Weekly insights on how to perform when it matters | High-stakes decisions. Real situations. No BS. | 👇JOIN +2k readers 👇
Which of these two options would you choose?
|
Daniel Kahneman, the author of Thinking, Fast and Slow, did an experiment. He gave two options: Would you accept a gamble that offers a 10% chance to win $95 and a 90% chance to lose $5? Or. Would you pay $5 to participate in a lottery that offers a 10% chance to win $100 and a 90% chance to win nothing? Well… if you studied engineering, you have convinced yourself that the two problems are identical. In both, you are either richer by $95 or poorer by $5. But that’s engineering mindset… No question why we take so long to find someone that can endure us. The reality is that the second option attracts more people. A bad outcome is much more acceptable if it is framed as the cost of a lottery ticket that did not win than if it is simply described as losing a gamble. We should not be surprised: losses evoke stronger negative feelings than costs. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, you should take a look to the book below. It will teach you to avoid gambles and call some costs, investments.
PD 1: If you liked this email, don't keep it in secret and forward it to a friend. They will thank you enormously one day. PD 2: If somebody has sent you this email and you want to receive emails like this yourself, visit vicentevalencia.com PD 3: If you want unsubscribe, click the link below. |
Vicente Valencia
Weekly insights on how to perform when it matters | High-stakes decisions. Real situations. No BS. | 👇JOIN +2k readers 👇
In 1628, Sweden launched a magnificent warship. The Vasa. Built to impress. Which it did. Then it sank. Which was less impressive. Before the maiden voyage, thirty men had been asked to run backwards and forwards across the upper deck to test its stability. XXI sophistication… No joke… Today, we pute trucks full of rocks on new bridges… Well… The ship rolled so badly that the test had to be stopped. You would think this may… have triggered a discussion. At least something like: Let’s not...
The government wanted fewer rats. So it paid people to kill them. People started breeding them. Unattended consequences are called today. Or wrong clauses and incentives, as it should be. Hanoi. 1902. The French colonial authorities had a rat problem. And a solution that looked perfectly sensible. Pay a bounty. Require proof. Count the results. Lovely. But… There was just one small detail. The proof was a tail. Not a dead rat. Apparently, nobody thought that distinction would become...
He won the tender. Sixty-six days later, he was eliminated… I mean… dead. Which is a fairly aggressive way to terminate a contract. Rome. AD 193. Escalation did not have several levels of governance apparently… or they were just efficient too… Anyway. The Praetorian Guard murdered Emperor Pertinax. An awkward development. Especially considering their job was to protect him. Like Lenders… when you do need them… The fact is that the guys spotted a commercial opportunity. A vacant throne. Two...