Why It's Easier To Make Decisions For Someone Else (hbr.org) 70
Evan Polman, writing for HBR: In my research with Yi Liu and Yongfang Liu of East China Normal University in China and Jiangli Jiao of Xinjiang Normal University in China, we looked at how people make decisions for themselves and for others. We were interested in the process and quantity of information a decision maker uses when choosing for others versus choosing for the self. We wanted to know: Is more information searched in the process when people choose for others versus for themselves, and does the way they evaluate that information change based on whom they are choosing for?
To test our hypotheses, we performed eight studies with over a thousand participants. Throughout the series of randomized tests, participants were given a list of restaurants, or job options, or dating profiles -- each with detailed information and then participants were asked to make choices for themselves or for someone else based on that information.
What we found was two-fold: Not only did participants choose differently when it was for themselves rather than for someone else, but the way they chose was different. When choosing for themselves, participants focused more on a granular level, zeroing in on the minutiae, something we described in our research as a cautious mindset. Employing a cautious mindset when making a choice means being more reserved, deliberate, and risk averse. Rather than exploring and collecting a plethora of options, the cautious mindset prefers to consider a few at a time on a deeper level, examining a cross-section of the larger whole.
Upon reflection, these results should feel familiar. Think about the most recent time you asked for a raise. Many people are initially afraid to ask (employing a cautious mindset); however, these same people are often very supportive in recommending to others (such as their friends or colleagues) that they ask (employing an adventurous mindset). When people recommend what others should do, they come up with ideas and choices and solutions that are more optimistic and action-oriented, focus on more positive information and imagine more favorable consequences. Meanwhile, when making their own choices, people tend to envision everything that could go wrong, leading to doubt and second-guesses.
To test our hypotheses, we performed eight studies with over a thousand participants. Throughout the series of randomized tests, participants were given a list of restaurants, or job options, or dating profiles -- each with detailed information and then participants were asked to make choices for themselves or for someone else based on that information.
What we found was two-fold: Not only did participants choose differently when it was for themselves rather than for someone else, but the way they chose was different. When choosing for themselves, participants focused more on a granular level, zeroing in on the minutiae, something we described in our research as a cautious mindset. Employing a cautious mindset when making a choice means being more reserved, deliberate, and risk averse. Rather than exploring and collecting a plethora of options, the cautious mindset prefers to consider a few at a time on a deeper level, examining a cross-section of the larger whole.
Upon reflection, these results should feel familiar. Think about the most recent time you asked for a raise. Many people are initially afraid to ask (employing a cautious mindset); however, these same people are often very supportive in recommending to others (such as their friends or colleagues) that they ask (employing an adventurous mindset). When people recommend what others should do, they come up with ideas and choices and solutions that are more optimistic and action-oriented, focus on more positive information and imagine more favorable consequences. Meanwhile, when making their own choices, people tend to envision everything that could go wrong, leading to doubt and second-guesses.
It's easier when you have Kompromat on them (Score:1)
Elementary my dear Vladimir
Re: (Score:1)
It is not only US. The whole west went corrupt morally. The right was always corrupt. The left probably too. These days however the left grew more powerful because academia is left, almost of all of it is. The result is that when you take part in a demo in Germany you may lose your job if the demo is not what most of the media likes. There have been cases of this this year. The media team of state TV (yes we have that in Germany) focused on the face of a person coming out of one such demo. The guy told the
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, Julian. You were warned, man. Now smuggle yourself out like you should have done five years ago, before you're too weak to do it.
Hint (Score:2)
Gut reaction before reading the article or summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Why it's easier to make decisions for someone else:
There's less that is personally at stake.
Re:Gut reaction before reading the article or summ (Score:5, Insightful)
DING DING DING we have a winner. It's basic survival instincts and evolution at play.
If you die, YOU DIE. Game over, you don't get to spread your genes any further.
If your FRIEND dies, you win his mate.
If your friend SURVIVES, he helps you in return, which makes it easier to spread your genes.
Re: (Score:2)
evolution at play.
If you die, YOU DIE. Game over, you don't get to spread your genes any further.
If your FRIEND dies, you win his mate.
If your friend SURVIVES, he helps you in return, which makes it easier to spread your genes.
Even better, advise your stronger friend to go off to hunt/battle, then screw his mate while he is away.
The Sneaky Fucker Strategy [everipedia.org]
That's why we still have slashdot nerds in the genepool.
Re: (Score:2)
But then again I also think Moses might have slipped that one in there because he had the hottest wife.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
There's also something in the bible about not being a judgemental asshat but here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
-- Exodus 20:17
Made a lot of sense back when houses, oxen and wives were just property.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Mongo just pawn in game of life.
Re: (Score:2)
If your friend SURVIVES, he helps you in return, which makes it easier to spread your genes.
Not always true and frankly quite naive. If your friend survives he's increased competition (for resources: food, territory, etc - and breeding females are just another resource) making it harder to spread your particular set of genes. Haven't you noticed that in actual nature - not this theoretical thing in your mind - the number of breeders is much less than the number of actual males? Unless you're the alpha you are just a meat-shield. Someone else who can die first before the real threat to the pack/col
Re: (Score:3)
Um, utterly wrong.
In "normal" human societies (as in, non modern ones) females vastly outnumber males. Males are born at a slightly higher rate, but die much faster. There are always enough women to go around, in fact, there are too many.
This explains a lot of evolutionary biology - height differences, muscle mass differences, women being bi-sexual and lesbian at a higher rate than males, the male tendency to increase in violence until a "positive" sexual outcome, and polygamous relationships.
I think a lo
Re:Gut reaction before reading the article or summ (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's really it, and not everything has to be boiled down to evolutionary biology.
I suspect it's more that there's a difference between, "this is hypothetically a good decision for someone," and "this is actually a good decision for me." When you're thinking about someone else's life, you're free to think more abstractly and just think about it in terms of general principles. When you're making the decision for yourself, and you plan on going through with the decision, you have a wealth of information about yourself and your own life to bring into the analysis, and you're more likely to consider the practical consequences of the decision. Then, for better or worse, they're also more likely to be personally emotionally attached to some of the consequences of those actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, plus our decisions are driven by the 90% or so of our minds which are non-verbal and to all intents and purposes, automatic -- and all of that is dark and hidden, so quite often we need to deliberate not because we need all the details, but to give us time to find conscious reasons to justify what the dark or unconscious mind has already decided.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My thought is, the social situation which encourages friends counterbalances the individual's fear of doing something. In a perfect situation, this means that you don't venture out on your own and die from a mammoth that easily runs you down. But when all of your buddies tell each other that it won't be so bad, then the group goes, and you kill yourself a mammoth and eat it.
In the modern world, sometimes this translates to the cinnamon challenge and people choke to death on yummy spices. But hey, at least i
Re: (Score:2)
If you're afraid to ask for a raise so you don't but recommend to your friend that he does and he gets it, you're not really helping your survival case.
Basic survival instincts are optimized for instinctive situations, which most of our convoluted modern life isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
We see people saying look at the poor they don't need handouts because they can get out of poverty if they only do the following... (Don't buy junk food or luxury food, avoid non productive items such as video games and the latest phones, don't be particular on the work you can do and just get a job.)
All things that work, however they don't need to suffer the sacrifices for such decisions. being in Poverty isn't a happy place, nearly every aspect of survival is stressful, and this stress presses dow
Re: (Score:2)
Ol' stinky Mussolini said it best... (Score:5, Informative)
Armiamoci e partite!, which was the climax of a public speech at the beginning of WW2. It is quite difficult to render in English with the same immediacy, but the effect is about "let us take up arms, so you may fight!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Details versus overview (Score:1)
Hm, I don't think it is particularly difficult to understand. I know, at a very detailed level, what I like and dislike, whereas I can only know even my best mate's likes and dislikes on a far more superficial level.
This means that, let me choose dating as an example, I would scrutinise a potential partner's details carefully and lock on to specific problematic areas, which may be few but, in my opinion, deal-breaking (even if they should not be, objectively) -- whereas I would look at the overall suitabili
Recent study about salaries (Score:2)
The highest salaries were achieved by women negotiating for a friend, followed closely by men negotiating for themselves, followed closely by men negotiating for themselves, and women negotiating for themselves far behind.
I'd say that there is some obvious psychological difference, and I suspect that women aware of this can counteract it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too subtle. You should have said that men get paid more because they negotiate themselves a raise - and then (apparently) do it again.
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't count psychological differences, while there are a huge amount of cultural pressures on women.
The aggressive man negotiating for himself shows strength and confidence. While if a woman who does the same thing society will say they seem mean spirited and bossy.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't count psychological differences, while there are a huge amount of cultural pressures on women. The aggressive man negotiating for himself shows strength and confidence. While if a woman who does the same thing society will say they seem mean spirited and bossy.
Good call, ignore evidence and stick with the strategy of it's societies fault. Do you also still point out often and incorrectly that women make $.78 cents for every dollar a man makes?
Re: (Score:2)
Not ignoring evidence. Just disagreeing with the assertion that the major facet is psychological while they are evidence of social pressures.
You could just put your head in the sand, and blame the "Other" for the problems, or stand up an realize problems are far more complex and may need effort done by all.
Less invested (Score:5, Informative)
When people recommend what others should do, they come up with ideas and choices and solutions that are more optimistic and action-oriented
Or to put it another way, they don't care what the outcome is.
Psychologists used to talk about a thing called "risky shift". That an individual tends to make a more conservative decision than a group does. Presumably being part of a group means the blame for failure is diluted or totally obscured. So the consequences to any group member is small, compared to their own portion of blame if that decision was made by an individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Being part of a group provides reassurance that other people have reached the same conclusion and think the action is correct.
obvious (Score:2)
it's easy to say to others what to do it there is no personal risk involved.
Cincordant (Score:2)
We know that humans protect their downside more than they favor their upside, irrationally. Maybe it's good to listen to friends in such cases, for a more rational balance of risk and reward. Another reason to have friends who want the best for you.
Detail vs. Overview (Score:2)
I think the difficultly here is in part that when making decisions for yourself you have to concentrate on detail, since you are the one who will be carrying out the action. Saying "You should ask for a raise" completely ignores any of the when and how that the person doing the asking needs to figure out, so it's categorically easier.
If there is a fault in the "cautious mindset" it might be trying to calculate the overall success of an endeavor as the product of the success of all its parts, not taking in
following my own advice (Score:3)
I then followed my own advice, and it solved the problem that I couldn't solve on my own.
Simple really (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)