Unlearning 101

Don't Follow the Money

  

 “Education is one of the few things a person is willing to pay for and not get.”

--William Lowe Bryant

 

 

Question: This is a two part question: a) does $50 always equal $50; and b) which amount of money would you prefer to earn over a three year period $110,000 or $150,000?

 

While it is true that $50 will always equal $50 and $150,000 is, of course, more than $110,000; it is also true that many people work contrary to their financial interests.

 

If you see a little of yourself in either of the below examples, you may need to unlearn some behaviors.

 

Let’s consider the case of the $50 first. If you were about to purchase a $100 mobile phone and suddenly learned the same model was being sold for $50 on the opposite side of town would you drive across town to save the extra $50? When surveyed an overwhelming number of people stated that they would. So far so good. Yet, when the scenario was switched and the product in question was a $40,000 automobile and they were informed the same model was available at on the other side of town for the price of $39,950 – the exact same $50 savings – a majority of people indicated they wouldn’t make the trip.

 

The reason is that a $50 savings off a $40,000 product is miniscule compared to its overall price. Whereas, from the perspective of a $100 product, a $50 savings is quite significant. The reality is that a $50 savings is a $50 savings and your wallet or bank account doesn’t know – nor care – how you accumulated the extra savings. In a perfectly rational world people would work to save the money regardless of the situation.

 

One real world manifestation of this behavior can be found in retail shops. It is a well known tactic that if you go into a high-end retailer and tell the sales clerk you are interested in buying some socks, shoes and a suit they will first attempt to get you to buy the suit. Why? Because if they are successful at selling you a $1500 suit, $300 for pair of shoes and $25 for a pair of socks suddenly seem less consequential. If, however, you were to begin shopping for socks first, not only are you less likely to spend less on socks, you are also likely to think long and hard before dropping big money on expensive shoes and suits.

 

The second question stems from another fascinating study in which people were provided a choice between two different scenarios. In the first, they earned $30,000 in Year One; $40,000 in Year Two; and $50,000 in Year Three. In the other scenario, they earned $60,000 in the first year; $50,000 in the second; and $40,000 in the third.

 

When asked to select which scenario they would prefer, a surprising number chose Option 1. This is in spite of the fact that they would earn only a total of $30,000 less. It is a well documented that many people experience the pain of losing money more (as is experienced in Scenario #2) and will go to great lengths – including missing out on an extra $30,000 – to avoid that pain.

 

For a real world implication of this behavior in action, consider the case of a bargain flight from San Francisco to New York. Imagine the price is $300 one day but suddenly jumps to $400 the next. Many people will skip the deal. If, however, the same flight was originally $800 and then dropped to $600, more people would rush to book the flight because it was a “deal” – even though it is $200 more expensive than the first scenario.

 

Often, the reality is that people prefer the illusion of a good deal (a $600 flight that was $800) to the reality of a much better deal (a $400 flight that was $300). My advice: Don’t always follow the money because sometimes it can lead you astray.

 

Related Posts

Do the Math Until It Doesn't Add Up

 

Bet Against Yourself

Stop Seeing Patterns

Think Small

Ignore the Eclipse and Admire the Sunset

Grow a "Knew" Perspective

See What Isn't There

 

Zebras and Horses and Lions ... Oh My!

 "When we hear the sound of hoofbeats, should we think horses or zebras?" So asks Gabriel Schoenfeld in her review of Robert Jervis' new book, Why Intelligence Fails.  She ends her review by reminding us that "Those pounding hoofbeats might be horses or zebras -- or zebras painted to look like horses." Or, as the optical illusion above reminds us, the threat may be an altogether different one -- like a lion. 

Related Posts

Have Some Intellectual Humility

Unlearning Prediction

A Bold Experiment in Unlearning

An interesting and fascinating study in the potential value of unlearning our association between money and motivation: A father is going to pay his children to play video games in an attempt to get them to play fewer video games. Will this counter-intuitive approach work? (If you want to understand the father's logic either watch the video or read Dan Pink's new book, Drive.)

The Wisdom of The Phantom Tollbooth

 I have just finished reading Norton Juster's The Phantom Tollbooth with my eight year-old son and have decided that along with Shel Silverstein's poem "Smart," it should be required reading for any young person interested in unlearning.

Below are a few of my favorite passages:

At one point Alec hands Milo a special telescope as a gift. What makes the telescope so special is that "you can see things as they really are, not just as they seem to be." (For a real world example, see this old post.)

While on the "Island of Conclusions," Canby admonishes Milo not to jump to conclusions so quickly by saying, "You can never jump away from Conclusions. Getting back is not so easy. That's why we're so terribly crowded here."

Later in his journey, Milo encounters Dodecahedron on his way to Infinity and the guest advises Milo "that the best way to get from one place to another is to erase everything and begin again."

After Milo rescues Rhyme and Reason, Reason tells Milo that "You must never feel badly about making mistakes ... as long as you take the trouble to learn from them. For you often learn more by being wrong for the right reasons than you do by being right for the wrong reasons." (See Unlearning Failure.)

Finally, after Milo saved the day, only then he did he, Tock and the Humbug realize they had accomplished the "completely impossible."  But, as King Azaz says, "if we'd told you then, you might not have gone -- and, as you've discovered, so many things are possible just as long as you don't know they're impossible."

All the passages offer great advice and, my advice -- especially if you have a young child -- is to read the Phantom Tollbooth.

Related Posts

Why Unlearning?

Train Your Mind to See Different Points of View

Do the Math Until It Doesn't Add Up

 

“Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is – oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate.” Alice in Wonderland

 

 

Question: Which is greater: 1 or 2? What about 100 or 10,000?

 

The answer is that it depends upon context. As Shel Silverstein reminded his readers in his famous poem “Smart,” context is everything. The poem recounts the story of a young boy who trades one dollar for two quarters because “2 is more than one.” Next, he swaps the two quarters for three dimes because “three is more than two” and then the three dimes for four nickels because “four is more than three.” The poem concludes with the boy trading four nickels for five pennies because, you guessed it, “five is more than four.”

 

It would nice to believe that Silverstein’s poem is just a cute little ditty about a misguided youth. Unfortunately, many otherwise intelligent adults continue to make comparable mistakes every day and it is a habit worth unlearning.

 

Consider the recent push among many people and marketers to get Twitter followers. On its face, it would appear to be better to have 10,000 followers than 100 followers. What matters, though, is not really the number of followers one has but rather their willingness to spread your ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

 

 As Seth Godin reminds us, if you begin with 10,000 followers and have a “tweet” that nets .8 new people per generation – which implies your 10,000 followers will forward it to 8,000 new people who will then pass it along to 6,400 -- the “tweet” has a relatively short shelf-life and the idea will soon die out. If, however, you have 100 loyal followers and create a noteworthy “tweet” which is passed along to a net 1.5 new people, your idea will first reach 150 new people and eventually it will overtake the “tweet” of the person with 10,000 followers after the thirteen generation. (See graph) If your idea is only slightly better – say it has a 1.7 net pass along rate – the effect is even more dramatic. (See the purple line).

 

The point is that it is the idea which matters most and not the raw number of followers. Still many people and organizers obsess over the raw number and miss the much more important point of providing excellent and meaningful content. Why? Because, like the boy in the Silverstein poem, everyone knows “10,000 is more than 100.”

Related Posts

Bet Against Yourself

Stop Seeing Patterns

Think Small

Ignore the Eclipse and Admire the Sunset

Grow a "Knew" Perspective

See What Isn't Ther

 

Science Accelerates Through a Process of Unlearning

 "Researchers don’t publish negative results, they only publish positive results. But the negative results can lead to positive results.”

The following quote might not appear revolutionary but I’d argue that is, in fact, quite extraordinary. According to this VentureBeat article researchers have now created a new website, www.researchgate.net, which has been dubbed a “FaceBook for Scientists.” As a professional futurist, I’m excited because the advance will facilitate and accelerate the discovery of new scientific advances by helping scientists better understand and see what isn’t there.

As a self-described unlearning fanatic, I’m even more excited by the power of the tool because I think it is the type of thing that will allow new and younger scientists to challenge conventional wisdom; help people see new patterns; and maybe even break down old scientific paradigms by “getting more eyes” and new brains on an old topic.

Related Post

Unlearning Land Bridges: A Lesson for Scientists

Bet Against Yourself

 

 “Don’t wanna learn from nobody what I gotta unlearn.” Bob Dylan

 

 

Question: Which of the following characteristics has a higher correlation to the success of a Hollywood movie: the involvement of a famous movie star or the location(s) where the movie is shot?

 

The answer, to the surprise and chagrin of many Hollywood producers is the latter. The fact that Mel Gibson, Meryl Streep or any other Hollywood “A” list star performs in the movie only has a small correlation. As Ian Ayres recounts in his book, Super Crunchers, a company, Epagogix, now uses a proprietary neural network equation that relies on little more than the information found in a movie’s screenplay to predict -- with a higher level of accuracy than Hollywood’s most experienced directors and producers -- how financially successful the movie will be.

 

Not surprisingly this news has not been received well among many Hollywood elites because it highlights how little they know about which characteristics truly matter most to a movie’s bottom-line.

 

This habit highlights another behavior individuals will need to unlearn as they move into the future, and this is the idea of assigning too much weight to one’s own opinions or intuition. Extraordinary new capabilities in data mining and computer processing power, when paired with equally powerful advances in algorithms, neural networks and predictive analysis software, are proving that machines are frequently far better judges than humans at many important tasks.

 

For example, researchers have found that for patients with uncommon medical conditions Google is now more reliable at assessing those conditions than your own doctor. Considering that the average doctor has access to only two million pieces of medical information and Google a thousand times more this isn’t that surprising. What is worth considering is the idea that as computer hardware and software improves exponentially so will Google’s ability to diagnose a growing number of diseases with a higher rate of accuracy.

 

In the rarified field of oenology (the study of wine), Orley Ashenfelter has produced a sophisticated regression equation that can predict more accurately than the wine industry’s top judges which vintages of red wine from France’s Bordeaux’s region will be the most valuable in the future. Ashenfelter cares nothing for swishing wine around in his mouth in search of subtle hints of oak, cherry, tobacco or blueberry and instead relies on weather-related data.

 

For wine collectors who invest in wine futures, Ashenfelter’s information is giving them a distinct competitive advantage over those who can’t or won’t unlearn their reliance on wine “experts.”

 

And only recently have many Las Vegas hotels and casinos unlearned the idea that its most valuable customers are limited to the ranks of wealthy, high-rollers. Thanks to complex algorithms hundreds of middle-aged, middle-income individuals are now being aggressively courted. If you’ve ever wondered why your ne’er-do-well Uncle Ned is being “comped” to stay at a nice hotel in Las Vegas twice a year, it’s because a computer program has figured that it is likely to make money off him.

 

Therefore, if you ever happen to receive a free weekend in Las Vegas courtesy of a hotel-casino, my advice is to bet against yourself and stay home. It will save you money.

Homework assignment: Recalling that it took Galileo years to convince people that light objects fell as quickly as heavy objects even though they could see the results with their own eyes, how long – if ever -- do you think it will take before all doctors will be required to confirm their diagnosis of patients with a machine? Defend your answer.

Related Posts

Stop Seeing Patterns

Think Small

Ignore the Eclipse and Admire the Sunset

Grow a "Knew" Perspective

See What Isn't There

Theatre: The Gift that Gives Campaign

The other day I encouraged the theatre industry to entertain all of its far out ideas. Today, while I was spending some time in a local coffee shop, I picked up a copy of my neighborhood paper and stumbled upon this excellent article by Tom Hoch, president and CEO of Hennepin Theatre Trust, entitled "Show love for local theatre."

I particularly liked Hoch's third suggestion for helping theatre: "Give tickets as a meaningful gift" to a friend, colleague or a teacher.

That's when it struck me: Theatre is a gift that gives -- by moving us in an emotional way; opening our mind to a new or different perspective; or by simply reminding us that what matters most in this world aren't the tangible, physical products of our society; instead they are the experiences and time we share with others.

If you are like me, how often do you give your child's teacher a gift card to a local retailer at Christmas time or the end of the school year? Do you also do the same with their bus driver? Perhaps you give your hair stylist or that difficult-to-please brother-in-law a gift certificate as well.

Well my suggestion is simple: Stop! It's time we unlearn the idea that all gifts are the same. They aren't. Instead, give them a ticket to a local theatre production. Will everyone like it? No, but the chances are they will remember it -- more so than a gift card to Target or TGIF's. Moreover, the gift might truly change them and it could even encourage them to become patrons of the theatre. If nothing else, the gift will support the local theatre community so that others might continue to receive and enjoy "the gift that gives."

If you like this idea please, consider passing it along to others who support local theatre and encourage them to get serious about "giving the gift that gives." 

Question the Wisdom of Experts

 

 “I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones.” John Cage

 

 

Question: Write the letter “E” on your forehead. (Go ahead, I’ll wait. You may also just trace the letter on your forehead if that’s more comfortable for you). Did you write the letter in a self-oriented fashion such that it would appear backwards to those viewing it or did you write it backwards so that it would appear legible to others?

 

In a fascinating study conducted by Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, Galinsky and his colleagues found that the more power an individual possessed, the more likely the person was to draw the letter from their perspective -- making it appear backwards to others. In fact, individuals assigned to a high power group were three times more likely to draw a self-oriented “E.”

 

The study concluded that power caused individuals to assign too much weight to their own viewpoint and made them less able to adjust to, or even consider, another person’s perspective.

 

It is worth keeping this study in mind when listening to any expert discuss a new idea. For instance, in 1899, Lord Kelvin, then recognized as one of the brightest individuals in the world dismissed the work of the aviation enthusiasts by saying “Heavier than air machines are impossible.” A mere four years later, Kelvin was forced to eat his words when two bicycle repairmen from Dayton, Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, struck out on the sandy dunes of Kitty Hawk and achieved flight.

 

In the mid-1980’s, a conference full of ulcer experts ridiculed the work of Barry Marshall when he  proposed that ulcers were not caused by acid or spicy food – as ulcer experts assumed at the time – but rather were caused by bacteria. It took 10 years but eventually the American Medical Association (AMA) agreed and, in 2005, a full two decades after he first proposed his theory, Marshall and his colleague, Robin Warren, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

 

That experts should be threatened by new ideas is to be expected. After all, it is incredibly difficult to accept the notion that years of well-intentioned study, research and effort were misdirected. It is equally problematic to accept that the foundation of one’s power – one’s status and standing in the eyes of society -- was based on a flawed premise.

 

What is even more troublesome is that rather than keep an open mind and entertain new ideas which may challenge one’s expertise, many experts perform the equivalent of writing a backwards “E” on their forehead and refuse to consider new alternatives. Often, they’ll even go a step further and use their status as experts to ridicule and belittle the new idea.

 

The problem is then further compounded because experts are often extremely intelligent and are able to lay out in articulate and plausible sounding – but, ultimately, wrong -- arguments as to why the new ideas should be dismissed.

 

New ideas, by their very nature, challenge old ideas. It is dangerous, therefore, to cede sole control of the assessment of new ideas to the very group which would be most threatened by the adoption of these ideas.

 

It is, of course, entirely reasonable that experts be allowed a role in assessing new ideas but before anyone does they should insist that the experts take a moment and turn the first letter of “expert” backwards as a reminder that expertise doesn’t necessarily equal correctness and that they must entertain new perspectives.

Question #15: In 1933, what brilliant scientist uttered this famous quote: “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable”? Hint: His name began with “E” and he later publicly reversed his position in a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Extra credit: After the near meltdown of the global financial market in 2008-2009, what other group(s) of experts might have benefited from entertaining a new perspective?

Related Posts

Stop Seeing Patterns

 

Think Small

Ignore the Eclipse and Admire the Sunset

Grow a "Knew" Perspective

See What Isn't There

 

A Woman Without Her Man is Nothing

Read the following sentence: A woman without her man is nothing.   

My guess is that if you're a woman it may have pissed you off because you read it in the following way: "A woman, without her man, is nothing". If, however, you made just a small change in punctuation it could be read this way: "A woman: without her, man is nothing."

My point is this: Sometimes a small change can make a huge difference. In the above case, the meaning was fundamentally altered. 

This little exercise is a metaphor for the idea that big problems don't always require big fixes.

Consider the issue of organ donations. It is estimated that in America over 90,000 people are currently on waiting lists. Many of those individuals will, unfortunately, die on the waiting list due to a shortage of available organ donors.

It need not be this way. In Germany, only 12% of the population has agreed to donate an organ (in the event they die unexpectedly). In Austria, the percentage is a staggering 99%. The difference? In Germany, people must explicitly give their consent to donate an organ by opting in on a state-provided form. In Austria, people must explicitly opt out. In other words, in Austria, people are assumed to consent to organ donation but are free to opt out if they are uncomfortable with the idea.

In a perfect world, it shouldn't matter what wording the state puts on a form. If people want to donate an organ they are free to do so under either policy. Austria, though, has learned that a small change in language can lead to a huge change -- one which saves many lives.

If other states and countries want to do the same maybe they should start by unlearning their "opt in" clauses.