In one experiment, the experimenters put a subject in a room with other people, showed them all three lines, and asked them whether line A, B or C was the longest. If all the other people in the room pick A (having been secretly instructed to do so), the subject will probably also pick A even if the right answer is obviously C. However, as long as at least one other person picks another answer--even if that person is blind and picks B--that dramatically improves the chance that the subject will be willing to go against the group and pick the right answer. There were several real-life examples from boardrooms and cockpits showing the same thing--in order to avoid groupthink blinding people, you need to have someone who's willing to challenge the consensus. (The authors also uncritically cite France arguing against the US in the debate about whether to invade Iraq; from my point of view, that shows that when you pick a devil's advocate, you should choose who is willing to argue with you but has your best interest in mind, instead of someone who's been bribed by your enemy).
In another experiment, the experimenter auctions a $20 bill, with one dollar bids and the condition that the top two bidders both pay their bid amount but only the high bidder gets the $20. Typically people get it the bidding up to around $16 and then realize "if I'm second, I lose my $16 and I get nothing, so I need to keep bidding"; a few minutes later the bid is at $20 and they're thinking "My bid was $19, if I quit now I lose that; whereas if I bid $21, I end up only losing a dollar", so they keep bidding it up--with a record bid of $204. Again, the authors present several real life examples showing how people will keep trying to avoid a loss and end up losing a fortune--the term is "pouring good money after bad" or "chasing a loss". You need to emotionally detach yourself from the past so you can see the situation you're in right now, and therefore see whether you should cut your losses.
As a third experiment, instructors were told that some trainees (chosen randomly by the experimenters) were highly rated and had good leadership potential. At the end of the course, those trainees had significantly higher scores even though there was no difference between them and the other trainees. In another example, an drink improved people's performance more when it was high-priced than it did when it was cheap or free. People tend to live up to expectations.
I have to say that I don't think the book was well organized or particularly deep. I'd like to have seen more discussion about other types of cognitive biases, and more discussion of "this is what you can do to avoid them". However, the book was an entertaining light read and it's always good to get a reminder to be rational. I'd recommend picking this up at the library.
Posts
