Play the Game of Life
Ryan Petersen's Blog

Studies show that people regret their failures to act far more than actions actually taken, but that they predict that they will regret actions more than inactions (See Stumbling on Happiness, by Dan Gilbert, page 197).

The implication?

Do something courageous today. Ignore that inner voice telling you that you'll regret it. It's almost certainly wrong.

Labels: courage, psychology

As regular readers of this blog know, I enjoy traveling more than just about anything. But more than just the urge to visit new places, I am infected with notion that sitting still in one place--any place--is boring. So I've long been struck by the fact that so many of my friends and members of my extended family are completely content staying in the same place year after year.

Upon further reflection, however, it's clear that I am the exception to what is entirely normal behavior conditioned by millions of years of human evolution. The "towny" instinct to stay at home is the natural result of an evolutionary process in which those who wandered were exposed to more danger than those who stayed at home. Until the last few centuries, our ancestors never wandered two or three miles from their place of birth. It's myself and other travelers who have caught the idea virus; it's us who have been infected by the travel meme which runs counter to all the genetic conditioning that served us so well.

Yet today's world is shaped far more by ideas--themselves the result of non-genetic evolutionary processes--than by genetics. Those with the ability to adapt more quickly to the changing world will be those who achieve the most success in this ever-changing fitness landscape. Its these intellectual explorers--not necessarily their geographic counterparts--who will unlock the gates of success in this new world.

Labels: evolution, evolutionary biology, psychology, Strange Questions

Today in Leadership class we learned about an interesting study about the expected versus actual effects of monetary incentives on blood donations. The research was carried out by Dale Miller, who compared the percentage of people agreeing to donate blood voluntarily with the percentage when offered $15. He then asked an independent group what they thought would be the results from the two offers. People asked to guess said they thought 30% would donate voluntarily versus 70% when offered $15. In fact, it was exactly even at 65% each.

This was used by Professor Frank Flynn to highlight the notion that many managers believe people are primarily motivated by money, when in fact there are other motivating factors such as contribution, feeling good about yourself, accomplishing something worthwhile, developing skills and learning new things.

Labels: Columbia Business School, psychology, Strange Questions