Been reading Jon Haidts substack, he talks about how modern politic instills a "reverse CBT" that reinforces bad cognitive habits like catastrophizing and black/white thinking. Occurred to me that Resulting is in this same set, and in fact used to manipulate discussions, sometimes knowingly. Much modern discourse is structured around resulting.
That's an interesting way to look at resulting. Totally get what you are saying since it erases the probabilistic nature of oberserved outcomes and fits them to a decision is only good or bad framework.
John's work is excellent. Fun fact: we were in the same graduate class at UPenn :)
I heard someone recently say something to the effect of “in uncertain times like these, rather than try to predict what will change, focus on what is likely to stay the same. “
I guess those are the same viewed through a different frame. I can't really say whether that advice is good or bad since I don't know any science on it. But I think I would say a couple of things:
1) whether you are thinking about what might stay the same or what might change, think about it probabilistically...what is the probability this thing with stay the same? What does "stay the same mean?". Same for what will change and by how much will it change?
2) All times are uncertain. Sometimes, we should can't avoid the knowledge that the world is uncertain. Before the pandemic, as we entered 2019, the world was highly uncertain. We were just overconfident that things would stay pretty much the same. Heading into March 2020, that illusory certainty got destroyed and we were forced to see the world much more as it really is.
Embrace uncertainty. It is just the world we live in.
I've seen the "what will remain the same" utilized as a lense for business / market planning. IOW: What products and services will our customers always need and want from us?
E.g., We're always going to need / want to backup our data...however how and where we back it up will evolve over time (external drive, cloud, automated cloud, nano-implants, etc, etc...). At some point though we may not even need to think about it at all. The tech will just make it happen automagically (which is kind of happening already, but still requires some setup and platform dependence and doesn't travel easily). But this is still JAN of 2024.
Fully onboard with the probablistic / scenario-based approaches...and frequently revisiting the predictions and outcomes in order to keep score and revise. ;-)
Do some cognitive biases become more pronounced due to the human aging process? In other words, do people age 65 and older generally have a tendency toward certain kinds of decision-making biases? If yes, which? This might be helpful to know when designing choice nudges for older adults, or for family members who have to help support their older parents' decision making.
Since Annie hasn't weighed in on this yet, here are some thoughts from an n=1 sample from your target population! Probably due to my 7+ decades on the planet, I'm less likely to commit Confirmation Bias and more likely to succumb to Safety Bias. That said, I believe there are tons of individual differences that mitigate which decision-making thinking traps I and my fellow boomers tend to fall into differently than in our younger lives. There are not only vast experiential differences among us, but also a large range of mindsets that can both help and hurt. For instance, high levels of optimism that support resilience in younger years can actually become a risk factor for depression in later age - probably because died-in-the-wool optimists never developed the coping skills that their more pessimistic counterparts honed to help them adjust to some of the brutal realities of later life. I believe that differences like this also affect the decision-making choices we make. I just got some fresh perspective on this listening to Adam Grant's re-broadcast of his Work/Life interview with Danny Kahneman. When Adam asked Danny what he would think about differently in the dozen+ years since he wrote Thinking Fast And Slow, Kahneman said most of the studies of judgment and decision making that he wrote about are completely oblivious to individual differences. They were focused on explaining main effects. But everyone doesn't behave the same as the average. He said he is now rethinking this and sees the need to develop a better understanding of the individual differences drive us toward or away from making effective decisions. At 89, he won't be the one to lead this charge, but it's what we need to put more energy into. I couldn't agree more. Hope this helps. 😊
This is the example in Quit. Still not quitting. Sunk costs stress sunk. Are there useful quit criteria anyone might suggest? Do the monkeys know how to juggle yet?
Well that's the thing. People are acting like Florida is doing it better. but it is a flat state and not seismically active so, honestly, anyone could execute this project well under those conditions since, as you said, there are no big, intractable monkeys.
Whether it is Florida or California or any state in between, having sunk so much into this thing, no one is going to stop it. Infrastructure projects, once started, are nearly impossible to abandon. So disappointed they are throwing more money at it when they still haven't solved for the big issue.
Hi Annie, I enjoy your books and am using the ideas when I teach decision making and consult. I keep coming back to an issue I'd like your opinion on.
Whether we are philosophical materialists/realists or idealists seems to take us in very different directions when grounding our beliefs and decisions.
If I'm a materialist, then I believe that the universe/reality is comprised exclusively of matter, and that it is finite and knowable. I simply need to discover the natural laws of science to ground my beliefs, such as Newton's Laws, Einstein's theories, etc., and may rely on the scientific method or Aristotle's Laws of Thought as my primary methods for acquiring knowledge of the material and conceptual world.
Conversely, if I'm an idealist, I believe our universe is connected somehow to another plane of existence/reality, such as Plato's Theory of Forms, Heaven/Hell, etc.
If we sincerely believe that our world is influenced by some alternate plane of existence, where souls, gods, or "ideal" circles exist, and that we don't/can't have access to this world, then it seems that any decision or set of beliefs is justifiable, because someone can simply reference some unprovable, untestable source/entity as the basis for the decision..."God willed it so."
To me, it boils down to our understanding of subjective (mind-dependent) and objective (mind-independent). Can you offer your opinion? Thanks
How do you know when the path you’re on requires some tweaks and adjustments (changing apartments in the same city or shifting departments in your job) versus a bigger change such as moving to a brand new city or switching careers entirely? Should the processes be used for both?
Imagine it is a year from now and you are still in your same career. How happy are you?
OR
Imagine it is a year from now and you have changed apartments. How happy are you?
These types of mental time travel thought experiments can help you to better see what will make you the happiest. You can fill in whatever prompts you want.
Separately, it is always good to see if you can experiment before making a big change. If there is a way to dabble or moonlight a potential new career before making a big change, that is helpful. It reduces the uncertainty about how much you will like the switch which makes it easier to switch when the time is right.
Been reading Jon Haidts substack, he talks about how modern politic instills a "reverse CBT" that reinforces bad cognitive habits like catastrophizing and black/white thinking. Occurred to me that Resulting is in this same set, and in fact used to manipulate discussions, sometimes knowingly. Much modern discourse is structured around resulting.
That's an interesting way to look at resulting. Totally get what you are saying since it erases the probabilistic nature of oberserved outcomes and fits them to a decision is only good or bad framework.
John's work is excellent. Fun fact: we were in the same graduate class at UPenn :)
I heard someone recently say something to the effect of “in uncertain times like these, rather than try to predict what will change, focus on what is likely to stay the same. “
What do you think of this approach?
I guess those are the same viewed through a different frame. I can't really say whether that advice is good or bad since I don't know any science on it. But I think I would say a couple of things:
1) whether you are thinking about what might stay the same or what might change, think about it probabilistically...what is the probability this thing with stay the same? What does "stay the same mean?". Same for what will change and by how much will it change?
2) All times are uncertain. Sometimes, we should can't avoid the knowledge that the world is uncertain. Before the pandemic, as we entered 2019, the world was highly uncertain. We were just overconfident that things would stay pretty much the same. Heading into March 2020, that illusory certainty got destroyed and we were forced to see the world much more as it really is.
Embrace uncertainty. It is just the world we live in.
Excellent point as always. Thank you!
I've seen the "what will remain the same" utilized as a lense for business / market planning. IOW: What products and services will our customers always need and want from us?
E.g., We're always going to need / want to backup our data...however how and where we back it up will evolve over time (external drive, cloud, automated cloud, nano-implants, etc, etc...). At some point though we may not even need to think about it at all. The tech will just make it happen automagically (which is kind of happening already, but still requires some setup and platform dependence and doesn't travel easily). But this is still JAN of 2024.
Fully onboard with the probablistic / scenario-based approaches...and frequently revisiting the predictions and outcomes in order to keep score and revise. ;-)
Do some cognitive biases become more pronounced due to the human aging process? In other words, do people age 65 and older generally have a tendency toward certain kinds of decision-making biases? If yes, which? This might be helpful to know when designing choice nudges for older adults, or for family members who have to help support their older parents' decision making.
Since Annie hasn't weighed in on this yet, here are some thoughts from an n=1 sample from your target population! Probably due to my 7+ decades on the planet, I'm less likely to commit Confirmation Bias and more likely to succumb to Safety Bias. That said, I believe there are tons of individual differences that mitigate which decision-making thinking traps I and my fellow boomers tend to fall into differently than in our younger lives. There are not only vast experiential differences among us, but also a large range of mindsets that can both help and hurt. For instance, high levels of optimism that support resilience in younger years can actually become a risk factor for depression in later age - probably because died-in-the-wool optimists never developed the coping skills that their more pessimistic counterparts honed to help them adjust to some of the brutal realities of later life. I believe that differences like this also affect the decision-making choices we make. I just got some fresh perspective on this listening to Adam Grant's re-broadcast of his Work/Life interview with Danny Kahneman. When Adam asked Danny what he would think about differently in the dozen+ years since he wrote Thinking Fast And Slow, Kahneman said most of the studies of judgment and decision making that he wrote about are completely oblivious to individual differences. They were focused on explaining main effects. But everyone doesn't behave the same as the average. He said he is now rethinking this and sees the need to develop a better understanding of the individual differences drive us toward or away from making effective decisions. At 89, he won't be the one to lead this charge, but it's what we need to put more energy into. I couldn't agree more. Hope this helps. 😊
This is the example in Quit. Still not quitting. Sunk costs stress sunk. Are there useful quit criteria anyone might suggest? Do the monkeys know how to juggle yet?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-3-1-billion-train-ticket-to-nowhere-california-high-speed-rail-project-6e7045a1
In fairness, aint no mountains {Marvin Gaye voice} between Orlando and Miami
Well that's the thing. People are acting like Florida is doing it better. but it is a flat state and not seismically active so, honestly, anyone could execute this project well under those conditions since, as you said, there are no big, intractable monkeys.
Whether it is Florida or California or any state in between, having sunk so much into this thing, no one is going to stop it. Infrastructure projects, once started, are nearly impossible to abandon. So disappointed they are throwing more money at it when they still haven't solved for the big issue.
Holy moly, I cannot believe they are still at this - I am agape!
Hi Annie, I enjoy your books and am using the ideas when I teach decision making and consult. I keep coming back to an issue I'd like your opinion on.
Whether we are philosophical materialists/realists or idealists seems to take us in very different directions when grounding our beliefs and decisions.
If I'm a materialist, then I believe that the universe/reality is comprised exclusively of matter, and that it is finite and knowable. I simply need to discover the natural laws of science to ground my beliefs, such as Newton's Laws, Einstein's theories, etc., and may rely on the scientific method or Aristotle's Laws of Thought as my primary methods for acquiring knowledge of the material and conceptual world.
Conversely, if I'm an idealist, I believe our universe is connected somehow to another plane of existence/reality, such as Plato's Theory of Forms, Heaven/Hell, etc.
If we sincerely believe that our world is influenced by some alternate plane of existence, where souls, gods, or "ideal" circles exist, and that we don't/can't have access to this world, then it seems that any decision or set of beliefs is justifiable, because someone can simply reference some unprovable, untestable source/entity as the basis for the decision..."God willed it so."
To me, it boils down to our understanding of subjective (mind-dependent) and objective (mind-independent). Can you offer your opinion? Thanks
How do you know when the path you’re on requires some tweaks and adjustments (changing apartments in the same city or shifting departments in your job) versus a bigger change such as moving to a brand new city or switching careers entirely? Should the processes be used for both?
Great question!!
I would do some mental time travel here.
Imagine it is a year from now and you are still in your same career. How happy are you?
OR
Imagine it is a year from now and you have changed apartments. How happy are you?
These types of mental time travel thought experiments can help you to better see what will make you the happiest. You can fill in whatever prompts you want.
Separately, it is always good to see if you can experiment before making a big change. If there is a way to dabble or moonlight a potential new career before making a big change, that is helpful. It reduces the uncertainty about how much you will like the switch which makes it easier to switch when the time is right.
What's the best way to introduce a 7 year old to poker / thinking in bets?
Just play for fun with them!
Building houses of cards
Start playing for real stakes, M&Ms or something, flay his ass to light a fire 😁
Kidding not kidding. Worked with my daughter.