Podcast appearances and mentions of George Loewenstein

Ateşin bulunmasından dillerin oluşmasına, uzayın keşfinden internetin icadına... Her şeyi başlatan o şey, ilk kıvılcım, merak değilse nedir? 111 Hz'in bu bölümünde; bu podcastin de varlık sebebi diyebileceğimiz, sürekli kullandığımız ama üzerine pek fazla düşünmediğimiz bu duygumuzu anlamaya çalışıyoruz: Merak... Merak iyi midir yoksa kötü mü, tehlikeli bir duygu mudur yoksa faydalı mı? Merak etmemek mümkün mü? Peki insan neden merak eder, hiç düşündünüz mü?Sunan: Barış ÖzcanHazırlayan: Kevser Yağcı BiçiciSes Tasarım ve Kurgu: Metin BozkurtYapımcı: Podbee Media------- Podbee Sunar -------Bu podcast, Muhiku hakkında reklam içerir.Yılbaşı ruhunu yansıtan şık hediye kutuları Muhiku'da!

How does social media exploit our evolutionary instincts? How dangerous is it to post about your children online? And does Angela regret talking about her daughters on the podcast? SOURCES:Erin Carbone, visiting assistant professor of social and decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon University.Jimmy Kimmel, comedian and late-night television host.George Loewenstein, professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.Taylor Swift, singer-songwriter.Christie Tate, essayist and author. RESOURCES:"Five Takeaways From The Times's Investigation Into Child Influencers," by The New York Times (2024)."Online 'Sharenting': The Dangers of Posting Sensitive Information About Children on Social Media," by Pietro Ferrara, Ignazio Cammisa, Massimo Pettoello-Mantovani, et al. (The Journal of Pediatrics, 2023)."Privacy Preferences and the Drive to Disclose," by Erin Carbone and George Loewenstein (Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2023)."My Daughter Asked Me to Stop Writing About Motherhood. Here's Why I Can't Do That," by Christie Tate (The Washington Post, 2019)."When Kids Realize Their Whole Life Is Already Online," by Taylor Lorenz (The Atlantic, 2019)."'Sharenting' Puts Young at Risk of Online Fraud," by Sean Coughlan (BBC News, 2018)."Everything You Need to Know About the 'Right to be forgotten,'" fact sheet by the European Union. EXTRAS:"What Is Your Password?" by Jimmy Kimmel Live! (2015)."The Best Day," by Taylor Swift (2009).

Also: are the most memorable stories less likely to be true? Stephen Dubner chats with Angela Duckworth in this classic episode from July 2020. SOURCES:Pearl S. Buck, 20th-century American novelist.Jack Gallant, professor of neuroscience and psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.Steve Levitt, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Chicago, host of People I (Mostly) Admire, and co-author of the Freakonomics books.George Loewenstein, professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.Deborah Small, professor of marketing at Yale University.Adin Steinsaltz, rabbi, philosopher, and author.Diana Tamir, professor of neuroscience and psychology at Princeton University. RESOURCES:"The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality," by Fatma Deniz, Anwar O. Nunez-Elizalde, Alexander G. Huth and Jack L. Gallant (Journal of Neuroscience, 2019)."Reading Fiction and Reading Minds: The Role of Simulation in the Default Network," by Diana Tamir, Andrew B. Bricker, David Dodell-Feder, and Jason P. Mitchell (Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2016).Think Like a Freak, by Stephen Dubner and Steve Levitt (2014).SuperFreakonomics, by Stephen Dubner and Steve Levitt (2009).Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure, by the Department of Defense (2009)."Stories or Statistics? Farmers' Attitudes Toward Messages in an Agricultural Safety Campaign," by S. E. Morgan, H. P. Cole, T. Struttmann, and L. Piercy (Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 2002)."Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect," by Karen Jenni and George Loewenstein (Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1997)."Explanation-Based Decision Making: Effects of Memory Structure on Judgment," by N. Pennington and R. Hastie (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1988).The Good Earth, by Pearl S. Buck (1931). EXTRAS:"Abortion and Crime, Revisited (Update)," by Freakonomics Radio (2022)."This Is Your Brain on Podcasts," by Freakonomics Radio (2016).

In this episode, we're thrilled to host Nick Chater, an esteemed Professor of Behavioural Science at Warwick Business School. Nick is a leading figure in his field, focusing his research on the cognitive and social foundations of rationality. He is the co-founder and Director of the research consultancy Decision Technology Ltd, and has written engaging books like "The Language Game: How Improvisation Created Language and Changed the World" and "The Mind is Flat: The Remarkable Shallowness of the Improvising Brain". Join us as we delve into a captivating conversation with Nick on the application of behavioral science to public policy. We discuss the fascinating interplay between various branches of behavioral science and their implications in real-world policy decisions, bridging the gap between theory and practice. For our product deep-dive, we navigate the intriguing world of autonomous vehicles, examining their design and impact through the lens of behavioral science. In addition, we explore Nick's provocative paper co-authored with George Loewenstein on I frames vs. S frames. -- Support the podcast by joining ⁠⁠⁠⁠Habit Weekly Pro⁠⁠⁠⁠

Incentives can improve motivation. But what actually happens when the incentive is removed? An influential body of research previously suggested that extrinsic rewards have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation. However, more recent studies show this not to be the case over the long term. Our guest, Dr Indranil Goswami PhD, talks us through the longer term effects of temporary incentives and the implications for motivating behavior change. Indranil is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University at Buffalo.  The research that we focus on in this episode is the paper he co-wrote with Dr Oleg Urminsky PhD, called  “The Dynamic Effect of Incentives on Post-Reward Task Engagement”. While there may be a dose of confirmation bias with this conversation, Kurt and Tim are excited to hear more about Indranil's research which backs up what they have been telling companies for years: “Incentives are useful for improving people's behavior, engagement and performance.” Managers, academics and even parents have bought into the widely held belief that extrinsic motivators are not a useful tool for initiating behavior change. But Indranil's work may help you reevaluate the tools you use to motivate those around you. Listen in and let us know if it encourages you to rethink your incentive program. Regular listeners to Behavioral Grooves may enjoy being part of our exclusive group of Patreon members by supporting our work. You can also write a review of our podcast on whatever platform you listen on, and we often read these out on the show. Thank you!   Topics (2:49) Welcome and speed round questions. (4:00) Do extrinsic incentives always suppress intrinsic motivation? (9:41) Does post incentive disengagement actually happen? (16:59) The surprising effect of big incentives. (22:42) Real world experiences of incentives. (25:03) Can we design incentives that improve post reward performance? (31:40) What is more motivating - flat fee payment schemes or rate based payment scheme? (38:57) Does Indranil use music as motivation? (43:18) Grooving Session with Kurt and Tim on rewards and motivation.   © 2022 Behavioral Grooves Links Goswami I, Urminsky O (2017) The dynamic effect of incentives on postreward task engagement: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28054810/  Daniel Kahneman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman  Dan Ariely: https://danariely.com/  Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996) Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.11.1153 Dan Ariely, Uri Gneezy, George Loewenstein, Nina Mazar (2009) Large Stakes and Big Mistakes: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00534.x Episode 106, Jana Gallus: The Role of Precision in Incentives: https://behavioralgrooves.com/episode/jana-gallus-the-role-of-precision-in-incentives/  Goswami, Indranil and Urminsky, Oleg (2018). Don't Fear the Meter: How Longer Time Limits Yield Biased Preferences for Flat Fee Contracts: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3448174 Episode 71, Alex Imas: Clawback Incentives and Tom Waits: https://behavioralgrooves.com/episode/alex-imas-clawback-incentives-and-tom-waits/  Behavioral Grooves Patreon:  https://www.patreon.com/behavioralgrooves   Musical Links Ravi Shankar “The Spirit of India”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMk2eTqPLWk 

Groove Track | Why can't you find a cab in the rain?  We take a deep dive exploring the 1997 study “LABOR SUPPLY OF NEW YORK CITY CAB DRIVERS: ONE DAY AT A TIME,” by  Colin Camerer, Linda Babcock, George Loewenstein, and Richard Thaler.   This paper shifts through piles of data to look at how NY city cab drivers behaved - and what they found was an economic anomaly - the cab drivers did not behave as classical economists predicted.  The data showed that the drivers worked shorter hours on days when they earned faster (e.g., when it's raining) which goes against what economists would have predicted (i.e., that they maximize those opportunities).     Kurt and Tim run through how the study came to be, what they measured, and the implications of the paper's findings.  This is a quick and fun dive into one of behavioral science classic studies.   Find out more about this paper in our blog post

Is "the spectrum" a more helpful way to think about the world than "categories"? Tom Gilovich joins Igor and Charles to discuss the perils of black-and-white thinking, the evolving data on the hot hand phenomenon, the science of regret, why foxes are wiser than hedgehogs, and the freedom that comes from learning that we are of less interest to other people than we think. Igor considers the limits of psychological nudging in tackling society's structural problems, Tom shares the perspective that leads him to be so unrelentingly joyful, and Charles learns that even scientists have to work hard to avoid being typecast. Welcome to Episode 48. Special Guest: Tom Gilovich.

Nick Chater is Professor of Behavioural Science at the Warwick Business School, and author with George Loewenstein of The i-Frame and the s-Frame: How Focusing on Individual-Level Solutions Has Led Behavioral Public Policy Astray. The i-frame refers to science and policy focused on changing individuals. The s-frame concentrates on everything around the individual. As Nick explains in this episode, our hunger in the last decades for the i-frame has diverted our attention from the benefits of the s-frame. 

Why do we say hurtful things to people we love? Why do we make agreements that we can't or don't want to keep? Why do we cheat, even when we are mindful of the consequences? Effy and Jacqueline go on a quest to figure out why we step out of integrity in our relationships with others and ourselves and what we can do to prevent those transgressions by exploring the hot-cold empathy gap coined by George Loewenstein, a psychologist and economist at Carnegie Mellon University. They look to the elephant and the rider analogy from the book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard by Chip and Dan Heath to dissect those behaviour we all do and regret afterwards.To find more about Effy Blue and Jacqueline Misla, follow them at @wearecuriousfoxes, @coacheffyblue, and @jacquelinemisla on Instagram.If you have a question that you would like to explore on the show, reach out to us and we may answer your question on one of our upcoming episodes. Leave us a voicemail at 201-870-0063 or email us at listening@wearecuriousfoxes.comFollow us on social media for further resources on this topic:fb.com/WeAreCuriousFoxesinstagram.com/wearecuriousfoxesJoin the conversation: fb.com/groups/CuriousFoxSupport the show

The idea of walking a mile in someone else's shoes is often trotted out as a metaphor for understanding empathy. The act of imagining someone else's reactions may be hard, but based on the body of work by George Loewenstein, predicting how -- under varying circumstances -- we might walk in our own shoes may not be all that easier. Loewenstein is the Herbert A. Simon University Professor of Economics and Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His enormous range of research interests can be boiled down, after a lot of boiling, to applying psychology to economics and, more recently, economics to psychology. His career as a founder of both behavioral economics and neuro-economics has seen him delve deeply into how we react when our “affective state” is cold – when are emotions are absent and our physical needs are currently met – compared to when our affective state is hot. The latter is when out emotions are active or when our passions, as the old philosophers might term things like things hunger, thirst, pain, sexual desire, are pulling us. It turns out, as he explains to interview David Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast, “when we are in one affective state it's difficult for us to imagine how we would behave if we were in a different affective state. … The worst mistakes we make are when we are in a cold state, because we just can't imagine how we would behave if we were in a hot state.” While this may seem like something we know intuitively (or after years of high-profile experiments by Lowenstein, his frequent collaborator Leaf VanBoven, and others have conducted, several described in this podcast), it's not something we act on intuitively. “No matter how many times we experience fluctuations in affective states,” Loewenstein says, “it just seems we don't learn about this. We are always going to mis-predict how we're going to behave when we're in a hot state if we're making the prediction when we're in a cold state.” This, in turn, affects the products of people who make predictions (or if you prefer, policy prescriptions) as a profession, he adds, such as economists. “According to conventional economics, when we make decisions about the future we should be thing about what it is will we want in the future. What all of these results show is that your current state influences your prediction about what you're going to want in the future; it influences these decisions that we make for the future in unproductive, self-destructive ways.”

Why do people train for a marathon? Listen to sad music? Eat really spicy food? All of these activities induce a painful response, yet they also bring us pleasure. We often set ourselves up for negative experiences because it primes us for positive ones further down the line. There is a balance, a sweet spot if you will, between the amount of pleasure we experience and the suffering that it takes to get us there. World-renowned psychologist and author Paul Bloom, joins us on this episode to discuss his most recent book The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for Meaning (https://amzn.to/3Kmpweh). He challenges our definition of a fulfilling life, and why we actually NEED suffering to be part of it. We are so conditioned in our culture to only seek out pleasure that even the notion of reading about suffering was not particularly appealing to us, well to Tim - it turns out Kurt might be somewhat of a benign masochist! But from the get-go, Paul's compelling narrative convinced us that suffering can be motivating. Listen in and tell us if you think there is a sweet spot, and then reach out to us on email (info@behavioralgrooves.com), on Twitter (@behavioralgroov) or write us a quick review about the show (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behavioral-grooves-podcast/id1303870112). Thanks!   Topics  (4:40) Welcome and speed round questions. (7:24) Why do we choose suffering? (11:24) Do we really only seek pleasure? (13:40) We often have mistaken ideas about what we want. (16:16) Looking beyond happiness; what we actually pursue for a meaningful life. (22:24) How can suffering help pleasure? (24:59) How being in a state of flow explains the sweet spot. (28:27) Why are people driven to climb Everest?  (32:32) What are the unpleasant sensations that people do not pursue? (34:37) Pain then pleasure or pleasure then pain? (36:13) The effect of the peak-end rule. (38:40) Why do we want to listen to sad music?  (45:11) Grooving Session discussing how Paul's work can improve our lives.   © 2022 Behavioral Grooves   Links “The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for Meaning” by Paul Bloom: https://amzn.to/3Kmpweh  Shaquille O'Neal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaquille_O%27Neal “Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind” by Wilson et al (2014): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1250830?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed  Paul Rozin: https://web.sas.upenn.edu/rozin/ “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience” by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: https://amzn.to/3qyLRgB   “A psychologically rich life: Beyond happiness and meaning” by Oishi and Westage (2021): https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-74886-001 “Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption.” by George Loewenstein (1987): https://www.jstor.org/stable/2232929  Episode 67, George Loewenstein: On a Functional Theory of Boredom:  https://behavioralgrooves.com/episode/george-loewenstein-on-a-functional-theory-of-boredom/ “When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End” by Kahneman et al (1993): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x  Jeremy Bentham: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham  Richard Tedeschi, The Science of Post-Traumatic Growth: https://scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/richard-tedeschi-the-science-of-post-traumatic-growth/  The Prophet by Khalil Gibran: https://amzn.to/329fN9O  Episode 207, Jonathan Mann: Is it Possible to Design an Experience? https://behavioralgrooves.com/episode/jonathan-mann-is-it-possible-to-design-an-experience/   Musical Links  Adele “Someone Like You”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLQl3WQQoQ0  Alice Cooper “Poison”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq4j1LtCdww  Pink Floyd “On The Turning Away”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojf18wT_Xtk  Eminem “Lose Yourself”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yhyp-_hX2s  The Proclaimers “I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbNlMtqrYS0  Joan Armatrading “Consequences”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otq9VBa6a0s  David Bowie & Nine Inch Nails “Hurt”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhhEHuChFck&ab_channel=redsails2008  Billy Joel “Piano Man”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxEPV4kolz0  Violent String Quartet “Bad Guy”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUbCwmBmgE 

Ese día era su aniversario de graduación. Posiblemente, pocas personas recuerdan la fecha en que recibieron su título universitario, pero Juan Diego Ávila, lo llevaba impregnado en su por el resto de sus días. Era el único de su familia que podía presumir de su banda y un certificado. Jamás pensó que mientras desfilaba, tan orgulloso, lo tenían en la mira. Apuntando directamente sobre su cabeza. Entre togas alquiladas, birretes y familiares, era el momento perfecto para camuflar un disparo. ¿Quién podría notarlo? ... ese momento glorioso para muchos, después de esfuerzos y sacrificios. En breve serán lanzados al alucinante mundo corporativo, lleno de oportunidades para gastar, pagar, comprar y despilfarrar. No solo Juan Diego cayó en manos de sus depredadores, también sus 28 compañeros de una nueva generación de ingenieros aero espaciales. El tiempo transcurrió entre investigaciones, pasillos y análisis. El día de su graduación su nombre y el de sus compañeros quedaron enlistados como clientes top de una compañía de tarjetas de crédito, el cual se encargaría de anestesiar su proceso de compra. Ese día, se sintió tan elegante, con tanto prestigio, pues además de su cartón recibió su primer plástico. Gastar hasta que duela 10 años después sus deudas sobre pasan los US $ 100 mil, solo en tarjetas. Tiene 2 hipotecas sobre la casa. Y debe su automóvil, un hermoso Mercedes Benz Clase C43 y un tiempo compartido por el que debe pagar US $ 8 mil. Ávila dice que curiosamente, nunca sintió dolor al pasar y pasar las tarjetas. Luego veo cómo las pago, solía decir. “Siempre creí que de algún modo saldría el dinero. Hasta me daba miedo ver los estados de cuenta. Así que estuve a ciegas por muchos años. Y las cosas comenzaron a salirse de control ”, descrito el Ingeniero de 42 años. Lo que le pasó al Señor Juan Diego ya muchos de nosotros, no es nada extraño. De acuerdo con investigadores de Carneggie Mellon, Standford y MIT la gente gasta hasta que duele. No se crea muy hábil al pagar su tarjeta al contado El dolor de pagar El estudio aparece en la revista especializada en neurociencia “Neuron” en el apartado de “neuroeconomía” que estudia los procesos mentales que impulsan las decisiones económicas. https://www.cmu.edu/homepage/practical/2007/winter/spending-til-it-hurts.shtml George Loewenstein, profesor de ciencias sociales dice que “las tarjetas de crédito anestesian el dolor de pagar”. “Ud pasa la tarjeta y no siente que esté dando nada a cambio de la compra. Sucede diferente al dar billetes ”. En el experimento se le dio $20 a 26 adultos para comprar una serie de productos.  Si ellos no hacían ninguna compra, se podían quedar con el dinero.  Los participantes vieron los artículos mientras estaban conectados a un aparato de resonancia magnética funcional (fMRI). Así los investigadores estudiaban las zonas del cerebro activadas en el proceso de decisión de los voluntarios. Lo primero que se estudió fue si los centros de dolor del cerebro eran activados cuando los participantes vieron los precios. El resultado demostró que la “insula”, sección del cerebro asociada con el procesamiento del dolor, se activó cuando los participantes vieron que los precios eran muy altos.  La activación de la insula desincentivó el gasto. Las tarjetas de crédito disminuyen el dolor inmediato de pagar, comparado con el dolor que se activa cuando se paga en efectivo. En una investigación posterior realizada por Lowenstein, Scott Rick y Cynthia Cryder, lograron demostrar que las sensaciones de los consumidores cambian constantemente durante el proceso de elegir que comprar y sobretodo en el momento de pagar. Intereses en tarjeta entre un 40% y 50% Los economistas han manejado el concepto de que los consumidores toman sus decisiones de compra basado en sus preferencias y precio. Sin embargo, los estudios de Lowenstein y su equipo, demuestran que los compradores se deciden por el placer inmediato que les da el consumir o adquirir el bien o servicio. Esto explica el incremento en ventas de casi el 30% que experimentó la cadena de comida rápida McDonalds a partir del 2002 cuando decidió aceptar tarjetas de crédito y débito en sus restaurantes, ya que el tiempo que separa el pago de la compra es muy corto (comparado con restaurantes regulares) y al aceptar tarjetas,  disminuye el dolor de pagar. Tan viciosas como el alcohol o los cigarrillos Otro estudio realizado por Brian Knutson, profesor de psicología y neurociencia de la Universidad de Standford, y publicado en esa misma revista, confirma que el uso de tarjetas de crédito reduce el dolor que se produce al pagar. http://thetartan.org/2007/1/29/pillbox/shopping Las personas gastan un 18% más cuando pagan con tarjeta en comparación a cuando lo hacen con efectivo. “Las tarjetas de crédito engañan los circuitos del cerebro de forma que el individuo toma decisiones que racionalmente no tomaría. Las tarjetas pronto estarán al mismo nivel que el cigarrillo, alcohol y drogas como vicios en el mundo ”.  

You may notice that charity campaigns tend to focus on the stories of one or two individuals or families, and that those stories are often rich with emotional content but light on information and statistics. There's a reason for that.In this episode of Choiceology with Katy Milkman, we look at the different ways we tend to be captivated and motivated by individuals and their stories, while on the other hand, we often become numb or disengaged when presented with large numbers or statistical information.Carol Quirke tells the story of Dorothea Lange and her most famous photograph. Dorothea Lange was a documentary photographer who did important work raising awareness of the plight of migrant workers during the Great Depression. But one of her photos stands above the rest: Migrant Mother. You'll hear the story of how that photograph came to be, and the effect it had on public policy.You can view the image online at the Library of Congress.Carol Quirke is a professor at SUNY Old Westbury, and the author of Eyes on Labor and Dorothea Lange, Documentary Photography, and the Twentieth Century: Reinventing Self and Nation.Next, Deborah Small joins Katy to discuss two separate but related phenomena that describe the way we process information about small and large numbers. You can read her paper with George Loewenstein called Helping a Victim of Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability for a deeper explanation of the identifiable victim effect and you can learn more about scope insensitivity through the work of Paul Slovic and others in the paper Scope insensitivity: The limits of intuitive valuation of human lives in public policy.Deborah Small is the Laura and John J. Pomerantz Professor of Marketing and Psychology at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Finally, Katy gives you simple strategies to help put larger numbers in context, and to make better decisions around seemingly abstract statistics.Choiceology is an original podcast from Charles Schwab. For more on the series, visit schwab.com/podcast.If you enjoy the show, please leave a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ rating or review on Apple Podcasts.Important DisclosuresAll expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions.The comments, views, and opinions expressed in the presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the views of Charles Schwab.Data contained herein from third-party providers is obtained from what are considered reliable sources. However, its accuracy, completeness or reliability cannot be guaranteed.The book How to Change: The Science of Getting from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co.). Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co.) has not reviewed the book and makes no representations about its content.(0821-1VCR)

Estas características a menudo tienen que ver con el sistema de creencias con el que fuimos programados desde que nacimos. Mira aquí, no dice nada que ver con la "historia sexual". Ese es uno de los posibles sistemas de creencias con los que la gente podría estar programada. Si alguien tiene "experiencia sexual", para decirlo de manera amable, ¡no es virtuoso! Pero una idea realmente interesante aquí es que realmente no tiene nada que ver con estas reglas o creencias ... ¡Se trata de vivir fiel a la naturaleza de su ser! Una persona virtuosa es alguien que se desarrolla plenamente. ¿Cuáles son sus puntos fuertes? Esfuérzate por ser más fuerte allí ... ¿Cuáles son tus debilidades? Esfuérzate por criarlos ... Se trata de la autorrealización ... No vivir basado en reglas o sistemas de creencias ... ¡Esto es extremadamente liberador! Piensa en tu vida ... ¿Dónde mides tu valía en base a reglas o sistemas de creencias que tal vez ni siquiera sean tuyos? ¿Dónde están midiendo el valor de los demás en función de sus sistemas de creencias que pueden compartir o no? Adaptación hedónica “Los humanos somos infelices en gran parte porque somos insaciables; después de trabajar duro para conseguir lo que queremos, habitualmente perdemos interés en el objeto de nuestro deseo ". “En lugar de sentirnos satisfechos, nos aburrimos un poco y, en respuesta a este aburrimiento, pasamos a formar deseos nuevos, aún más grandes. Los psicólogos Shane Frederick y George Loewenstein han estudiado este fenómeno y le han dado un nombre: adaptación hedónica. "Para ilustrar el proceso de adaptación, señalan estudios sobre ganadores de lotería. Generalmente, ganar una lotería permite que alguien viva la vida de sus sueños. Sin embargo, resulta que después de un período inicial de euforia, los ganadores de la lotería terminan casi tan felices como antes. Empiezan a dar por sentado su nuevo Ferrari y su mansión, de la misma forma en que antes daban por sentado su camioneta oxidada y su estrecho apartamento ". Los seres humanos son increíbles mirando hacia adelante. Puede que seamos el único animal que realmente tenga esta habilidad. ¡Seguramente esto es una bendición porque podemos planificar el futuro! Pero también puede ser una maldición ... ¡Porque podemos caer fácilmente en la trampa de no ser felices ahora! Piense en todas las cosas que probablemente haya logrado ... ¡Quizás consiguió un nuevo trabajo o comenzó un negocio! Eso es genial. ¿Cómo te sientes ahora respecto a eso? Compruébelo usted mismo ... ¿Se está adaptando a no sentir que es suficiente? Visualización “Los estoicos pensaron que tenían una respuesta a esta pregunta. Recomendaron que dediquemos tiempo a imaginar que hemos perdido las cosas que valoramos: que nuestra esposa nos dejó, que nos robaron el automóvil o que perdimos nuestro trabajo ". "Hacer esto, pensaban los estoicos, nos hará valorar a nuestra esposa, nuestro automóvil y nuestro trabajo más de lo que lo haríamos de otra manera. Esta técnica, llamémosla visualización negativa, fue empleada por los estoicos al menos desde hace mucho tiempo. Crisipo. Creo que es la técnica más valiosa en el conjunto de herramientas psicológicas de los estoicos ". “La técnica de visualización negativa, por cierto, también se puede usar a la inversa: además de imaginar que las cosas malas que nos sucedieron a otros nos suceden a nosotros, podemos imaginar que las cosas malas que nos sucedieron a nosotros pasaron a otros”.

Una guía para la buena vidaWilliam B. Irvine Introducción William Irvine Profesor de Filosofía en la Universidad Estatal de Wright También el autor de On Desire: Why We Want What We Want ¡Tiene un nuevo libro que saldrá en septiembre de 2019 llamado The Stoic Challenge que también estoy esperando! Una guía para la buena vida “Este libro está escrito para quienes buscan una filosofía de vida. En las páginas que siguen, concentro mi atención en una filosofía que he encontrado útil y que sospecho que muchos lectores también encontrarán útil ". "Es la filosofía de los antiguos estoicos. La filosofía estoica de la vida puede ser antigua, pero merece la atención de cualquier individuo moderno que desee tener una vida que sea significativa y satisfactoria, que desee, es decir, tener un buena vida." “Escribí este libro con la siguiente pregunta en mente: si los antiguos estoicos se hubieran encargado de escribir una guía para las personas del siglo XXI, un libro que nos diga cómo tener una buena vida, ¿qué podría ha parecido? Las páginas que siguen son mi respuesta a esta pregunta ". Estoicismo El estoicismo fue fundado originalmente por Zenón Los filósofos estoicos primarios fueron Marco Aurelio Séneca Epicteto Este libro explorará toda la filosofía estoica e intentará darnos una guía de cómo estos grandes filósofos estoicos de antaño nos habrían animado a vivir nuestras vidas hoy. El libro está lleno de gran sabiduría y muchos consejos prácticos. La filosofía estoica puede ayudarlo en la vida, los negocios y en sus prácticas mentales / espirituales. ¡Toma el libro para ver más en profundidad! La vida es un medio "Según Epicteto, la principal preocupación de la filosofía debería ser el arte de vivir: así como la madera es el medio del carpintero y el bronce es el medio del escultor, tu vida es el medio en el que practicas el arte de vivir". El arte de vivir El estoicismo es una filosofía muy práctica Algunas, si no la mayoría de las filosofías o prácticas espirituales, viven en el reino de la mente. Por supuesto que puede ser útil por un tiempo ... ¡Pero realmente lo que nos están dando los estoicos es una guía que deberíamos usar en el mundo real! Practicar y aprender el estoicismo debería conducir a cambios reales en tu vida. ¿Estás más feliz por eso? ¿Estás viviendo una vida llena de amor y logros? Estas son las formas de medir su progreso. Práctica "Tu vida es el medio en el que tu PRACTICA el arte de vivir" Creo que la práctica de las palabras es muy importante aquí ... No es como si cuando aprendamos y adoptemos una filosofía estoica alguna vez lleguemos a un "final". En su lugar, ¡simplemente nos comprometeremos a practicar algunas de las enseñanzas que estamos aprendiendo aquí en nuestra vida cotidiana! Virtud “Para los estoicos, la virtud de una persona no depende, por ejemplo, de su historia sexual. En cambio, depende de su excelencia como ser humano, de qué tan bien realice la función para la que fueron diseñados los humanos ". "De la misma manera que un martillo" virtuoso "(o excelente) es aquel que realiza bien la función para la que fue diseñado, es decir, clavar clavos, un individuo virtuoso es aquel que realiza bien la función para la que fueron diseñados los humanos. " "Ser virtuoso, entonces, es vivir como fuimos diseñados para vivir; es vivir, como dijo Zenón, de acuerdo con la naturaleza. Los estoicos agregarían que si hacemos esto, tendremos una buena vida". Adaptación hedónica “Los humanos somos infelices en gran parte porque somos insaciables; después de trabajar duro para conseguir lo que queremos, habitualmente perdemos interés en el objeto de nuestro deseo ". “En lugar de sentirnos satisfechos, nos aburrimos un poco y, en respuesta a este aburrimiento, pasamos a formar deseos nuevos, aún más grandes. Los psicólogos Shane Frederick y George Loewenstein han estudiado este fenómeno y le han dado un nombre: adaptación hedónica.

Welcome to the 12th week of the Podcast. This week we talk about the Information Gap Theory. Developed by George Loewenstein in the early 1990s, this theory suggests that people will have a desire to fill in a gap in the knowledge between the information they have and the information they find out they are missing. By having an intriguing title on your article or ad, you can entice them to want to fill the gap in their knowledge by staying tuned to your video, article, podcast, or advertisement. This is often abused by less scrupulous people and it is known as clickbait. Be sure to deliver on what you promise your audience unless you want them to resent and avoid you in the future. This is also one of the foundations of the marketing tactic used when people offer a free download in exchange for your email. Too often we are taught that you need to offer people a free download of some sort in exchange for their email, but what is neglected from the description is to be sure what you are offering is an item that will fill the information gap they have. If you are interested in learning more about the psychological aspects of marketing, be sure to stay tuned to this podcast and join the Facebook Group Grow an Online Business.

Welcome to the 12th week of the Podcast. This week we talk about the Information Gap Theory. Developed by George Loewenstein in the early 1990s, this theory suggests that people will have a desire to fill in a gap in the knowledge between the information they have and the information they find out they are missing.  By having an intriguing title on your article or ad, you can entice them to want to fill the gap in their knowledge by staying tuned to your video, article,  podcast, or advertisement.  This is often abused by less scrupulous people and it is known as clickbait. Be sure to deliver on what you promise your audience unless you want them to resent and avoid you in the future. The Information Gap Theory is also one of the foundations of the marketing tactic used when people offer a free download in exchange for your email. Too often we are taught that you need to offer people a free download of some sort in exchange for their email, but what is neglected from the description is to be sure what you are offering is an item that will fill the information gap they have.  If you are interested in learning more about the psychological aspects of marketing, be sure to stay tuned to this podcast and join the Facebook Group Grow an Online Business.

For some people, the check engine light on their car dashboard means an immediate trip to the repair shop. But for others, it represents a nagging unpleasant feeling that’s best to be avoided. So they put it out of their mind for as long as they can. In this episode of Choiceology with Katy Milkman, we examine the tendency to avoid or ignore certain information when it may be uncomfortable or inconvenient.Amelia Boone is a high achiever. Within a short time of taking up the grueling sport of obstacle course racing, she was winning world championships. At the top of her game, she went looking for other challenges, and eventually took up ultra-running—where athletes compete in races longer than marathons, sometimes as long as 100 miles! Again, Amelia quickly rose to the upper echelons of this elite club of athletes.But then the injuries began. You’ll hear about Amelia’s attitude of pushing through the pain and training harder—an attitude that nearly destroyed her athletic career. When her injuries finally sidelined her from racing, Amelia realized that she’d been ignoring a crucial aspect of her health. Amelia Boone is an obstacle racer, ultra-runner, and attorney living in Colorado.Next, Emily Ho joins Katy to talk about the science behind this tendency to avoid certain types of information. She explains how the phenomenon impacts investors, medical patients, and employees, and she illustrates the perils of ignoring uncomfortable facts.Emily Ho is a research assistant professor at Northwestern University’s Department of Medical Social Sciences. You can read more about information avoidance in the research paper she co-authored with George Loewenstein and David Hagmann.Choiceology is an original podcast from Charles Schwab. For more on the series, visit schwab.com/podcast.If you enjoy the show, please leave a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ rating or review on Apple Podcasts.Important Disclosures:All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions.The comments, views, and opinions expressed in the presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the views of Charles Schwab.Data contained herein from third-party providers is obtained from what are considered reliable sources. However, its accuracy, completeness or reliability cannot be guaranteed.(0920-0817)

We saw an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “When Workers Can Live Anywhere, Many Ask: Why Do I Live Here?” and it got us thinking. Millions of white-collar workers have been displaced from their offices and are being told they are on indefinite work-from-home status. And many of those workers are opting to leave the big cities where the virus has been most aggressive. In addition to the temporary exodus to more rural settings, some people are leaving big cities to find permanent solace in the countryside. This got us thinking about how humans are predictably irrational about decisions about their futures. The biases about future happiness go hand in hand with changing where you live. The article that got us thinking about this was written by Rachel Feintzeig and Ben Eisen. Together, they do a great job of assembling data on the movement during the heart of the crisis and notes that even with a major recession hitting the global economy, many people feel the need to move. © 2020 Behavioral Grooves   Links “When Workers Can Live Anywhere, Many Ask: Why Do I Live Here?” from the Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2020: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-workers-can-live-anywhere-many-ask-why-do-i-live-here-11592386201 “Is It Time to Let Employees Work from Anywhere?” by Prithwiraj (Raj) Choudhury, Barbara Z. Larson and Cirrus Foroughi, August 14, 2019, in HBR: https://hbr.org/2019/08/is-it-time-to-let-employees-work-from-anywhere Remote Work Statistics: Shifting Norms and Expectations from February 2020: https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/remote-work-statistics/#:~:text=Remote%20Work%20Is%20Increasing&text=Over%20the%20last%20five%20years,or%203.4%25%20of%20the%20population. “U.S. Workers Discovering Affinity for Remote Work,” Gallup Polls, April 3, 2020: https://news.gallup.com/poll/306695/workers-discovering-affinity-remote-work.aspx Schkade, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). Does Living in California Make People Happy? A Focusing Illusion in Judgments of Life Satisfaction. Psychological Science, 9(5), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00066 “The evolution of decision and experienced utilities” by Robson and Samuelson, Theoretical Economics, September 2011: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/TE800 Dan Buettner: On Quality of Life, “Thrive”: https://www.wbur.org/npr/131571885/how-to-thrive-dan-buettner-s-secrets-of-happiness Dan Gilbert: On Predicting Future Happiness. https://positivepsychology.com/daniel-gilbert-research/#:~:text=Daniel%20Gilbert%20completed%20his%20Ph,emotional%20state%20in%20the%20future. George Loewenstein, Ted O’Donoghue & Matthew Rabin on Projection Bias: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/loewenstein/projectionbias.pdf

We saw an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “When Workers Can Live Anywhere, Many Ask: Why Do I Live Here?” and it got us thinking. Millions of white-collar workers have been displaced from their offices and are being told they are on indefinite work-from-home status. And many of those workers are opting to leave the big cities where the virus has been most aggressive.In addition to the temporary exodus to more rural settings, some people are leaving big cities to find permanent solace in the countryside.This got us thinking about how humans are predictably irrational about decisions about their futures. The biases about future happiness go hand in hand with changing where you live.The article that got us thinking about this was written by Rachel Feintzeig and Ben Eisen. Together, they do a great job of assembling data on the movement during the heart of the crisis and notes that even with a major recession hitting the global economy, many people feel the need to move.© 2020 Weekly Grooves Links“When Workers Can Live Anywhere, Many Ask: Why Do I Live Here?” from the Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2020: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-workers-can-live-anywhere-many-ask-why-do-i-live-here-11592386201“Is It Time to Let Employees Work from Anywhere?” by Prithwiraj (Raj) Choudhury , Barbara Z. Larson and Cirrus Foroughi, August 14, 2019 in HBR: https://hbr.org/2019/08/is-it-time-to-let-employees-work-from-anywhereRemote Work Statistics: Shifting Norms and Expectations from February 2020: https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/remote-work-statistics/#:~:text=Remote%20Work%20Is%20Increasing&text=Over%20the%20last%20five%20years,or%203.4%25%20of%20the%20population.“U.S. Workers Discovering Affinity for Remote Work,” Gallup Polls, April 3, 2020: https://news.gallup.com/poll/306695/workers-discovering-affinity-remote-work.aspxSchkade, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). Does Living in California Make People Happy? A Focusing Illusion in Judgments of Life Satisfaction. Psychological Science, 9(5), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00066“The evolution of decision and experienced utilities” by Robson and Samuelson, Theoretical Economics, September 2011: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/TE800Dan Buettner: On Quality of Life, “Thrive”: https://www.wbur.org/npr/131571885/how-to-thrive-dan-buettner-s-secrets-of-happinessDan Gilbert: On Predicting Future Happiness. https://positivepsychology.com/daniel-gilbert-research/#:~:text=Daniel%20Gilbert%20completed%20his%20Ph,emotional%20state%20in%20the%20future.George Loewenstein, Ted O’Donoghue & Matthew Rabin on Projection Bias: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/loewenstein/projectionbias.pdf  

Why do some of us choose to remain ignorant of information that - though perhaps unpleasant - could help us make better informed decisions in the future? In episode 76, Emily Ho from Northwestern University’s Department of Medical Social Sciences discusses her research into why we keep our heads in the sand about important information for a variety of psychological and economic reasons. Her article "Measuring information preferences,” was published on March 13, 2020 with David Hagmann and George Loewenstein in the journal Management Science. When Ignorance is Bliss - Emily HoWhen Ignorance is Bliss - Emily HoWhen Ignorance is Bliss - Emily Ho When Ignorance is Bliss - Emily HoWhen Ignorance is Bliss - Emily HoWhen Ignorance is Bliss - Emily Ho {{svg_share_icon}}Click bottom of waveform to add your commentsSubscribe: iTunes | Google Podcasts | Google Play | Spotify | RSS jQuery(document).ready(function ($){var settings_ap7505 = { design_skin: "skin-wave" ,autoplay: "off",disable_volume:"default" ,loop:"off" ,cue: "on" ,embedded: "off" ,preload_method:"metadata" ,design_animateplaypause:"default" ,skinwave_dynamicwaves:"off" ,skinwave_enableSpectrum:"off" ,skinwave_enableReflect:"on",playfrom:"off",default_volume:"default",disable_scrub:"off",soundcloud_apikey:"" ,skinwave_comments_enable:"on",settings_php_handler:window.ajaxurl,skinwave_mode:"alternate",skinwave_wave_mode:"canvas",pcm_data_try_to_generate: "on","pcm_notice": "off","notice_no_media": "on",design_color_bg: "111111",design_color_highlight: "FF4C65",skinwave_wave_mode_canvas_waves_number: "3",skinwave_wave_mode_canvas_waves_padding: "1",skinwave_wave_mode_canvas_reflection_size: "0.25",skinwave_wave_mode_canvas_mode:"normal",preview_on_hover:"off",skinwave_comments_playerid:"7505",embed_code:"" ,enable_embed_button:"on",php_retriever:"https://www.parsingscience.org/wp-content/plugins/dzs-zoomsounds/soundcloudretriever.php" }; try{ dzsap_init(".ap_idx_7505_3",settings_ap7505); }catch(err){ console.warn("cannot init player", err); } });   Websites and other resources Emily's website and Twitter feed Take Emily's Information Preferences Scale yourself!  Select media and press   Carnegie Mellon University | British Psychological Society | Futurity | Eurekalert | phys.org | Technology Networks | The Doctor Will See You Now   div.altmetric-embed {flex-shrink: 2; -webkit-flex-shrink: 2;}    Bonus Clips Clips available to patrons include ... Full episode with available download

Summary It turns out we prefer to be comfortably uninformed. This week we look at four steps to push ourselves through short-term pain to gather the information we need to take action.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 73 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today’s biggest leadership challenges. It turns out we prefer to be comfortably uninformed. This week we look at four steps to push ourselves through short-term pain to gather the information we need to take action. We are wired to avoid pain whenever possible. By way of example, I’ve mentioned before that I go for a run most mornings. The first ten strides down our driveway are always painful. Not necessarily physically painful, but it doesn’t feel particularly nice to start out. I’m conscious of the cold weather, how comfortable my bed was, some discomfort in my knees, the tightness in my leg muscles. But I know that one minute in to the run I will feel better. And at the end of the run I always feel great. In fact, I always feel better on the days when I go for a run in the morning, than on the days when I choose to sleep in. If I focused on avoiding short term pain, I would never go for a run. The start always feels hard and awkward. The key to getting out of bed and going for a run for me is to remember how much better I feel at the end, and remind myself that the pain and discomfort pass quickly when I continue to take strides forward. It turns out this same tendency to avoid short term pain occurs in every sphere of our lives, including the extent to which we seek out additional information and stay informed. Research recently published in Management Science shows that when we think additional information may be painful in the short term, we avoid being informed. We do this even if it means we can’t make as good a decision or plan for the long term. So when a doctor asks us to call them back to provide additional information on some tests, our natural tendency will often be to delay that call. When we’re faced with financial challenges, we might avoid doing further research. Or when I’m sent a set of participant evaluations from a leadership program I facilitated, I might leave it to the next day to open it just in case someone had something negative to say. We routinely trade off the benefit of making better long-term decisions in order to avoid short-term pain. It also turns out that those who are impatient are even more likely to avoid information. The focus becomes entirely short term, often to our own detriment. The end result is that we remain comfortable, but comfortably uninformed. So how do we avoid becoming comfortably uninformed? Here are four steps you can take: Recognise the human tendency to avoid short-term pain. Awareness is the starting point. Know when it’s happening to you in the moment. Once you’re aware of the tendency to avoid short term pain you will start to notice when it happens. See that as a prompt to do more research. Think of your future self as a real person. This will help you to pass through the short-term pain and pay it forward to your future self. Broaden your sources of information. Talk it through with others to gather their perspectives and recommendations. If we take these four steps, we will be in a much better position to make informed decisions and take action. I hope you, your family and your colleagues are travelling okay through these really challenging times. Stay well, stay informed, and stay optimistic. I look forward to speaking with you again next week.   Reference Emily H. Ho, David Hagmann, George Loewenstein. Measuring Information Preferences. Management Science, 2020

This week, we saw a survey conducted by McKinsey about consumer sentiments during the crisis across several different countries, generations and economic statuses. The comparative data is fascinating and we wanted to view it through a behavioral lens.Although businesses may eventually come back to life after social distancing measures lift, it won’t happen all at once. It is also unlikely that consumer spending, the largest contributor to US economic activity, will bounce back immediately. Part of that is due to a decline in incomes, especially for workers who have been furloughed or laid off.But there’s a psychological impact, too, said Elena Duggar, Chair of Moody’s Macroeconomic Board. The coronavirus pandemic has already disrupted human behavior in dramatic ways, ranging from social distancing to panic-buying toilet paper. Consumers will probably be wary of making big purchases even when the economy begins to come back to life. They’re unlikely to suddenly return to their pre-coronavirus levels of spending, Duggar said.Finally, spending that would have taken place in the second quarter isn’t necessarily going to be made up later in the year. Travelers whose spring break trips were canceled are probably not going to take two summer vacations. Consumers are not going to eat double the meals at restaurants, or go to twice as many movies later in the year, simply because they missed out on those things in the spring. LinksArticle that caught our attention: McKinsey & Company “Consumer Sentiment During the Coronavirus Crisis”: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/survey-us-consumer-sentiment-during-the-coronavirus-crisisHow fast can the US economy bounce back? It depends on the virus: https://presstories.com/2020/04/03/how-fast-can-the-us-economy-bounce-back-it-depends-on-the-virus-2/The “Ostrich Effect” And The Relationship Between The Liquidity And The Yields Of Financial Assets: https://dqydj.com/ostrich-effect-ignore-negative-financials/“The ‘Ostrich Effect’: Selective Attention to Information about Investments,” by Niklas Karlsson, George Loewenstein and Duane Seppi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226770945_The_Ostrich_Effect_Selective_Attention_to_InformationCommon Biases & Heuristics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XHpBr0VFcaT8wIUpr-9zMIb79dFMgOVFRxIZRybiftI/edit#

Melina Palmer is the host of The Brainy Business podcast and she has dedicated her career to seeking answers to these questions for herself and her clients. Melina uses behavioral economics to help everyone from global corporations to entrepreneurs understand the psychology of why people buy, unlocking the secrets of small changes that make a big difference via her podcast, public speaking, and column on Inc.com. The result is messaging, branding, advertisements, pricing and products that are more “brain-friendly” (meaning more leads, conversions, and revenue). Our conversation with Melina covered the anchoring effect and what a powerful tool it can be for both sellers and buyers alike. We also chatted about her John Mayer playlist on Pandora and some of the things she’s doing to make the world a better place through the education of behavioral economics and neuroscience. Kurt and Tim are also announcing our newest podcast, Weekly Grooves, which will be launching shortly, and we hope you’ll check it out. Groove idea for the week: What are you doing to integrate the anchoring effect into your business or your personal life? © 2020 Behavioral Grooves   Links Brainy Business Website: https://www.thebrainybusiness.com Melina’s INC.com articles: https://www.inc.com/author/melina-palmer Melina’s Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thebrainybiz/ Melina’s Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thebrainybiz/ Melina’s YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/thebrainybusiness Melina’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebrainybiz Melina’s LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/melina-palmer-36ab8712/ Melina’s John Mayer Playlist: https://pandora.app.link/UrWQ28B6l3 Anchoring Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring Decoy Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy_effect Ran Kivetz, PhD: https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/cbs-directory/detail/rk566 Katy Milkman’s Fresh Start Habit: https://magazine.wharton.upenn.edu/digital/katherine-milkmans-fresh-start-study-becomes-perennial-media-favorite/ Counterfactual Thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_thinking Seattle Mariners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Mariners Audacity (digital audio workstation): https://www.audacityteam.org/ George Loewenstein, PhD: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/george-loewenstein.html    Musical Links Gene Autry “Back in the Saddle”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSqcxFGFVas John Mayer: https://www.johnmayer.com/ Michael Bublé: https://www.michaelbuble.com/ Lady Antebellum: https://www.ladyantebellum.com/ Miranda Lambert: https://www.mirandalambert.com/ Patsy Cline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patsy_Cline Christina Perri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Perri US National Anthem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner Tom Petty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Petty Damien Rice: https://damienrice.com/ Red Hot Chili Peppers: https://redhotchilipeppers.com/ Ella Fitzgerald “Mac the Knife: Ella in Berlin 1960”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR1__k-BxhY Steely Dan “Gaucho”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaucho_(album) Beatles “Abbey Road”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_Road Beatles “Sargent Pepper”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band Iron & Wine: http://ironandwine.com/ Dessa: https://www.dessawander.com/

Our guest in this episode is a prolific writer and observer of the human condition, Chris Matyszczyk (pronounced ma-TIS-chick). We talked with Chris about a variety of topics including advertising, the psychology of who we are, including an unplanned psychoanalysis of Tim’s desire to be heard as a musician. We also talked about politics and referenced Brexit, life at Google and Facebook, and, hold the phone: how World War will be won by the best nerds. All of this got started because we saw an article Chris wrote that caught our attention. It was a topic we have discussed in the past: Music and its relationship to getting work done. Is music a stimulant to creativity or is it a buzz kill? Does it enhance the work experience or drown it out? You’ll have to listen to see what Chris has to say about this. In our grooving session, we focused on the dynamics of why we connect so easily with some people and others, not so much. And we also covered some of the challenges of a digital, high-social-media age where the lines of work and life might be more like how our ancient ancestors live: it’s just life. Or is it?  We hope you enjoy our conversation with Chris. And please share your thoughts with us and stay in touch. Links Chris Matyszczyk:https://www.zdnet.com/blog/technically-incorrect/ and https://www.inc.com/author/chris-matyszczyk and https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-matyszczyk-935b604/ Brexit: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brexit.asp John Cleese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese Fawlty Towers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcEws7il4EY On Privacy: “Privacy and human behavior in the age of information,“ by Alessandro Acquisti, Laura Brandimarte, and George Loewenstein https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/loewenstein/PrivacyHumanBeh.pdf Marvel comics: https://www.marvel.com/ Work-Life Balance was Episode 59 with Jeanie Whinghter and Afra Ahmad: https://behavioralgrooves.com/episode/jeanie-whinghter-and-afra-ahmad-balance-vs-harmony/ Charlotte Blank: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlotte-blank-52554a2/ Roger Dooley: https://www.rogerdooley.com/   Kurt Nelson: @motivationguru and https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwnelson/ Tim Houlihan: @THoulihan and https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-houlihan-b-e/ Check out the Behavioral Grooves website: https://behavioralgrooves.com/   Cold Play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coldplay Pink Floyd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd Ludwig Van Beethoven: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven Beethoven’s Violin Concerto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cg_0jepxow

Number 1: asking questions The easiest way to write an engaging headline is to make it in the form of a question. Questions always grab people’s attention and draw them into getting the answer. Research by Social Influence even goes as far as stating that headlines in the form of questions received 150% more clicks than headlines that just form a statement. And if you include the word “you” in a questioning headline it made it receive even 175% more clicks! Number 2: Giving an order Another great way to make your ad headline more powerful is when you use commands in your headlines to help inspire interest. Frances Ylana, a visual communications lecturer at the University of Texas suggests when crafting an effective Facebook ad headline, you should start by communicating the command or action you want your reader to take up front. It becomes even more powerful when you use the other elements of your ad like your visual, the descriptions etc. to paint the full picture. Number 3: Listing a benefit If you can show the benefits of your product or service to your user in a headline this can do wonders as well. Don’t automatically try to sell something to the reader, but rather try to help them. According to entrepreneur.com, a headline that clearly states how your offer will benefit the reader is a better way to drive clicks and conversions instead of just listing the features. Number 4: Inspiring curiosity Curiosity works great for headlines, according to George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, there is this concept called the curiosity gap or the gap between “what we know and what we don’t know”. The theory is based on the fact that if you only give a person half of the information, he or she likes to fill in the blank with new information. So how can you apply this to your Facebook ad headlines? Simple, for the reader of your ad it is almost painful to find out there is something they don’t know until they can fix it by learning something new. Number 5: Leveraging lists The last things we want to address is listicles. Maria Konnikova thinks that the reasons why listicles have grown so popular over the last couple of years have to do with how your brain works. When your brain sees some form of information, it tries to process what it is reading. Numbers are a great way to help break up all of the written content that you’re exposed to on a daily basis. ► If you need help growing your business check out our ad agency User Growth @ https://usergrowth.io/ ► Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/usergrowth/ ► Read more tips on our blog: https://usergrowth.io/blog/how-to-write-facebook-ad-copy-that-converts/

Russell Golman is an Assistant Professor of Behavioral Economics and Decision Sciences in the Social & Decision Sciences Department at CMU.  His pioneering, interdisciplinary work has been published in a wide range of academic journals, including Science Advances, Decision, the RAND Journal of Economics, the Journal of Economic Theory, the Journal of Economic Perspectives, and the Journal of Economic Literature.  In 2017 Professor Golman organized the Belief-Based Utility Conference at Carnegie Mellon with generous funding from the Russell Sloan Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Professor Golman was trained as a game theorist with a Mathematics Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.  But whereas game theorists usually assume that people making strategic decisions are hyper-rational, Russell wanted to acknowledge that real people are influenced by each other and sometimes make mistakes. They often care deeply about their beliefs, not just about material outcomes. And they rarely settle into an equilibrium in which everybody is static and content.  Russell’s research interests expanded into behavioral economics and behavioral decision research as well as complex adaptive systems and social dynamics.  He took a postdoc in Social and Decision Sciences at CMU, where Herb Simon first conceived of the concept of bounded rationality 50 years earlier.  Professor Golman joined the faculty here in 2012. We talked to Russell about information avoidance and curiosity and to what lengths people will strive for both. In our grooving session, Kurt and Tim discuss information avoidance from a corporate perspective and wonder, “what impact does a manager have when he or she avoids a difficult conversation?” We also talked about ways to reduce information avoidance in the working world and how incentives may help managers through tough situations. We hope you enjoy this episode in our Carnegie Mellon series with Russell Golman. Links Russell Golman: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/russell-golman.html CMU Social and Decision Sciences Department: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/ Carnegie Mellon University: https://www.cmu.edu/   Golman, Russell, David Hagmann, and George Loewenstein.  “Information Avoidance.” Journal of Economic Literature, 2017, 55: 96-135.Featured on The Academic Minute   Golman, Russell and George Loewenstein.  “Information Gaps: A Theory of Preferences Regarding the Presence and Absence of Information”  Decision, 2016, forthcoming.   Golman, Russell, George Loewenstein, Karl Ove Moene and Luca Zarri. “The Preference for Belief Consonance.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 2016, 30: 165-187.   GI Joe Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GimHHAID_P0 Herb Simon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality   Bluegrass music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluegrass_music Great Blue Heron Music Festival: https://greatblueheron.com/ Donna the Buffalo: https://donnathebuffalo.com/ Jam bands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_band The Pines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuuFampLC6E The Cactus Blossoms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj7jJk8TPZk   Kurt Nelson: @motivationguru and https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwnelson/ Tim Houlihan: @THoulihan and https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-houlihan-b-e/ Check out the Behavioral Grooves website:https://behavioralgrooves.com/

George Loewenstein, PhD is the Herbert A. Simon Professor of Economics and Psychology in the Social and Decision Sciences Department in the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University and is the director of the Center for Behavioral Decision Research. George received his PhD in economics from Yale but was always interested in topics outside of the field. At one point, he considered switching from economics to another major but was advised to remain: “We need you here,” he was told by a sage researcher. We’re glad he did. George may not be a household name, but he is a rockstar in the world of behavioral science. Nobel laureate Richard Thaler dedicated his last book, Misbehaving, to George, along with their colleague Colin Camerer. George’s insights into behavior and decision making are legendary and he is recognized as one of the founders of behavioral economics, in part because he was literally at the table when the field was named “behavioral economics.” During his career, George has indulged his curiosities in research projects that span an incredibly wide variety of topics including risk, confidence, the effects of feelings, emotions, wanting and enjoying sex, sequencing, preferences, bargaining, incentives, privacy, healthy behaviors, investing, empathy, and sympathy…to name but a few. George’s work has been cited nearly 100,000 times in published articles and peer-reviewed papers. He’s not only remarkably curious, but he’s also remarkably productive. His book of essays titled Exotic Preferences is a terrific read and provides some insight into this extremely talented man. We were excited to have George as a guest because his comments can be so insightful that they can be pondered for hours, and because he is so rarely recorded (and we are grateful to Linda Babcock for her support and participation in our conversation). We focused on some new work George is doing on the subject of boredom with a graduate student, Amanda Markey. We were surprised to learn that their work is breaking ground as there is no comprehensive functional theory for boredom.  And in the category of not knowing where a conversation might go, we compared individual experiences of boredom (and flow).   In our grooving session, we discussed some of the implications of boredom in the workplace and ways you could make meetings more successful. We also touched on the temporal nature of attention and George’s comment to “use it or lose it.” Finally, we returned to a favorite topic whether it’s a good idea to listen to music while we work. We hope you enjoy this rare recorded conversation with George Loewenstein.   Links George Loewenstein: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/george-loewenstein.html George’s H-Index: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8nyQzDsAAAAJ&hl=en Linda Babcock: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/linda-babcock.html Exotic Preferences: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/exotic-preferences-9780199257072?cc=us&lang=en& Carnegie Mellon University: https://www.cmu.edu/ CMU Social and Decision Sciences Department: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/ Center for Behavioral Decision Research: https://cbdr.cmu.edu/ Richard Thaler, PhD: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/directory/t/richard-h-thaler Colin Camerer: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~camerer/camerer.html Amanda Markey: https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-markey-026b5914/   Kurt Nelson: @motivationguru and https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwnelson/ Tim Houlihan: @THoulihan and https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-houlihan-b-e/ Listen to Behavioral Grooves: https://behavioralgrooves.podbean.com/

Picking an insurance plan is nearly impossible Although it is no surprise that picking an insurance plan is complicated, it turns out it is nearly impossible. A study by George Loewenstein at Carnegie Mellon reveals that a majority of Americans will choose a suboptimal plan. With access to a full analysis of all the costs and regulations, 80% of us can make a sound decision. Insurance companies drive up costs Insurance companies are not motivated to keep costs down because they can pass them on to us, their customers. Large hospital groups and pharmaceutical companies are also active participants in driving up costs. Patients and independent doctors have no influence in negotiating overall costs down. This is why premiums, deductibles, and co-pays are increasing. Be vigilant Always do good research before seeing a doctor to make sure you are in network and you understand how much you’ll need to pay out of your own pocket. Always double check the bills afterwards. Invariably, mistakes are made and it will take a lot of effort to rectify the error and not overpay. In cases of emergency this is extremely difficult. Remember that you can negotiate the rates with the hospital if you cannot pay the entire bill. Find out more: Dan Weissmann is a radio producer and reporter in Chicago. He’s got a strong nerd streak and an artsy side. He has won awards for investigative reporting, feature writing, column writing, and for producing and hosting live radio. Dan has worked as a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago’s WBEZ, and his work has appeared on NPR’s Morning Edition, the BBC, the Center for Investigative Reporting’s show Reveal, and 99 Percent Invisible.

David Yokum may not be a household name but that shouldn’t stop you from listening. If you’ve ever wondered about police officer body cameras and the effect they’re having on crime, policing and adjudication, we have David to thank for conducting the first major randomized study on the use of police officer body cameras. We came to know his work by a stroke of good fortune. He and Tim met as guests of George Loewenstein at the 2016 inauguration of Carnegie Mellon University’s undergraduate degree in Behavioral Economics. It was clear from the first handshake that David is not just another guy who’s curious about behavioral sciences. Even though he’s earned a law degree and a PhD in psychology, he’s not just another science geek. He’s a doer. When they were introduced, David was transitioning from the White House Social and Behavioral Science Team to be a founding member of The Lab @ DC, which resides in the Executive Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. Among their many accomplishments, David and his colleagues conducted the foundational study on the impact of police officer body cameras. They set out to understand how body cameras might influence the use of force, how the cameras might impact crime and how the cameras might impact the flow of cases through the courts. But they discovered much more. They realized that the context in which the study was rolled out mattered a great deal. The District of Columbia is not a static laboratory – it’s a city with nearly 4,000 law enforcement officers that represent a spectrum of quality, ability and experience on the job. Police officer training, police force reform, the urban crime environment, the population of the city, the support from other governmental agencies…all of these create a context that impacted the study’s results. David shared with us about how, at the launch of the study, the team considered how body cameras might create an effect to increase the perceived legitimacy of the police force. And in some cases that happened. They believed that pairing the body camera data with existing datasets would reveal great insights for potential changes to police work. However, even with the tremendous amount of adjudication data and the dreaded police reporting paperwork, known to every viewer of a television police drama, there were still surprises. They discovered that some of the correlations (and sometimes lack of correlations) on arrests and quality of adjudication simply weren’t what they expected. To some degree, they got a null result. On that level, David noted that the null effect was an important message that prompted deeper analysis. We wandered into a great discussion about the pratfalls of researchers relying too much on data, especially when they lack the ‘feet on the street’ view that comes from actually being in the field. All of this was predicated on the Lab@DC’s study on the capital city’s rat problem. The study changed for the better when the research team was enlightened with insights from the animal vector team and rat biology specialists. At this point in our discussion, David enthusiastically noted that you should never stop developing a study. A study needs to be open to new insights, new data points, new information and reflect the latest and best thinking of the team. A study isn’t a shiny, newly-minted penny…it’s a living, breathing thing. All this connected us with the fact that not all results from just any similar study will replicate in your situation. This led us to a note about David’s failed attempt to replicate Michael Hallsworth’s tax letter studies, which reinforced the need for regular and rigorous research from context to context. We were pleased to be conducting our discussion with David from Brown University, where he very recently assumed a post as an adjunct professor and has been tasked with establishing and directing a new center that will support applied public policy research with state and local governments. There is so much more to come from David Yokum! Of course, we ended our discussion on music and we laughed our way through comments about Eddie Vedder to South African pop artist Mathew Mole and into the lost art of making a mixtape. Today, music is curated digitally, created by computers observing our likes and dislikes. We don’t even need to select individual songs, just click a ‘create’ button. But in the days before digital music, mixtapes allowed listeners to enjoy their favorite album tracks in the order that they wanted to listen to them. They were used at parties or for private consumption. And, in some cases, mixtapes were created as love letters – providing that special someone with a curated musical story of how you felt about him or her. As technology changes, the world changes with it. For better or for worse, our human brains are huffing to keep up with that changing world. Our biases appear to be stuck in the context of a world that existed not 4 years ago, but 40,000 years ago. As long as we have a gap between our brain’s ability to process the contemporary world, we need science to help us understand it. We need people like David Yokum to do the hard work of figuring out how to apply the behavioral sciences to government.Yes, science is hard. And we have David Yokum to thank for contributing to a better understanding of how governmental policies can improve our daily lives.   PS: As of this writing, Behavioral Grooves is now listened to in more than 85 countries. We are pleased to have listeners around this wonderful world. Thank you all for sharing in our journey.

新知日历 | 喜马拉雅平台首档自制知识资讯类音频节目从专业人士演讲、权威学术期刊、社会热点文章，行业大数据平台，分析报告等各类来源提取新认知、新观点和新趋势，为用户提供每日高品质知识资讯。新认知 | 总有人会蜜汁乐观，你也不例外今天我们说一说乐观这件事。不知道你有没有过这样的心理？知道吸烟有害健康，却暗示自己：“我抽得并不多。”知道酒驾十分危险，却告诉自己：“我就开一小段，绝不会有问题。”我们总是认为坏事情不会发生在自己身上，这是因为，大脑形成了一种乐观偏见。神经科学表明，当被问到会不会离婚、生病、失业或者发生事故时，80%的人会低估这些事情发生在自己身上的可能性。以婚姻为例。在西方世界，离婚率大约是百分之四十，也就是说，每五对夫妻中，就有两对最终要闹到财产分割的地步。但是如果你问新婚夫妇他们离婚的几率是多少，他们肯定会回答你：“百分之零。”乐观偏见让我们觉得，自己没那么容易遭遇不幸；同时也让我们觉得，自己比别人更容易获得成功。比如，我们认为，自己比同龄人更加优秀，自己能活得更长寿，自己的孩子才华横溢，简直就是人们口中“别人家的小孩”。但其实，这些都是乐观偏见干的事。说到这，你可能会好奇，我们的大脑是如何运作的，才会让我们产生这种“谜之自信”呢？伦敦大学学院的神经学家，塔利·沙罗特（Tali Sharot）分享了她的研究成果。她对被试者进行了脑部核磁成像，然后发现大脑的左额下回，就是对好消息做出反应的区域之一，右额下回则负责应对坏消息。结果显示，一般人的左额下回都运转正常，问题出在右额下回，是它没能尽忠职守，才让我们对消极信息反应迟钝。更进一步，研究者想知道，如果干扰这些区域，会产生怎样的影响？于是，塔利·沙罗特（Tali    Sharot）和她的合作伙伴先是干扰了大脑接收消极信息的区域，此时右额下回更加消极怠工，被试者的乐观偏见变得更加严重。然而当他们干扰接收好消息的左额下回时，乐观偏见居然消失了。这让研究者感到震惊，原来，通过脑部刺激，我们可以去除这一根深蒂固的人类偏见。 好了，听到这，你也许会问，既然有科学的方法，我们要不要摧毁乐观偏见，不再心存幻想、高估好事情发生在自己身上的概率？因为有人认为，快乐的秘密，就是不要期望太高。如果我不期望自己拥有爱情、身体健康、获得成功，那么，即使我没得到这些，也不会感到特别失望。相反，如果我得到了，那就是惊喜。这个想法听起来很有道理，但其实是错误的，现在，我要跟你说一说乐观偏见的两个好处：首先，无论成功还是失败，期望高的人都会更加快乐。因为无论是失恋，还是当选明星员工，我们的感受都取决于如何解读这一事件。美国华盛顿大学（University of Washington）的心理学家玛格丽特·马歇尔（MargaretMarshall）和乔纳森·布朗（Jonathon   Brown）对大学生的期望值进行了研究。他们发现，当拥有高期望值的人获得成功时，他们会认为，是自己的能力造就了这样的结果。“我是天才， 所以我得了A，而且以后也会一直得 A。失败了也不代表我笨，不过是考试恰巧不公平而已。”但是，期望值低的人，他们的思维正好相反。他们会认为，考试失败是因为自己笨，成功是因为题目特别简单，下次自己就没这么幸运了。你看，不论结果好还是不好，缺乏乐观偏见的人，心理感受都很糟糕。乐观偏见的第二个好处，是无论结果如何，心怀期待的感觉本身就让我们感到快乐。美国行为经济学家乔治·洛文斯坦（George Loewenstein），请他的学生想象和一位名人接吻。然后他问：“如果立刻就得到接吻的机会，你愿意付多少钱？那三小时后呢？一天、三天、一年，甚至十年之后呢？”结果发现，三天后接吻，而非立刻接吻，价码最高。这说明，人们愿意为等待承担额外的费用。为什么呢？因为如果立刻得到这个吻，美妙的时刻就马上结束了。而三天似乎是个合适的等待时间，这三天里，你都会因为期待而惴惴不安，因为等待而激动不已，不断想象那一刻发生时的情景。因此，性情乐观的人会充满期待，而期待让人感到快乐。此外，乐观偏见还能让我们在困难面前坚持不懈。想想爱迪生的故事，即使得知自己的尝试可能毫无希望，也选择继续努力，可见，乐观偏见对于成功也是不可或缺的。总得来说，乐观偏见益处多多，它是人类大脑进化的结果，能在潜移默化中改变我们的行为，有益身心，提升幸福指数，最终让我们梦想成真。但同时，我们也不能忽视乐观偏见的缺陷。因为缺乏危机感，可能让我们过于冒险、缺乏谨慎，造成“盲目乐观”的恶果。所以，全面、长远地考虑问题，提高风险意识，未雨绸缪也是十分必要的。听到这里，我想你已经明白了，乐观偏见是把双刃剑。我们真正需要的，是在不成为乐观偏见受害者的同时，保持内心充满希望的状态，并享受乐观带来的种种好处。所以，善用乐观特性，规避乐观风险，成功才会离你更近一点。好了，这就是今天的新知日历，祝你心情愉快。Source：1.偏见也有积极乐观的一面2.乐观偏见：乐观是把双刃剑3.总有人会谜之乐观，你也不例外4.乐观的偏见——读《社会心理学》5.书摘|你的乐观未必是好事！撰稿 | 孙小婷主持人 | 褚笑，前中央人民广播电台主持人，《新知日历》节目总监制主编 | 韩悦思节目运营 | 柳婷婷专辑图视觉创意 | 贺归昀主视觉 | 李芳舟

Co-hosts Jan Rutherford and Jim Vaselopulos interview Becki Saltzman. Becki is a curiosity expert and an applied-curiosity trainer and consultant. In this interview, Jim, Jan and Becki discuss the nature of curiosity training vis-a-vis your curiosity muscle. Becki points out that asking additional questions is better than getting quick answers to obvious questions. Leaders can encourage innovation by fostering a culture of curiosity in their organization. Listen in to learn more about how peak curiosity can clarify your  vision and guide decisions.   Key Takeaways [4:03] Becki notes that you can control whether you are interested, more than whether you are interesting. If you are not interested in people, you don’t know about them, so you don’t know what will make you interesting to them. Curiosity can lead you to find uncommon commonalities with them. [4:50] Becki was raised by auctioneers, and attended hundreds of auctions, where she found a variety of people and objects to stimulate her curiosity. In graduate school she realized that curiosity was relegated to an ingredient in the greater studies of innovation and creativity. She chose to study it in its own right. [7:14] Becki tells leaders that curiosity is a muscle, to be exercised before judgment, criticism, fear, and complacency. Because it is a tool, peak curiosity is to be used in some, but not all, situations. [11:55] Becki talks about managing familiarity and heightening curiosity in a business setting, and also in a personal setting. When her son was hospitalized, instead of just accepting a nurse’s statement about a test, Becki engaged her curiosity to ask a critical question that made a big difference. [15:25] Becki distinguishes the difference between  free-range, basic curiosity vs. applied curiosity. Applied curiosity training concentrates on using curiosity as a tool in three areas: busting cognitive biases and brain bugs, creative problem-solving and innovation, and sales and influence. [17:26] George Loewenstein identified the information gap between what you want to know, and what you do know. Becki found gaps between what you do know and what you need to know, and between what you want to know and what you need to know. Thinking, before you whip out a cell phone to search, is enough to keep the curiosity gap alive. Easy information can make us think we know enough. [29:39] Elevating curiosity ahead of criticism, judgment, fear, and complacency is often enough to question why you make the decisions you make. Elevating curiosity makes your judgment more accurate. [31:59] Becki starts curiosity training by identifying your curiosity archetype, or how you default to using curiosity. Each archetype has its own set of cognitive biases, fueled by assumptions. Once your biases are identified, you can evaluate whether to use them or not, in making decisions. Familiarity and expectations are the basis of assumptions. [34:15] The minimum viable question in sales should be meaningful, unexpected, and not infused with any judgment. The reply is how you get your best information about the client or prospect. Becki’s MVQ is, “What did your childhood smell like?” [39:26] Becki employs Richard Feynman’s learning technique of taking something very familiar, and manipulating your sense of familiarity about it, to bring yourself to peak curiosity.   Books Mentioned in This Episode Living Curiously: How to Use Curiosity to Be Remarkable and Do Good Stuff, by Becki Saltzman Arousing the Buy Curious: Real Estate Pillow Talk for Patrons and Professionals, by Becki Saltzman "The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation," by George Loewenstein The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, by Peter M. Senge Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, by James Gleick. How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie   Bio Becki Saltzman holds a masters degree in behavioral science from Washington University in St. Louis, and has spent the last two decades studying curiosity and the role it plays in innovation & creativity, problem solving and decision-making, sales, and adventure. She is the author of Living Curiously: How to Use Curiosity to Be Remarkable and Do Good Stuff, and Arousing the Buy Curious: Real Estate Pillow Talk for Patrons and Professionals. She is a trainer & consultant, professional speaker, and ex-real estate broker and fashion buyer. Becki is the founder of the Living Curiously Lifestyle and creator of Applied-Curiosity, Peak Curiosity, and the Living Curiously Method — frameworks and teaching programs for using curiosity to accomplish remarkable things in work, adventure, and life. She is the spawn of master persuader auctioneers and breeder of boys. When she’s not traveling to speak about curiosity, Becki lives in Portland, Oregon with her husband. She loves great travel adventures, crowded dance floors, and brown drinks. Website: BeckiSaltzman.com Google: Join the Tribe of the Curious Facebook: Becki Saltzman Twitter: @BeckiSaltzman LinkedIn: Becki Saltzman

IPSR/NIA Workshop on Aging Session 3 - Decision Making in Aging Framing Talk     * Brian Knutson, Stanford - Decision making in aging: Emerging insights from affective neuroscience and neuroeconomics Exciting Findings     * Natalie Denburg, Iowa - Neural basis of decision making in aging     * Mara Mather, USC - Age and sex differences in the effects of stress on decision making     * JoNell Strough, West Virginia - No time to waste: Understanding why older adults are less subject to the sunk-cost fallacy     * George Loewenstein, Carnegie Mellon - Wanting and liking for sex by gender and age Open Discussion (Moderators: Bob Levenson and Lis Nielsen)

IPSR/NIA Workshop on Aging Session 3 - Decision Making in Aging Framing Talk     * Brian Knutson, Stanford - Decision making in aging: Emerging insights from affective neuroscience and neuroeconomics Exciting Findings     * Natalie Denburg, Iowa - Neural basis of decision making in aging     * Mara Mather, USC - Age and sex differences in the effects of stress on decision making     * JoNell Strough, West Virginia - No time to waste: Understanding why older adults are less subject to the sunk-cost fallacy     * George Loewenstein, Carnegie Mellon - Wanting and liking for sex by gender and age Open Discussion (Moderators: Bob Levenson and Lis Nielsen)

Sophie Freud, granddaughter of Sigmund Freud and mother of Carnegie Mellon Prof. George Loewenstein, discusses her book. "Living in the Shadow of the Freud Family" is about the life of her mother, who had a complex relationship with Sigmund Freud.