Cialdini’s Heuristics
What were once vices are now habits.
Juvenal (Roman poet)
******************
It Don’t Come Easy
Wise decisions result in a wise life, and a wise life is as good as it gets.
Making wise decisions does not come naturally.[1]
If they did, Lee would not have attacked at Gettysburg; Custer would have bypassed Little Big Horn; Julius Caesar would have stayed home on the ides of March; neither Napoleon nor Hitler would have invaded Russia; and divorce lawyers would all be chasing ambulances.
Because wise decision-making may make the difference between life and death, it transcends other topics on which we could spend our precious time.
I plan to address how we can improve our decision-making in a series of short articles.
Along the way, I will address the concept of “blunders” (the antithesis of the wise decision).
In recent years, we have learned that to make wise decisions, we must understand two concepts: heuristics and cognitive biases.
They sound complicated, but they are not.[2]
Heuristics
In the early 80s, Daniel Kahneman popularized the term “heuristics” in Thinking Fast & Slow, for which he won a Nobel Prize.
A heuristic is simply a mental shortcut.
A doctor applies heuristics when he spends ten minutes with a patient (generous these days) and diagnoses him as diabetic without any form of testing because the patient exhibits signs of diabetes the doctor has seen in dozens of diabetics before.
A woman uses heuristics when she trusts a man only because he looks like her trustworthy father.
Heuristics suffer from two weaknesses: (1) they are not always accurate, and (2) over time, they become biases embedded in our decision-making processes like a council of ignorant voices who repeat the same mistakes repeatedly.
You might catch a heuristic before it grows into a cognitive bias, but once it does, you will literally not think twice about a decision related to the bias.[3]
You will then veer away from wise decision-making and towards a blunder.
We can do better.
To understand why, let’s start by examining why we use heuristics in the first place.
System One and System Two Thinking
One of Kahneman’s great discoveries is that the mind either reacts immediately (“System One Thinking”) or analyzes until exhaustion (“System Two Thinking”).
System One thinking:
· You are driving down the road, and a kid runs out into the road. You swerve or hit your brakes automatically.
· You walk in on your spouse in flagrante delicto with your cousin. You react badly (use your imagination from there).
System Two Thinking:
· Divide 7,233.5 by 16 without using a calculator.
· Should I get married (or divorced)?
System Two problems involve multiple factors and require time-consuming analysis.
One of the problems with System Two is that it is lazy.
And, in fairness, modern life does not afford us the time to do thorough due diligence for many System Two problems.
That is why we use heuristics.
Cialdini’s Heuristics
Dr. Robert Cialdini, a professor at Arizona State University, admittedly and unashamedly borrowed heavily from Kahneman.
He applied the concept of heuristics to the issue of how we fools get duped into making unwise decisions.
In Influence: The Science of Persuasion[4], Cialdini describes situations in which we rely on heuristics and tend to say “yes” in predictable situations such as those described below.
Reciprocity: When someone does you a favor, you have an unconscious desire to pay them back.
What do you do when you get a Holiday card from someone you haven’t heard from in a while?
You send one back without thinking.[5]
People persuade us more easily if we think we owe them one, even though that is not a valid basis for making wise decisions.
Commitment and Consistency: Fundraisers understand that if they can get you to make a $2.00 donation to “Citizens Against Immigrants” (or “Citizens For Immigrants”), they can call back (or text back) in a week or so and ask for $5.00. You will probably say “yes” without thinking.
Consistency is not a valid basis for making wise decisions, but we have a natural urge to be consistent.
Social Proof: What do you do if you walk down a sidewalk and see a bunch of people looking up at a tall building (like maybe someone will jump)? You automatically look up.
We are social animals.
Be careful about using social proof as a heuristic. Remember what your mother told you when you were a kid and wanted to do something because all the other kids were doing it: “If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it?”
Authority:
WARNING! SOAP BOX ALERT![6]
“Hi! My name is Lynda. I’ve been working in this neighborhood for years. I know what houses go for here. Look! I have comps! And I’m your really attractive friend. Didn’t you go to my high school?”
Experience plus comps makes Lynda appear to be an “authority.”
But does it?
Her attractive appearance is also influential, as discussed below.
Many people buy into whatever the realtor believes the listing price should be, when it should be reduced, and so on.
One problem here is that Lynda is that Lynda is not a certified appraiser; she is a faux expert.
Another problem is that Lynda has a conflict of interest. She may be working for her client, but she is also working for herself, and those interests may conflict, especially if Lynda is behind on her Mercedes payments.
To make a wiser decision about a real estate transaction, get an independent appraiser to value your real estate before you list it.
Financial planners – same deal – many faux-experts with conflicts of interest.
They act like they have only your best interests in mind.
But how many financial planners advise people to hold large chunks of cash? Hint: none.
“Trust me. Give me all your money, and I will invest it for you (and charge a management fee or commissions for “repositioning” your assets).”
If you want to make wise decisions with your personal finances, have one financial planner prepare a plan and another implement it.
Using authority as a heuristic can be pernicious.
If someone can convince you that they are an expert, you tend to get “lazy brain” and rely on them.
They may be a faux expert, or they may be an incorrect expert.
Regardless, relying on them will lead to a dubious rather than a wise decision.
Liking: Our realtor, Lynda, knew she would be more influential if she were attractive and could find common ground with the client (in this case, going to the same high school).
There is science to support this.
To make wise decisions, you must use “cognitive distancing” and not get entranced by looks or common interests.
Scarcity:
“This jewelry is handmade. The jeweler made these last pieces before he jumped into the volcano.”
“Elvis played this guitar in 1957.”
Many of us make unwise purchases because of unfounded representations of scarcity.
Antidotes
· Be skeptical (“Elvis” who?).
· “Thanks for the incense, but I will still not donate to your temple.”
· Use a little of System Two. The pain of thinking does not last long, and it can make the difference between wise and foolish decisions.
· Many decisions are unwise because they are impulsive. [7] When confronting an “influencer,” your mantra should be, “Let me think about that and get back to you.” [8]
My Favorite Heuristic: The “TMB Rule”
Whenever I am in a relationship, whether it be professional or personal, and some little voice in my head says, “This is too much bullshit,” [9] I ask System Two to step up while I start looking for the exit ramp.
To be continued
[1] Yet, so many of us act as they do.
[2] They can overlap; if you are a theoretical person, that can get messy.
[3] As the Toltecs say, this becomes your “Book of Law.”
[4] a must-read for all negotiators.
[5] Admit it!
[6] I forced myself to cut about 500 words here. I hear so many instances of people taking the advice of so-called “experts” that it frightens me. Widows and widowers may pay attention here! You are vulnerable, and the influencers know it.
[7] More about this when I get to blunders.
[8] Except for moral issues. If someone is being abused, you need to be swift and decisive, especially if it is you!
[9] OK, you prudes: “Too much trouble.”