The next time you're deciding beteewn rival options, one which is primary
and the other which is secondary, ask yourself this question: What would
Xiang Yv do?XiangYv was a Chinese imperial general in the third century BC
who took his troops across the Zhang
River on a raid into enemy territory. to his troops' astonishment,
he orthered thier cooking pots crushed and their sailing ships burned.
He explained that he was imposing on them a
necessity for attaining victory over their opponents.
What he said was surely motivating, but it
wasn't really appreciated by many of his loyal soldiers as they
watched their vessels go up in flames. but the genius of General
XiangYv's conviction would be validated both on the battlefield and in
modern social science research.
General XiangYv was a rare exception to the norm,
a veteran leader who was highly respected for his many conquests and who
achieved the summit of success.
He is featured in Dan Ariely's enlightening new publication ,
Predictably Irrational,
a facinating investigation of seemingly irrational human behavior
such as the tendency for keeping multiple options open.
Most of people can't marshal the will for painful choices,
not even students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT),
where Dr. Ariely teachers behavioral economics. In an experiment that
investigated decision-making, hunders of students counldn't bear to
their options vanish, even though it was clear they would profit from doing so.
The experiment revolved around a game that eiminated the excuses we usually
have for refusing to let go. In the real world, we can always say, "It's good to
preserve our options." Want a good example? a teenager is exhausted from soccer,
ballet, piano, and Chinese lessons, but her parents won't stop any one of them
because they might come in handy some day!
In the experiment sessions, students played a computer game that provided cash
behind three doors appearing on the screen. The rule was the more money you
earned, the better player you were, given a total of 100 clicks. Every time the
students opened a door by clicking on it, they would use up one click but wouldn't
get any money. However, each subsequent click on that door would earn a
fluctuating sum of money, with one door always revealing more money than others
The important part of the rule was each door switch, though having no cash value,
would also use up one of the clicks. Therefore, the winning strategy was quickly
check all the doors and keep clicking on the one with the seemingly highest rewards.