Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
I’m A Better Person In Spanish
Me llamo Travieso Blanco.
I speak Spanish reasonably well but I find it very tiring … which suggests that I probably think more clearly and ethically in Spanish than in English.
Like so many things, it’s all related to our two different modes of thinking: System1 and System 2. System 1 is fast and efficient and operates below the level of consciousness. It makes a great majority of our decisions, typically without any input from our conscious selves. We literally make decisions without knowing that we’re making decisions.
System 2 is all about conscious thought. We bring information into System 2, think it through, and make reasoned decisions. System 2 uses a lot of calories; it’s hard work. As Daniel Kahneman says, “Thinking is to humans as swimming is to cats; they can do it but they’d prefer not to.”
English, of course, is my native language. (American English, that is). It’s second nature to me. It’s easy and fluid. I can think in English without thinking about it. In other words, English is the language of my System 1. At this point in my life, it’s the only language in my System 1 and will probably remain so.
To speak Spanish, on the other hand, I have to invoke System 2. I have to think about my word choice, pronunciation, phrasing, and so on. It’s hard work and wears me out. I can do it but I would have to live in Spain for a while for it to become easy and fluid. (That’s not such a bad idea, is it?)
You may remember that System 1 makes decisions using heuristics or simple rules of thumb. System 1 simplifies everything and makes snap judgments. Most of the time, those judgments are pretty good but, when they’re wrong, they’re wrong in consistent ways. System 1, in other words, is the source of biases that we all have.
To overcome these biases, we have to bring the decision into System 2 and consider it rationally. That takes time, effort, and energy and, oftentimes, we don’t do it. It’s easy to conclude that someone is a jerk. It’s more difficult to invoke System 2 to imagine what that person’s life is like.
So how does language affect all this? I can only speak Spanish in my rational, logical, conscious System 2. When I’m thinking in Spanish, all my rational neurons are firing. I tend to think more carefully, more thoughtfully, and more ethically. It’s tiring.
When I think in English, on the other hand, I could invoke my System 2 but I certainly don’t have to. I can easily use heuristics in English but not in Spanish. I can jump to conclusions in English but not in Spanish.
The seminal article on this topic was published in 2012 by three professors from the University of Chicago. They write, “Would you make the same decisions in a foreign language as you would in your native tongue? It may be intuitive that people would make the same choices regardless of the language they are using…. We discovered, however, that the opposite is true: Using a foreign language reduces decision-making biases.”
So, it’s true: I’m a better person in Spanish.
Greek Game Theory
Smooth operator.
Game theory suggests that it’s sometimes rational to behave irrationally. Case in point: Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister.
Varoufakis’ country is nearly bankrupt and other European community nations – especially Germany – hold the keys to any bailout. So you might expect Varoufakis to behave contritely toward his potential saviors. Far from it. Instead, he seems determined to make his opponents recoil in disgust and horror.
Varoufakis wears a black leather jacket (gasp!) to high-level ministerial meetings and lectures and hectors his fellow finance ministers. He’s rude, he shows up late, and his behavior borders on the bizarre. He alienates the very people who are poised to bail him out. In other words, he’s a very shrewd negotiator.
A Greek exit (Grexit) from the euro would create hardships for Greece and every other country in Europe (and perhaps far beyond). The European finance ministers claim that a Grexit would be much more “contained” than it would have been three years ago. But nobody knows for sure. It could spark a widespread panic.
Nobody wants a Grexit. But nobody can afford to give in either. Greece wants the bailout as long as it doesn’t include onerous conditions related to austerity and labor reform. Germany and the rest of the EC want to bail out Greece as long as they can claim that they’ve forced reforms on their wayward neighbor so that it will never happen again. Nobody wants a Grexit but both sides want a certain amount of theater.
An avid game theorist, Varoufakis knows that behaving irrationally is the best card he has to play. He needs to convince his opponents that he’s crazy. He wants them to think, “This man is just crazy enough to push the exit button. We can’t let that happen. We better not push too hard.”
As we learned the other day, behaving irrationally can cause the opposition to restrict their thinking and forego some options that might otherwise be perfectly acceptable. This is exactly what Varoufakis wants.
On the other side, the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, seems to be the designated “humiliator”. He’s taking a hard line and lectures Greece publicly and privately. He repeatedly reminds the Greeks that it’s time to clean up their act. Everyone knows that Germany is key to any compromise. By positioning the German finance minister (as opposed to say the Belgian finance minister) as Dr. No, the EC is trying to plant a simple thought in Greece: “These people really hate us. They might just pull the plug and force us out. We can’t let that happen. We better not push too hard.”
Both sides want to push the issue to the brink so they can tell their voters that they got the best deal possible. I expect two more weeks of theater followed by a compromise that no one likes but everyone can live with. In theory, it’s just a game.
When Irrational Behavior Is Rational
We can teach you international finance.
Not long ago, I drove to my doctor’s office for a 10:00 AM appointment. To get there, I drove past the University of Denver and a local elementary school.
The university students were ambling off to their ten o’clock classes. They ambled randomly, crossing the street from different locations and at different angles. Rather then using the cross walks, they often stepped out from behind parked cars. I couldn’t guess where or when they might emerge from hiding and step directly into the path of my car.
The elementary students were also on a break but they were formed up in neat lines. The younger ones held hands in well-organized two-by-two columns. Teachers were in control and the kids only moved when directed by adults. Then they moved only in predictable fashion in predictable directions.
I thought, “Huh … the school kids are much better behaved than the college kids. The college kids should behave like the school kids, not the other way round. The college kids may be learning advanced, abstract concepts but they need to get back to the basics.”
A few days later, I had another think and asked a different question: Which set of kids induced better, safer behavior in me? Clearly, it was the college kids.
Here’s how it works. When I drove past the elementary school, I was aware that school was in session. I drove slowly and paid close attention to my surroundings. At the same time, however, it was clear that the kids were well behaved and under control. I could predict their behavior and I predicted that they would behave safely. I was aware of the situation but not overly concerned.
With the college students, on the other hand, I had no idea what they would do. They were behaving irrationally. Anything could happen. By the elementary school, I was aware. By the university, I was hyper-aware. I drove even more cautiously by the university than by the elementary school.
The college kids influenced my behavior by acting irrationally. As it happens, that’s a key element of game theory – as formulated by John Nash, the brilliant mathematician who was also haunted by mental illness (and who died recently in a traffic accident).
In game theory, if you don’t know what your opponent will do, you may circumscribe your own behavior. I didn’t know what the college students would do, so I drove extra carefully. I ruled out options that I might have considered if the college students were behaving more rationally and predictably.
In other words, acting irrationally is often a perfectly rational thing to do. I’m sure the college students didn’t consciously choose to act irrationally. But a crafty actor might well behave irrationally on purpose to limit her opponent’s options.
In fact, I think this school example perfectly explains the behavior of the finance ministers in the current Greek financial crisis. More on that tomorrow.
I Like You. I Do You A Favor.
Borrowed any good books lately?
Have we got it backwards yet again? I used to think that I did favors for people because I liked them. The liking comes first; the favor comes second. The liking causes the favor.
But wait. Like so many other things, I may have got it backwards. Perhaps cause-and-effect flows the other way. Perhaps the fact that I do you a favor causes me to like you. Perhaps you can induce me to like you by asking me for a favor.
In the world of persuasion, this is known as the Benjamin Franklin effect. Old Ben may not have been the first to notice the effect, but he wrote a pithy quote to popularize it: “He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he who you yourself have obliged.”
Franklin tells the story of an unnamed political opponent – rich and well connected – who attacked Franklin mercilessly in an election. Franklin won the election and wanted to win his opponent over. So he asked to borrow a book from his competitor’s library. Franklin kept it for a week and then returned it with a thoughtful and appreciative note. Thus began a long-lasting friendship. (David McRaney tells the story in full here.)
The Ben Franklin effect is not so different from the concept of the plastic brain. Through our actions, we create our brain rather than vice-versa. (See Norman Doidge’s writings here and here). What we do creates the brain rather than the brain creating what we do. This may well be the reason that buying experiences makes us happier than buying things. (The hedonic treadmill probably plays a role as well).
The Franklin effect also seems similar to embodied cognition. Our bodies shape our brains (perhaps) even more than our brains shape our bodies. I use a simple form of embodied cognition to improve my mood. Each time I look at my smart phone (which is all too often), I remind myself to smile for ten seconds. Making my face smile frequently (even though it’s artificial and arbitrary) elevates my mood for much longer than ten seconds.
The Franklin effect also relates to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT suggests that we can challenge cognitive distortions by changing our behavior. CBT also posits that what we believe to be true is indeed true for us. If we believe we will always fail, no matter what we do, …well, we’ll probably fail. As Henry Ford said, “Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you’re right.”
All too often, we predict what we’re going to do and then live up to our prediction. Such predictions can produce vicious (or virtuous) circles. CBT addresses these automatic negative thoughts (ANTs), by asking us to change the meaning we assign to our thoughts and to change our behaviors. In essence, it’s asking us to challenge our thoughts, change our behaviors, and use our bodies to reshape our plastic brains.
I doubt that Ben Franklin understood all these connections when he asked to borrow a book from a political opponent. But he did have an important insight: the action shapes the attitude, not the other way round. Think about your actions and attitudes. And, if you want someone to like you, just borrow a book.
Men. Why?
Still needed.
Biologists have recently discovered that female sawfish can reproduce without any help from male sawfish. It’s the first time that the process – known as parthenogenesis – has been observed in vertebrates.
So, let’s revisit an old question: Why do we need men? (See also here).
The default sex, of course, is the female. Things have to happen – in the right order, at the right time – to convert a female fetus into a male. First of all, the fetus has to get a Y chromosome from the father as well as an X from the mother. (Females get two Xs, one from each parent).
As it happens, the Y chromosome is petty wimpy. Estimates vary, but there are probably no more than 80 genes on the Y chromosome. The Y’s most important tasks are to create male genitalia and the testosterone needed to masculinize the brain. Some might argue that this is value subtracted rather than value added.
By comparison, the X chromosome may have up to 2,000 genes. So, we get a lot more good stuff from the X chromosome than from the Y. That includes intelligence. Which makes one wonder, why would women pay for sperm from Nobel prize-winning men? The Y chromosome that men (whether Nobelists or not) pass on doesn’t contribute to intelligence. (See also here)
So if the Y chromosome doesn’t do much other than create male genitalia and we don’t need male genitalia to create babies (via parthenogenesis), then why do we need men?
Or as Science Daily puts it: “Biologists have long puzzled about how evolutionary selection, known for its ruthless requirement for efficiency, allows the existence of males — when in so many species their only contribution to reproduction are spermatozoa.”
That’s rather harsh on the old male ego. But researchers at the University of East Anglia may have discovered a reasonable explanation as to why men exist: Competition.
Here’s the idea in a nutshell: Men compete, women choose. It turns out that women are pretty good at choosing the men who will produce the healthiest offspring. Given a chance to choose over the long run, women tend to make the right choices. (See also here)
The researchers, led by Professor Matt Gage, studied beetles over 50 generations. In some samples, 90 male beetles competed for the attention of 10 females. In other samples, females outnumbered males by a wide margin.
Which samples were the healthiest and survived the longest? The ones with the most competition. After 50 generations, those samples that featured the most competition and choice were the healthiest. Samples with the least competition, on the other hand, became extinct within ten generations.
As Professor Gage notes, “To be good at out-competing rivals and attracting partners in the struggle to reproduce, an individual has to be good at most things, so sexual selection provides an important and effective filter to maintain and improve population genetic health.”
So, I suppose we men should be happy. There’s still a good reason for women to keep us around.
My Social Media
