Unlearning 101

Mix Up Your Mind

 “The mind is like an iceberg, it floats with one-seventh of its bulk above the water. --Sigmund Freud                       

 

Question: According to the latest research, IQ accounts for what portion of career success?

 

a.    50 to 60 percent

b.   25 to 49 percent

c.    23 to 34 percent

d.   11 to 22 percent

 

The answer is between 4 and 10 percent. In other words, it is “none of the above.” This question comes compliments of Dan Pink who used it in his best-selling book, A Whole New Mind, to suggest that confining oneself to the answers presented is “a symptom of excessive left-directed thinking.”

 

In order to unlearn, though, it is not enough to train yourself to use right-directed thinking – although this is helpful. A person or an organization must also intentionally mix-up his or her thinking in order to get a clearer picture of reality.

 

For example, did you know that if a person scores low on an IQ test they are likely to spend more time reading articles which refute the validity of the test. The reason is because once an outcome has been determined and the experienced can no longer be changed, people look for ways to change their view of the experience.

 

The same is true with the stocks we buy; the cars we purchase; and the schools we send our children to. In each case, after the fact, people are more interested in finding information that confirms – rather than refutes – their decision. This process might make them feel better but it isn’t likely to lead to better decisions in the future.

 

What then is a person to do? One strategy is to mix-up your thinking. Specifically, look for information that contradicts your interpretation of the situation; consider the situation from multiple viewpoints; or actively solicit input from people with a different perspective.

 

Google and Proctor & Gamble are a good example. In 2008, the companies swapped two dozen key employees. For its part, Google was interested in winning over a larger portion of P&G’s $9 billion annual advertising budget; while P&G was concerned only a small fraction of its advertisement budget was being spent online.

 

The intentional mixing of the two cultures allowed each company the opportunity to see their business -- as well as future opportunities -- in a clearer light by having key assumptions challenged.

 

P&G, for example, wasn’t inviting influential bloggers to attend press conferences for the roll-out of new products; and Google didn’t fully appreciate how important colors were to building brand image.

 

Mixing up your mind need not always involve others. Sometimes it can be as simple as changing your mind-set. In an influential study, Ellen Langer studied 84 women who cleaned hotel rooms. One group of women heard a brief presentation which explained how their work qualified as good exercise. The other group did not. The two groups then continued on with their regular work routine but the group that heard the presentation displayed more weight loss and experienced larger blood pressure declines. In short, they became healthier by virtue of nothing more than a change of perspective. A related study using retired male executives yielded similar results.

 

Langer’s studies and the Google-P&G employee swaps are tangible reminders that if you are really serious about seeking new insights and achieving better results you don’t need a high IQ, all you need to do is “mix up your mind.”

Grow From Your Inexperience

 

 “Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.” Douglas Adams      

 

Question: Which is the more likely scenario?

 

A)    Roger seemed happily married. He killed his wife.

B) Roger seemed happily married. He killed his wife because he wanted her inheritance.

 

Many people select “B” because it sounds more plausible. But that is the wrong answer. The correct answer is “A” for the simple reason that, logically, the more broadly worded description depicted in Scenario A not only includes Scenario B but also every other possible reason why Roger might have killed his wife, including reasons of anger, jealousy, mental illness, or accident.

 

The relevance of this common mistake on focusing on the specific to the exclusion of the general can be found in how many people think about insurance. After 9-11, many people were more likely to buy insurance to protect against acts of terrorism even though injury or death due to terrorism is already covered under the general terms of plain insurance plans. Rental car companies also play off peoples’ inexperience when they encourage them to buy “extra” insurance. They know it is easier for people to imagine the specific experience of getting into an automobile accident in a new city with a rental car and they use this knowledge to get the customer to purchase additional – and unnecessary -- insurance.

 

It is not sufficient, however, to merely get others to stop profiting from our inexperience; there are additional ways to profit from your own inexperience – provided you’re willing to unlearn.

 

In many cases, we can learn from those who have experienced something we have not. This, unfortunately, is harder to do than it might sound because people don’t like to believe they are “average” and are, therefore, likely to experience the same thing that those who have actually had experience.

 

In his book, Stumbling Upon Happiness, Dan Gilbert demonstrates how people who win the lottery are not happier a year after winning the lottery. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of lottery players are convinced that they are unique (or “not average”) and, unlike those other poor saps who won the lottery, winning will make them happy. This illusion keeps them playing (and, for the most part, losing) even though it could be avoided by applying other peoples’ real-world experiences to their hypothetical future experience.

 

The second way to unlearn from our experiences is to become cognizant of the fact that often our most vivid memories come from the most unlikely experiences. This causes us to believe that these unlikely experiences are more common than they actually are. For example, do you “always” get in the slowest lane at the grocery store or on the highway? The reality is that you don’t. You just don’t recall the many times your lanes moves at a normal clip.

 

The same effect is at work when people refuse to fly in an airplane after a bad plane crash. Airline accidents are exceedingly rare and, statistically speaking; it is far more dangerous to drive than fly. But because people can more easily and vividly recall these unlikely plane crashes, they are more likely to select a different – and far more dangerous – mode of transportation.

 

By reminding yourself of the totality of your – and others -- experiences, however, not only can you gain a clearer picture of reality, you might even grow enough from your inexperience to extend your life.

 Related Posts

Don't Follow the Money

Do the Math Until It Doesn't Add Up

Question the Wisdom of Experts

Bet Against Yourself

Stop Seeing Patterns

Think Small

Ignore the Eclipse and Admire the Sunset

Grow a "Knew" Perspective

See What Isn't There

5 Ways to Make the Familiar Strange

One method of unlearning is to make the familiar strange. It's not as paradoxical as it may seem. Here are simple five ways to do it:

1. Turn a familiar object upside down. Remember the opposite may also be true.

2. View an object from a different perspective. (Look at picture to the right. Now step back 20 feet. Do you see someone else? Is it strange or familiar?)

3. Use a different sense to explore an object. For example, try listening to a colleague instead of just "seeing" them.)

4. Ask a stranger what he or she finds strange about the object.

5. Try becoming uncomfortable in your own skin.

Video Killed the Video Star

If a picture is worth a thousand words how much is a picture within a picture worth? That's the question every video provider should be asking itself because, like this famous picture from Pere Borrell del Caso, there is often more to a picture than meets the eye. Earlier today, I came across a new full page ad in the Wall Street Journal from Cisco saying that "Video, the killer app, just got better." It is touting a new telepresence interoperability protocol. What makes "telepresence" so exciting is not simply the ability to communicate with other individuals or groups in real-time; it is the ability to share additional information with them in a deeper, more visual and, ultimately, more meaningful manner. Consider, for example, the case of a doctor communicating with a patient about a rare genetic disease which affects the heart. Instead of simply providing information orally and, perhaps, conferring with another doctor for a second opinion in real-time, the doctor will also be able show her a video of what is happening at the molecular level inside her body; display a 3-D rendering of her heart to explain how the disease is progressing; and provide the patient with a more intuitive and easy-to-understand chart (or graph) showing her the odds of being successfully treated by different treatment options. Humans are visual creatures and, to the extent that video still soon be able to layer additional data on top of -- and into -- video, we will all be better off. The change will, however, require many current video professionals to unlearn what they think they know about video. If they don't, well, let's just that video will kill the video star.

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, a $300 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 longer and harder before dropping money on expensive shoes and suits.

 

The second question stems from another fascinating study is 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

 

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.

What Don't You Like?

After a year and a half of using this website as a kind of notebook for my ideas about unlearning, I will soon be merging this site with my main website, www.jumpthecurve.net, under a totally new site (www.jackuldrich.com) in which I intend to brand myself as a futurist, an agent of change, author, speaker and thought-leader.

As part of the process, I've been working with a leading SEO firm, Traffic Resources, to think through both my SEO strategy as well as my new design. As part of the latter process, I provided them a few websites which I liked.

Afterwards, the firm's representative asked me: "What sites don't you like?" The point being that Traffic Resources understood it could learn just as much about me from knowing what I don't like -- as it could from knowing what I do like.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- unlearning can be as easy as asking a new question or flipping a common question on its head. It's just that sometimes I need to be reminded of this simple idea myself.

A Flip of the Coin Doesn't Alway Look Random

Question: If you flip a coin 14 times which is more likely to occur: 1) The coin land on "heads" 14 straight times (HHHHHHHHHHHHHH); or 2) this random outcome: TTHTHHHTTHTHTT?

The answer is that the odds of each occurring are precisely same -- 1 in 16,384. And, yet, to most people the first outcome is viewed far differently and is, often, seen as a matter of extraordinary skill.

To demonstrate the point, consider one of the more statistically improbable outcomes of the last 14 Super Bowl's -- the team from the National Football Conference (NFC) has won the coin toss 14 straight times.

Now, the NFC team has not always called "Heads." In fact, the NFC team only gets to call the coin toss every other year. Therefore, the NFC has only had direct control of its destiny 7 times. And when it does call the flip, the NFC has been just as likely to call "heads" as "tails." 

And, yet, the NFC has defied the odds by being on the winning side of the coin toss 14 consecutive times with this random outcome: HTHHTTTHHTHHTT.

My point is that this outcome is no more likely than 14 straight "heads," 14 straight "tails;" or 16,381 other permutations. The NFC's streak is, to be sure, a matter of extraordinary good fortune but it is important to remember that the odds of the NFC team winning the coin toss for a fifteenth straight time next year is only -- 50%.

Am I -- and Your CFO -- to Blame for Spiraling Health Care Costs?

Earlier today I had the opportunity to deliver the closing keynote presentation at the Alabama Hospitals Associations' Annual Leadership Conference. Before my talk, I had the great pleasure of listening to Bill Ward, the director of the Master Health Administration Degree at the Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health.

At one point, Bill brought up a slide and asked the audience which drug a hospital should buy: Drug A, at a cost $1.80 per dose; or Drug B, at a cost of $11.50 per dose.

At this point, I thought to myself, "Yes! This is exactly the problem with healthcare. Many people continue to prescribe brand name drugs when a cheaper but equally effective generic version is available."

While this is undoubtedly a real issue and many generic drugs should be prescribed, this was not the point Bill was trying to make. As a result of his next slide, I found myself unlearning.

The initial cost of the drug is only one of the variables which must be considered. Review the following:

Drug A Drug B

Drug cost/dose $1.80 $11.50

Administration cost/dose $15.oo $1.00

Nurse intervention/dose $3.00 $3.00

Total cost per dose $19.80 $15.50

Drug A is actually more expensive. The point, of course, is that all of us need to view healthcare costs from a broader perspective -- myself included. (Ed. Obviously, the effectiveness of the drug and the length it must be administered must also be considered.)

Related Posts

Unlearning & the Health Care Debate