Fundamentally, when we value effort over outcome, we’re paying for incompetence.
Once we are painted as cheaters in our own eyes, we start behaving in more dishonest ways.
If I were to distill one main lesson from the research described in this book, it is that we are pawns in a game whose forces we largely fail to comprehend. We usually think of ourselves as sitting in the driver’s seat, with ultimate control over the decisions we make and the direction our life takes; but, alas, this perception has more to do with our desires-with how we want to view ourselves-than with reality.
If you want a social relationship, go for it, but remember that you have to maintain it under all circumstances.
Designers and copywriters were at the top of the moral flexibility scale, and the accountants ranked at the bottom. It seems that when “creativity” is in our job description, we are more likely to say “Go for it” when it comes to dishonest behavior.
This dynamic is key: We are, of course, constantly fighting the complex nature of money and our own failure to consider opportunity costs.
Which would you buy? A dress shirt priced at $60 or the very same dress shirt, priced at $100, but “On Sale! 40% off! Only $60!”?
Let me start with a fundamental observation: most people don’t know what they want unless they see it in context.
There’s an old saying, “One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.” Well, when you’re the owner, you’re at the ceiling; and when you’re the buyer, you’re at the floor.
The consultant experiment,” I continued, “showed that people dramatically underappreciate the extent and depth to which a feeling of accomplishment influences people.
Are these logical choices? No. Are they the right choices? Often not. Are they the easy choices? Absolutely. Most of us take the easy choice, most of the time. That’s one of our big problems.
Happiness too often seems to be less a reflection of our actual happiness and more a reflection of the ways in which we compare ourselves to others.
It shows that when we work harder and spend a bit more time and effort, we feel a greater sense of ownership and thus enjoy more the fruits of our efforts.
If corporations started thinking in terms of social norms, they would realize that these norms build loyalty and-more important-make people want to extend themselves to the degree that corporations need today: to be flexible, concerned, and willing to pitch in. That’s what a social relationship delivers.
Even the most brilliant and rational person, in the heat of passion, seems to be absolutely and completely divorced from the person he thought he was.
A society without trust isn’t a society: it’s a collection of people who are continuously afraid of each other.
Could it be that the potential to make something perfect increases our motivation? And could it be that when we are limited to just fixing something, our motivation is weakened? I suspect that this is the case, which means that maybe we should all start picking projects that are smaller, and more self-contained.
Leif and Tom found that, in general, when asked about their preferences for breaking up experiences, people want to disrupt annoying experiences but prefer to enjoy pleasurable experiences without any breaks. But following the basic principles of adaptation, Leif and Tom suspected that people’s intuitions are completely wrong. People will suffer less when they do not disrupt annoying experiences, and enjoy pleasurable experiences more when they break them up.
If we’re going to be friends with benefits, I want private health and dental.” Dear.
Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose. – Viktor E. Frankl.