Slashdot Mirror
Why It's Easier To Make Decisions For Someone Else (hbr.org)
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.
Elementary my dear Vladimir
Answer is in TFS
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Why it's easier to make decisions for someone else:
There's less that is personally at stake.
Making decisions for someone else is trivial when you personally don't have to suffer the consequences.
AC
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.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to our surroundings, & our billions of genuine physical & spiritual allies? truth+mercy=justice, in the moms we trust.. our nearest visible creators, counting on us.. ever since those first uttered words; get off of me you big ape.
next; having your mind made up for you..
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
That's why we still have slashdot nerds in the genepool.
Slashdot nerds are one-offs drawn by a porch light. They didn't 'evolve' into some "sneaky genius" genetic subset. Trying to paint it as a monoculture is as dumb and limiting as common racism.
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!"
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
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 suitability if I were looking on behalf of my mate, ignoring minor flaws that should be unimportant.
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
you don't have to live with consequences
It is a well-known phenomenon. Less well-known are the methods and processes by which one might choose someone to make decisions for them
I think there's something in the bible about not coveting your neighbor's wife.
But then again I also think Moses might have slipped that one in there because he had the hottest wife.
There was a study recently, where about 50 men and women each were asked to negotiate a salary (a) for themselves, (b) for a friend.
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.
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/colony/tribe is identified and the alpha fixes the problem. If you want to breed and spread your genes, you need to fight and usually kill the alpha.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Your stronger friend does not take advice from you, avocado toast boy.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
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.
it's easy to say to others what to do it there is no personal risk involved.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
There's also something in the bible about not being a judgemental asshat but here we are.
I guess it's nice to have formal studies that confirm what we all knew.
If you have skin in the game, you tend to be more cautious with your decision making process.
THIS is exactly why our founders did not want a very powerful far-away federal government - but opted instead for a limited federal government with most power vested in governments that are closer to the people. This governance model keeps decision making authority with people that will be affected by the policies they implement.
Washington's ability to create policies carelessly is easy to understand in this context - most of those decision makers will not be affected by the policies they create.
this is the epitome of slashdot, useless drivel passed off as news.
more to come.
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.
That is only partially the truth. If you a friends of a chieftain who value your advice for a smartarse that you are but not for the balls that you do not have then his win may mean actually more resources or at least not as little as it would be w/o him fighting the aggressors. That is because the aggressors would come and take all and aggressors lost and your friend chieftain won there are usually resources to be had from the silly that tried to fight your chieftain. More resources more breeding chances even if you are ballless smartarse.
Because you don't have to live with the consequences.
Stuff that's wrong and stuff that people have already known since ancient times. This one is in category 2.
It doesn't sound like I am making a decision for others, I am only making a suggestion. The final decision is still in the original person's hands.
Mongo just pawn in game of life.
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 lot of the marriage/dating/whatever issues we have in society now can be traced back to the change in male survival rates.
(I also think that China and India are in for some bad times due to too many males relative to females)
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
...so this research out of China is no surprise at all.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Which is to say: bullshit. It's easier for *you* because your parents surgically removed your spines at birth and decided to teach you absolutely zero about life or the world. Speak for yourselves, and then get over it, already. These are learned skills that you were never taught, and nothing more - it isn't 'science'. It is never too late to hit the books, so to speak, so get off your lazy asses.
I'd have said it's because of the number of decisions required to get to a final decision.
When you decide for someone else you have limited information available to guide your decision. When there's limited information available, it takes a lot less time to examine it all and come to a conclusion.
When you decide for yourself, you have an entire LIFETIME of experiences you can draw upon, every single one affecting your decision. Of course that takes longer.
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 down on them. When you are under stress your ability to deal with the long term is diminished, so they are trying to find the short term stress relief.
I had a migraine attack at the Gym yesterday, so I cut my workout short. Doing such didn't shorten the migraine time, the long term benefits of that gym day will probably last longer then the migraine pain, but I cut it short, took a hot shower, and went home and slept it off. Just because the extra stress of exercising just compounded the problem.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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 into account that taken as a whole there may be more of a margin of error. As an example using the "asking for a raise" scenario, the asker might think that they need to wait for the perfect time, when in fact their boss's decision would likely not be overly affected by the time they were approached, and be based instead on long-term performance.
"Nothing is impossible to achieve for those who don't have to do it."
I then followed my own advice, and it solved the problem that I couldn't solve on my own.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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 it helps sometimes.
It's a lot harder to walk a mile in someone else's shoes than it is to think about what kind of shoes he or she has.
Evolution MIGHT come into play ifyou are looking about making decissions for your kids. I could see that one would take different decissions and less risky ones.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Is it more: Do as I say, not as I do decissions, or the oppsite?
E.g. people telling othersnot to take drugs, while they do so themselves.or telling people they should go for it, while not taking it because reasons.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"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.
Have gnu, will travel.
And you don't even want to know how strongly I feel I about that.
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.
It's called having skin in the game!
I think there's something in the bible about not coveting your neighbor's wife.
I'm pretty sure the intent was to have sex with her and not to keep her.
Anti vaxxers advise you not to get a flu shot.
Oh sure he will help you the way you helped him by advising you to do something that may win him a new mate.
You're not that strong faggot lol.
So basically the 1st step in responsible observation is eliminated if you're already disassociated from the problem because it's not you. After all you can't observe a situation for what it is until you disassociate from it to prevent emotional Distortion and bias from blinding you.