Maximilian Ringelmann, a French engineer, studied the performance of horses in 1913. He concluded that the power of two animals pulling a coach did not equal twice the power of a single horse. Surprised by this result, he extended his research to humans. He had several men pull a rope and measured the force applied by each individual. On average, if two people were pulling together, each invested just 93 percent of his individual strength, when three pulled together, it was 85 percent, and with eight people, just 49 percent.
Science calls this the social loafing effect. It occurs when individual performance is not directly visible; it blends into the group effort. It occurs among rowers, but not in relay races, because here, individual contributions are evident. Social loafing is rational behavior: Why invest all of your energy when half will do—especially when this little shortcut goes unnoticed? Quite simply, social loafing is a form of cheating of which we are all guilty even if it takes place unconsciously, just as it does with the horses.
Why Evil Is More Striking Than Good: Loss Aversion
On a scale of 1 to 10, how good do you feel today? Now consider what would bring you up to a perfect 10. That vacation in the Caribbean you’ve always dreamed of? A step up the career ladder, maybe? Next question: What would make you drop down by the same number of points? Paralysis, Alzheimer’s, cancer, depression, war, hunger, torture, financial ruin, damage to your reputation, losing your best friend, your children getting kidnapped, blindness, death? The long list of possibilities makes us realize just how many obstacles to happiness exist; in short, there are more bad things than good—and they are far more consequential.
How to Relieve People of Their Millions: Induction
A farmer feeds a goose. At first, the shy animal is hesitant, wondering: “What’s going on here? Why is he feeding me?” This continues for a few more weeks until, eventually, the goose’s skepticism gives way. After a few months, the goose is sure: “The farmer has my best interests at heart.” Each additional day’s feeding confirms this. Fully convinced of the man’s benevolence, the goose is amazed when he takes it out of its enclosure on Christmas Day—and slaughters it. The Christmas goose fell victim to inductive thinking, the inclination to draw universal certainties from individual observations. Philosopher David Hume used this allegory back in the eighteenth century to warn of its pitfalls. However, it’s not just geese that are susceptible to it.
Why the Wheel of Fortune Makes Our Heads Spin: The Anchor
When was Abraham Lincoln born? If you don’t know the year off the top of your head, and your smartphone battery has just died, how do you answer this? Perhaps you know that he was president during the Civil War in the 1860s and that he was the first U.S. president to be assassinated. Looking at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, you don’t see a young, energetic man but something more akin to a worn-out sixty-year-old veteran. The memorial must depict him at the height of his political power, say, at the age of sixty. Let’s assume that he was assassinated in the mid-1860s, making 1805 our estimate for the year he was born. (The correct answer is 1809.) So how did we work it out? We found an anchor to help us—the year 1865—and worked from there to an educated guess.
Why the “Balancing Force of the Universe” Is Baloney: Gambler’s Fallacy
In the summer of 1913, something incredible happened in Monte Carlo. Crowds gathered around a roulette table and could not believe their eyes. the ball had landed on black twenty times in a row. Many players took advantage of the opportunity and immediately put their money on red. But the ball continued to come to rest on black. Even more people flocked to the table to bet on red. It had to change eventually! But it was black yet again—and again and again. It was not until the twenty-seventh spin that the ball eventually landed on red. By that time, the players had bet millions on the table. In a few spins of the wheel, they were bankrupt.
When You Hear Hoofbeats, Don’t Expect a Zebra: Base-Rate Neglect
Mark is a thin man from Germany with glasses who likes to listen to Mozart. Which is more likely? That (a) Mark is a truck driver or (b) he is a professor of literature in Frankfurt. Most will bet on B, which is wrong. Germany has ten thousand times more truck drivers than Frankfurt has literature professors. Therefore, it is more likely that Mark is a truck driver. So what just happened? The detailed description enticed us to overlook the statistical reality. Scientists call this fallacy base-rate neglect: a disregard of fundamental distribution levels. It is one of the most common errors in reasoning. Virtually all journalists, economists, and politicians fall for it on a regular basis.
Why the Last Cookie in the Jar Makes Your Mouth Water: Scarcity Error
Coffee at a friend’s house. We sat trying to make conversation while her three children grappled with one another on the floor. Suddenly, I (Rolf Dobelli) remembered that I had brought some glass marbles with me—a whole bag full. I spilled them out on the floor, in the hope that the little angels would play with them in peach. Far from it: A heated argument ensued. I didn’t understand what was happening until I looked more closely. Apparently, among the countless marbles, there was just one blue one, and the children scrambled for it. All the marbles were exactly the same size and shiny and bright. But the blue one had an advantage over the others—it was one of a kind. I had to laugh at how childish children are!
Why You’ll Soon Be Playing Mega Trillions: Neglect of Probability
Two games of chance: In the first, you can win $10 million, and in the second, $10,000. Which do you play? If you win the first game, it changes your life completely: You can quit your job, tell your boss where to go, and live off the winnings. If you hit the jackpot in the second game, you can take a nice vacation in the Caribbean, but you’ll be back at your desk quick enough to see your postcard arrive. The probability of winning is one in 100 million in the first game, and one in 10,000 in the second game. So which do you choose?
Our emotions draw us to the first game, even though the second is ten times better, objectively considered (expected win times probability). Therefore, the trend is toward ever-larger jackpots—Mega Millions, Mega Billions, Mega Trillions—no matter how small the odds are.
