Chapter 6 keep the doors open

Donkey starved to death among haystacks Suppose you close many doors and only two remain.I'd say that makes it easy for you to choose, but often it's not.In fact, choosing between two options with roughly the same appeal is the hardest.In this case, the question is not only how long to retain options, but also how we end up paying for our indecision.I use the following story to illustrate. One day, a donkey who was so hungry was looking for grass to eat everywhere. He got into the barn and found two piles of grain and grass at the two ends of the barn, which were about the same size.The Donkey stood between two piles of corn and hay, not knowing which one to eat.Hour by hour passed, but it just couldn't make up its mind.At last it starved to death between two piles of straw.

This is of course just a made-up story, which unduly belittles the donkey's IQ.A better example is the United States Congress.Congress is often deadlocked not over the big picture of the legislation -- like rebuilding the nation's overused highways, addressing immigration, strengthening federal protections for endangered species, and so on -- but over the details entangled endlessly.Often, to a reasonable person, partisanship over such details is like a donkey between two bales of hay.Whether for that reason or not, Congress is often stuck in the middle.Wouldn't it be better for everyone to think big and make quick decisions?

One more example.I have a friend who spent three months choosing between two digital cameras with similar performance and price.He finally bought it, but I asked him how many precious photo opportunities he missed in three months, how much time he wasted picking and choosing, and how much it cost to hire someone to take pictures of his family and friends.He said it cost more than the camera.Have you ever had such an experience? When my friend (and that donkey and Congress) focused on the subtle similarities and differences between the two options, they failed to consider the consequences of indecision.The donkey didn't think about starving himself; Congress didn't think about the lives lost while they were debating the highway legislation; my friend didn't think about how many precious photos he missed, not counting the time he spent at Best Buy.What's more, they fail to consider that those relatively small differences will always exist no matter which choice they make.

My friend would have been equally satisfied no matter which camera he bought; donkeys would not starve to death no matter which pile of grass they ate; members of Congress could happily go home and brag about their accomplishments if they passed slightly controversial bills.In other words, they could have made the decision more easily.They can even flip a coin and guess heads or tails (this is a metaphor, like the story of the donkey).But we don't because we just don't want to close those doors. Deciding between two similar options should be relatively simple, but it is not.I had the same confusion myself a few years ago when I was debating whether to stay at MIT or go to Stanford instead (I ended up staying at MIT).I spent a few weeks comparing the two schools in detail and found that they both appealed equally to me overall.then what do I do?At this stage of the problem, I decided to do further field research to get more information.So I went to two schools, where I talked to people and asked them what they thought of the schools.I inspected the surrounding environment of the school, the school where the children will study in the future, and Sumi and I carefully considered how these two places are in line with our ideal way of life.Soon my mind was gradually occupied by this matter, and my scientific research and work efficiency were seriously affected.It's ironic that my search for the best place to work for me actually made me ignore work.

Now that you've paid for the wisdom in my book (not counting the hours you've spent reading it and other activities you've given up at the same time), it seems inappropriate for me to admit that, like that donkey, I'm in the middle of two piles. Compare and contrast between grain and grass, hesitant.But in fact I am. Although I had a certain understanding of the difficulties in this decision-making process in advance, in the end, I myself fell into a predictable irrationality, just like everyone else. Why get what you expect? How did Coca-Cola beat Pepsi? Why don't fans admit fouls by their teams?

Why is it so popular to label beer with vinegar as a "special brew"? Does putting condiments in beautiful containers make coffee taste better? When should you tell a buyer that a famous painting is a fake? Are Asian women really bad at math? Philadelphia Eagles Vs. New York Giants Suppose you're a Philadelphia Eagles fan and you're watching an American football game with your friends -- the Philadelphia Eagles vs. the New York Giants.It's a pity that your friend is a native New Yorker and a die-hard supporter of the New York Giants.How the two of you became friends is beyond your comprehension.But you two lived in the same dorm for one semester, and you started to like him, even though you didn't appreciate his football appreciation.

Now the Hawks trailed by 5 points, but the ball was in their hands, and both sides had run out of stoppage time.The game was in the fourth quarter, and the clock showed six seconds to go.The ball was on the 12-foot line, and the Eagles' four wide receivers spread out to prepare for the final fight.The quarterback raised the ball at once, but immediately retracted to cover the gap. The four receivers rushed to the bottom line like arrows off the string. At the baseline, one of the Eagles' wide receivers vacated from near the corner of the baseline and caught the ball in his hands with a beautiful dive.

The referee blew the whistle to indicate that the bottom line touched the ground, 6 points!The Eagles cheered and cheered for victory.But wait, are both feet in bounds when the receiver catches the ball?It looked like it was, but it didn't look like it was on the giant screen at the arena; so the Giants coach asked for a replay of the footage.You turn to your friend and say, "Look! That was a great catch! He didn't go out of bounds at all, why did he play the tape?" Your friend snarls, "It's out of bounds! I can't believe the referee didn't see it ! Only a fool would think he was in bounds!"

what on earth is this kind of happenings?Is your friend who supports the Giants wishful thinking?Or are you kidding yourself?Even lying?Or has his loyalty to the team and his desire to see them win blinded him so much that he has completely lost his basic sense of judgment? I was thinking about this one evening as I strolled across Cambridge to the Walker Memorial at MIT.How can two best friends - both honest men - have such different opinions about the same high pass in the game?Why do people always witness the same event at the same time, but both sides give completely opposite explanations to prove their points?Why do Democrats and Republicans view an illiterate schoolchild from diametrically opposite angles, taking incompatible positions?Why do husbands and wives fight against each other, but when they quarrel, they always say that the public is right, and the mother-in-law always says that the mother-in-law is right?

A friend of mine lived in Belfast, Northern Ireland for a while as a foreign correspondent.This is how he described an interview with the IRA.During the interview, news came that the warden of Metz Prison, the prison responsible for holding a large number of IRA elements, had been assassinated.Understandably, those IRA personnel who were with my friend at the time rejoiced and considered it a victory for them.But the British don't see it that way at all.The next day, the headlines of the major media in London were almost full of gunpowder, advocating retaliation against the IRA.Growing up in Israel, I am familiar with this cycle of violence, and it is not uncommon in the world.People are used to violent conflicts, but they rarely stop to think about why.Why are there so many violent conflicts?Is it historical, ethnic, political reasons, or is there something irrational in our nature that encourages us to confront and leads us to take completely different perspectives on the same event according to our own standpoint?

beer with balsamic vinegar Columbia University professor Leonard Lee and MIT professor Shane Frederick and I cannot answer these esoteric questions.But in order to explore the roots of this fundamental human condition, we decided to devise a series of simple experiments to investigate how our prior impressions blind us to the problem.The method we ended up with was very simple - no religion, no politics, no sports, just beer. experiment There are two tall Greek columns in front of the Walker Memorial Hall, with wide steps in the middle, and the entrance above the steps.Turn right after entering the door, and you can see two rooms. The floor is covered with carpets that were laid there long before the invention of electric lights, and the matching ancient furniture. The air is filled with the smell of alcohol and fried peanuts. As soon as people come in, they feel kind and comfortable.Welcome to Muddy Charles' Pub - one of two bars at MIT.Here, over the next few weeks, Leonard and Shane and I will conduct our series of experiments to find out whether people's expectations affect their views about what comes next—more specifically, Whether a bar's patrons expect a certain beer or not can form their judgment standard of beer taste. Let me explain further.Budweiser is one of the beers served to guests at Muddy Charles' bar; the other, as we nickname it, MIT Special. What is "MIT Special Brew"?It's basically Budweiser, just with a "secret ingredient" -- two drops of balsamic vinegar per ounce of beer. (Some MIT students didn't recognize Budweiser as "beer"; so, in later experiments, we called it Sam Adams—in Boston, most people call the drink "beer.") At around seven o'clock that evening, Jeffrey, a second-year doctoral student majoring in computer science, was lucky enough to step into the door of Muddy Charles' bar. "May I recommend two small glasses of free beer samples to you?" Leonard went up to him and asked.After Jeffrey agreed, Leonard led him to a table with two small beer glasses containing a white frothy drink, one marked "A" and the other marked With "B".Jeffrey picked up a glass, took a sip, sipped it thoughtfully for a while, and then picked up the second one and took a sip. "I'll give you another big glass, which one do you want?" Leonard asked.Jeffrey thought about it carefully. Since there is still a big free glass, he must choose his favorite to enjoy. Jeffrey chose "B" and went to find his friend with a cup (some students in our school just "borrowed" a cannon from Caltech and put it on display in the bar, and they were chatting enthusiastically around the cannon).Unbeknownst to Jeffrey, the two drinks he had just tasted were Budweiser and the MIT house brew—he later chose the MIT house brew with balsamic vinegar. A few minutes later, Nina, a visiting student from Germany, came in. "A free beer?" Leonard asked.She smiled and nodded.This time, Leonard made a further introduction. He said that beer A is a common beer on the market, and beer B is a concocted beer with a few drops of balsamic vinegar.Nina did both tastings.When the samples run out (she wrinkles her nose at beer B with vinegar), she motions for a large glass of beer A.Leonard poured her a large glass of regular Budweiser, and Nina took it and happily went to find her friends who were drinking. Jeffrey and Nina were just two of hundreds of students who took part in the experiment.But their responses are pretty typical.Without telling them beforehand, most people opt for the MIT Special with vinegar; telling them that the special is just Budweiser with vinegar makes a huge difference.No sooner had they tasted the vinegar-laced drink than they wrinkled their noses and immediately demanded a Budweiser.The lesson you can expect is that when you tell people straight up that something might not taste good, nine times out of ten they follow you—not because of experience, but because of anticipation. At this point in the book, if you want to open a brewery on a whim to make beer with balsamic vinegar, then I advise you to seriously consider the following two points: First, if people read the ingredient list on the product label, Or learn about your recipe from other sources, they must not like your beer.Second, balsamic vinegar is actually expensive—even if it makes your beer taste better, it’s still not worth the cost, and for that money you might as well invest in a fancier beer. Pepsi Vs. Coca-Cola You all remember the famous "Pepsi Challenge" TV commercial (at least you've heard of it).In the ad, randomly select customers, ask them to taste Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and then ask them to say which one they like on the spot.These ads, shot by PepsiCo, claim that people love Pepsi over Coca-Cola.At the same time, Coca-Cola advertised that people prefer Coca-Cola over Pepsi.How did that happen?Could it be that both companies are falsifying statistics? The answer is that the two companies evaluate their products differently.It is said that Coca-Cola uses the method of letting consumers openly choose according to their preferences, so that they can see at a glance what they are drinking, including Coca-Cola's famous red logo.PepsiCo's challenge is to let participants blindfolded and taste two drinks marked with "M" and "Q".Is it possible that Pepsi tastes better in the "blind" test and Coca-Cola tastes better in the "visible" test? In order to better unravel this mystery between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, a team of outstanding neurologists—Sam McClure, Li Jian, Damon Tomlin, Jim Siepelt, Latane Montagu, and Reed Montagu—tested Coca-Cola blindfolded and Pepsi blindfolded.A modern addition to this test is a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine (fMRI).Using the device, the researchers were able to track participants' brain activity as they ingested the drink. By the way, it's not easy to do a drink test with an fMRI machine, because to get a brain scan, the person being scanned has to lie still on the machine.To get around this difficulty, Sam and his colleagues pulled a long, thin plastic tube into the participants' mouths, pouring Coca-Cola or Pepsi from the other end.While infusing the drink, visually tell the participant that this is Coca-Cola, or that this is Pepsi.This way the researchers could tell the participants whether they drank Coca-Cola or Pepsi, or an unnamed beverage, and then observe their brain activity in each case. what's the result?As with the Coca-Cola and Pepsi ads, they found that telling participants what the drink was called caused different brain activity.Here's how the experiment works: Whenever a participant takes a sip of Coca-Cola or Pepsi, the middle part of the brain associated with intense feelings of emotion—the median prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) of the brain—is activated.But if the participant knew he was drinking Coca-Cola, something else changed.At this time, the frontal area of ​​the brain -- the dorsolateral part of the prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), an area associated with higher functions of the human brain, such as working memory, association, and higher cognition and concepts -- was also activated.This was also the case with Pepsi, but more Coca-Cola (naturally, those who preferred Coca-Cola reacted more strongly). The basic pleasure value of the brain's response to the drink was similar between the two drinks.But Coca-Cola’s advantage over Pepsi is its brand—it activates the brain’s higher mechanisms.These associations, rather than the nature of the drink itself, give Coca-Cola an advantage in the marketplace. It is also interesting to consider the various ways in which the frontal areas of the brain are connected to the pleasure centers.The dopamine chain in the frontal area of ​​the brain projects to the pleasure center and activates it.This may be why people like Coca-Cola more when the brand name is mentioned—the associations are stronger, causing the parts of the brain that represent those associations to increase activity in the brain's pleasure centers.This is, of course, good news for all ad agencies, and it explains that Coca-Cola's bright red packaging, its wraparound handwritten brand name, and its bombardment of messages to consumers over the years (e.g., "Coca-Cola, makes everything better"), It has made it difficult for people to tell whether they love the packaging or the brown bubbling stuff inside. Expectations can also form stereotypes.Prejudice, after all, is what people want to use to predict experience, a way for people to categorize information.The brain can't just snap into action in each new situation, it has to build on the information it has received before.For this reason, stereotypes are not inherently harmful.It provides shortcuts to our ongoing understanding of the complex environment around us.That's why when we see an elderly person using a computer, we immediately think that they might need help, and when we see a Harvard student, we think they must be very smart. ① However, because stereotypes provide us with specific expectations of membership in a group, they can also have adverse effects on our perceptions and behavior.