process if you fixate on some imagined nirvana. The longer you wait to open that prize bottle of wine, the more special the occasion has to be.

Unfortunately, we overestimate the pleasure we will get from big enjoyable experiences. We are better off enjoying small pleasures throughout our life: eating a nice chocolate, buying a nice smelling soap, or splurging on nice dinner out. The sum of these will exceed the pleasure we get from buying a new house or a new car. So instead of procrastinating a small pleasure, consider whether now is a good time to savor life.

Unfortunately, most of the time we don’t have nearly enough information. That doesn’t stop our emotions from telling us that we need to avoid whatever caused this, so our intellect works overtime trying to figure it out. But you can’t think your way out. No matter how hard you try, your brain doesn’t have sufficient building blocks to reconstruct the explanation with any form of certainty. The result of this is two-fold. First, we waste a lot of energy seeking an explanation this forever alludes us. Second, when our brain gets tired, we might settle on one or more of our explanations, creating needless fear about something innocuous.

It isn’t just explaining past events that create this situation. We also face this when making a very difficult decision about our future. We collect data. We think through pros and cons. We think through the possible outcomes and try to assess the statistical risk. But in the end, there is no assurance, no simple solution, no “right” answer.

In either case, we have to recognize our own limitations — to admit that there are some things, we will simply never know. Recognizing this can let us move on to things that we can impact. We stop trying to reach perfection in our decisions (or explanations) and start focusing on what’s next. We make the best decision we can, and trust God with the result.

Our ability to think is an amazing gift and we should use it to the best of our abilities but it is finite. You can’t think your way out of every problem.

For example, newspapers reported recently that 16 people died at the Love Parade [a huge electronic music fest in Germany] this year by being trampled to death. Scary! You can imagine worried parents urging their children not to go next year. Of course, when you think about it, there were 1.4 million people there so the chance of dying at the Love Parade is roughly 1 in 100,000.  Compare that to the odds of dying in an automobile accident in a year: 1 in 6500.  Yet how many parents urge their kids not to drive?

The problem with worrying about the things we most easily remember is that they are not worth worrying about and distract from other important things in life. This is the root of terrorism’s power.  Create a powerful, tragic, easily remembered incident and people will live in fear.  Governments will go to ridiculous lengths to protect from these things happening again, detracting attention from better ways to improve security.

Fears are most often countered by experiencing the event without anything going bad.  People feel safer near the place where they live day to day, and yet are petrified of some other place even if statistically it’s safer.  My parents were living in Israel for some time and they visited Afghanastan.  While they were there, they talked to some local Afghan’s who said, “You live in Israel! How could you live there?! It’s so dangerous!”.  This coming from people who are living in a country that has been at war for decades.

Our fear is heavily affected by tragic horrible stories that we remember rather than reality. So when you’re tempted to be afraid of some tragic thing on the news, you should stop and consider whether the fear is justified, or if you are falling prey to the availability heuristic.

As discussed in the commencement speech I linked to in my last entry, we can choose what we think about. Everyday thousands of things scream for our attention. By default, we think about the loudest of those things and the rest are decided on without thought. We simply use our autopilot.

Living life without challenging the autopilot will result in moments of surprise. Drown by the urgent, we occasionally gasp wondering how we got here. Unfortunately, the autopilot doesn’t sound alarms for significant things: autopilot will happily crash into a mountain it doesn’t know is there.

It’s easy to let our autopilot make the hard decisions and instead focus on the things that seem more fun at the moment. However, our health, relationships, and life are far more impacted by our default actions day-in and day-out, than they are by a brief decision to do something different once. Reflecting on our own autopilot can teach us ways to specifically improve it, and over the years, this can make all the difference.

Have you considered whether your autopilot is making the right choices?

I was reminded of this speech because twice in the last week I came across different descriptions of the Fundamental Attribution Error. This essentially states that we are prone to assess the cause of action in others as coming from their personality rather than the circumstances they are in. One example last week came from Cognitive Surplus by Clay Shirkey. He discusses how Generation-X was at one time described as slackers without ambition. This assessment was made during an economic slump and as the economics picked up, the Gen-Xers suddenly went to work with gusto. They are now described as having an entrepreneurial spirit. Actions (acting like a slacker vs. being industrious) are heavily dependent on the circumstances (economy). Generational observations, however, ignore circumstances and commit the Fundamental Attribution Error by assigning observed actions to some character trait in that generation. Even when subsequent predictions came to opposite conclusions (industrious vs lazy), they continue to be made.

This error applies to us at a personal level as well. When someone cuts us off on the road, we likely attribute this to them being a jerk; however, the circumstances might be that they were rushing home because their wife was going into labor. Or when you call someone you don’t know, and they are short with you. Are they just a rude person? Or was it that their two-year old just threw a tantrum right before the phone rang? Since we are unable to know most of the circumstances that affect others around us, we make judgments about their personality. We attribute their actions as coming from the core of who they are.

However, when we judge our own actions, we judge them entirely based on circumstances. We are fully aware of our own circumstances and see our actions as stemming from them.  We think: “oops, I just cut that person off; I didn’t see them in the other lane” instead of what we often think about others: “What a jerk!”. We know it was just a mistake, the other driver thinks it’s our personality.

Because this error is common to all of us, knowing about it can help us pause when we make a rash judgment about another person or even an entire group of people. Instead, we can take a moment to recognize the many circumstances that are unknown to us and if we are creative, can imagine circumstances where their action might be justified. Doing this can help us feel less offended and ultimately, much happier.

[If you haven't already and have some time, I highly recommend you check out the commencement speech. It covers a deeper theme about thinking about what we think about and has a good joke at the beginning to boot. As always, let me know what you think. Also, if you are interested in what I have been reading, I keep my reading list up to-date in my Books Section]

We like to believe that the rules of the past remain immutable. A constant we can depend on. But they do change, and this is often how newcomers to a field are often able to pull off what the establishment couldn’t. Like the 2-year-old, they didn’t know you must not cross the lines when solving the maze and suddenly the game changes. Interestingly, the arguments made by the establishment when someone disrupts the game are the same as those who watch someone else solve a maze by simply drawing a straight line.

The problem is that when rules change they don’t tell you that they have changed. They don’t stand up and scream to be heard; they simply no longer apply. It is only by reevaluating the rules that you discover their absence.

So if you’re facing a difficult problem relationally or in your business and you can’t see an easy solution, is it because you are playing with rules that no longer exist? Are their rules that you depend on to keep your competitive edge? Are you sure they still apply?

In short, LTC believed they had figured out a way to make money that was very low risk. Each transaction could only make a little money, so they took out huge amounts of loans in order to maximize their return. For 3 years, they returned double digit percent returns to the fund only to lose more than they had made in 5 weeks during 1998. In their models, the chance of this happening was zero; the reality is that they had ’simplified’ the complexity of life into a formula, and failed.

Many entries on this blog document the various ways that we try to find a simple answer to the complex world around us. This commoditization of life helps us deal with the complexities that we face every day. But if we don’t recognize our over-simplifications, we can easily fall into a false sense of confidence that leads to our own disgrace.

Other entries that illustrate our desire for simplicity:

• The Risks of Commoditization
• Amplifying Noise
• The RapidChip Fallacy
• For Fear of Getting Burned

A friend of mine is teaching me his method for Designing a Balanced Life. This week, we discussed the roles that each of us play in our lives and how they interact. Previously, I’ve considered my various roles, but I found his method more effective: instead of only naming the role, he introduced the analogy of planning your week as a way of scripting life among the various characters that represent your roles.

In this context, your roles transcend a simple name; instead you flush out each of these roles as characters in the script of your life. Just like you get to know characters on a sitcom or in your favorite novel, so the roles in your life have their own unique aspirations and personalities. When your roles are working in concert, your life is a well written drama: They work in concert when the director directs.

I find that planning your days or weeks as though you were directing your drama compelling, and I thought you might benefit from it as well. Let me know what you think.

Several years ago, I took a day trip that required me to leave very early in the morning. I showed up for a morning meeting which went fine. We ate lunch together and then just three of us were talking about strategy. These were not people I knew very well and I was trying to participate to the best of my abilities, but I hadn’t had any coffee and was very tired. All three of us contributed to the conversation, but I could not stay awake. I would close my eyes while listening then before saying something, think whether or not the statement I was about to make made any sense. I could tell that the other two knew I was falling asleep as when I opened my eyes they were smirking, but then  I continued to think, okay, now I’ll stay awake, only to close my eyes again.

The problem is that when you get that tired you do not think: “I should stand up and move around”, or “I should take a break and go find a cup of coffee”. Instead your brain thinks things like: “It won’t hurt to close my eyes a little bit”, “I’m just listening with my eyes closed”.

We play games with our head not wanting to just admit that we’re tired, and instead we try to figure out how to play it cool. The problem is that when our brains are very tired we don’t think rationally but we can’t recognize that we aren’t. So I leave this as a personal lesson learned, if you start taking extended blinks, bite the bullet, stand up and go splash yourself with some water, or just take a break for a moment and go for a walk — better this than pretending no one is noticing that you’re sleeping.

About nine years ago, I went on a trip to Latvia with a group of more than 50 people from eight different countries including Russia, Sweden, US, Holland, and Latvia. The age ranges in the group were from 16-60 and contained people from all walks of life. The purpose of the trip was to provide food and clothing to impoverished Russian people who had stayed behind after Russia pulled out of the Baltic States. When Russia was in power in the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia), they discriminated against the natives. After Russia left, the natives returned the “favor” to those Russians who stayed behind, making it difficult for them to obtain jobs.

The leader of our group was gifted with extraordinary vision and charisma. He established audacious goals and got everyone excited to work toward accomplishing them. This strength, however, was offset by a sizable lack of skill in administration. You might think this would have caused problems, but instead it created a team dynamic rarely encountered.

On our team, were some incredible administrators (one of which was his wife). The administrators’ strength was revealed when they took on his audacious goals and helped him organize the team to pull it off. This dynamic rippled through the team; other members stepped up to lead activities they were good at and the rest of the members contributed to help them succeed by utilizing their own set of gifts. In spite of the incredible diversity in the group’s demographics, the team succeeded. More than that, everyone exercised their own passions and strengths depending all the while depending on others doing the same. This enabled some whose gifts may not have been readily apparent, to shine. There is no greater feeling than being a part of a team that is truly synergistic.

This dynamic is only enabled when the leader is willing to set the tone. If our leader had limited his vision to what he knew he could personally administrate, we would have lost out, not only on his strength, but also the strengths of the administrators and the resulting ripple effect that brought out the strengths in the rest of the team. If everyone in a team can focus on the strengths they bring to the effort rather than feeling the need to shore up their weaknesses, incredible things can happen; however, this depends on the leader not requiring perfection in everyone, including themselves, and instead making way for each to express their own ability.

Are you willing to do that?

Too often we find ourselves interpreting the actions of others out of context. I have met people for the first time and decided that for whatever reason, they didn’t like me; however, after being with them a few more times, we became good friends.

Its easy for us to emphasize subtle messages in new relationships that are fake. We amplify these messages to a level of importance they shouldn’t have, and it can have a profound affect on how the relationship develops. I believe this stems from three things. First, we are constantly searching for cause and effect. Second, we see what we want to see. Third, we seek confirmation rather than negation of our conclusions.

Nicholas Taleb, author of the Black Swan, writes: “People are explanation machines.” We create completely logical explanations for the phenomena we see. We maintain this explanation until we are presented with evidence that contradicts it. Then, we create a new story for the phenomena remaining just as confident in our new answer as we were in our incorrect answer. The reality is that we don’t have enough information to come to any form of certainty in our conclusions, but we do anyway.

Every person has a view of the world that they use to interpret new data. In this way, new relationships can resemble Rorschach tests. People will interpret messages or actions differently. Some will treat an action as irrelevant, others will decide the person is being rude, someone else that they are being gracious — all based on our own expectations. Living in a country where the culture is different from your own only compounds this effect; however, as relationships grow, we learn what signals are important because we have more knowledge of the other person.

Finally, we search to confirm our conclusions. Once we have an idea in our minds, we go about collecting evidence to corroborate our original opinion rather than looking for indications that we might be wrong. In fact, we can even ignore the data that doesn’t fit with our idea and add importance to the data that does. This causes us to amplify our misconceptions.

This process happens not only with new friendships but also with all new relationships, including those with new customers. We pick up what we think are signals for good or bad and amplify what is probably just noise, giving it a level of importance that it shouldn’t have. This can lead us to make bad judgements both about the other person and about the relationship in general that can be difficult to change.

If, instead, we withhold our judgments, we don’t give more credibility to a message that is simply noise. If we find some subtle communication troubling we should search out all the possible reasons for it, giving as much deference to the other, rather than going with our initial instinct. This not only helps us recognize how little we truly know, but also starts to build a better context to interpret new information. It also keeps us from looking for confirming evidence because we admit that we simply don’t know. It is only in this way that we keep ourselves from being trapped by our own preconceptions and making mistakes that we may later regret.

Personally, I would love to be able to create better illustrations using a vector art tool.  Seems simple enough, until you realize that seeing computer art is way easier than constructing computer art. Ignorance is bliss, but in the case of this fallacy it can quickly cause people to get in over their heads.  When I saw this chart, I thought it was a wonderful and hilarious illustration of this exact concept (from the DataViz blog):

It’s important to remember that as we assess our abilities or our knowledge that we don’t know how much we don’t know. Especially at the beginning, we are not the best judges of how good we are.  Experience makes a huge difference.