There are two wolves inside of you: one's telling you to eat the chocolate cake, the other one's telling you to buy the ice cream

Hey Reader,

I'll start off with a statement that'll either make your hair stand on end or make you want to get drinks with me and discuss the futility of existence, the Universe, and whether or not we're ever going outside of the solar system.

Here we go.

Ready?

iPhones are not quite the best phones out there.

And yet, I own one.

Ducks are probably more rational than you (and I)

In an experiment from 1979, biologist D.G.C. Harper wanted to gain a better understanding of how rational Mallard ducks are when choosing how to forage.

So he sent two guys to feed bread balls to the ducks, every day. Each day, each of the experimenters ( gave the ducks a specific amount of bread balls, at specific intervals. For instance, E1 would give the ducks 8 bread balls every 3 minutes, and E2 would give them 16 bread balls minute.

The results were quite surprising. The ducks, animals with a very different brain structure (and size) than humans, made very rational choices. Almost like they had an embedded ChatGPT, they knew exactly which of the experimenters would provide them with more value (food.) What's even more shocking is that, although they competed against each other in the proverbial peck order, they behaved themselves and did not try to steal each other's food.

Can you say the same about humans?

The expected utility theory & decision-making

In classical economics, the expected utility theory says that to make a rational decision, an individual will consider all possible outcomes and calculate the expected utility of each one. This means that decisions are made weighing the likelihood of an outcome occurring with its perceived benefit or value to us.

Let's take an example. If you are offered a 50-50 chance to win $100 and lose $100, the expected utility calculation will result in an outcome of zero. However, this doesn't accurately reflect what most people would do in that situation. Most individuals would take the risk and go for it, showing that humans are not always rational decision-makers.

There are plenty of arguments against the expected utility theory:

• Reference points, status quo effects, and framing -- all of which can affect how "rational" your decision is regarding...anything
• Cardinality and measurability -- pretty much meaning that what you define as "valuable" might not be the same as what someone else defines as valuable
• The disapproval of the independence theory (which underlines the expected utility theory and says that the preference between A and B is not influenced by context, say, the existence of an A combined with a better option) -- which has been counter-argued the Allais paradox (which shows this "independence" is not always the case, especially when it comes to quick decisions.)

The question of the decade

We're not very rational animals, most of the times. I love my iPhone, but I know my beloved's Samsung does a far better job of taking pictures, particularly at night or when it comes to zooming in. I'm risk-averse too, which, in the expected utility theory's paradigm, means I'm very much a paradox: I won't risk my money for something that offers a fair gamble.

And yet... I am.

And you are likely doing it too. Maybe not with an iPhone. Maybe you like ice-cream, and even if you rationally KNOW it's bad for your health, you'll still get it next time you see it on discount. Maybe you'll buy a lottery ticket. Or go bungee jumping.

The fact that we aren't rational beings is a largely-known fact too. Everyone has read at least an article in a cheap psychology e-zine, explaining that we're driven by emotions, biases, and all sorts of other mental traps that do a great job in making us feel good about ourselves.

Then why are we treating creative thinking through a risk-averse, expected utility theory framework?

In car designs, most cars in the same category look more or less the same. An Audi and a Mercedes in the same class look alike, for example.

Logo design? Even massive brands, known for their creative approach, are now leaning towards the same fonts, styles, and colours.

Business? To keep up with the Joneses is the new black.

Marketing? Don't even get me started.

Oddly enough, science seems to be the only industry still taking risks. Bitcoin, AI, SpaceX... all of these are examples of things that were considered "risky" and "irrational" at the time they were proposed.

It's not the looming recession -- it's all been happening for years now.

It's not the searing heat of competition.

And it's not because we've run out of ideas.

It's just that creative thinking has taken a backseat to "safe" options, or what our perceived rationality tells us is the "right" way to do things.

Why is that?

I'll skip my "Let's Play" section this week, hoping to get some answers on this for you.

Random Fuel

• The only interesting thing I heard this week is that you should put warm food in the fridge and we've all been living a lie (still fact-checking on that.)

Like this, Reader?

Thank you! (Really.)

There are four ways you can help me keep going:

Come all you no hopers, you jokers and rogues
We're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes.

Octavia

113 Cherry St #92768, Dumbravita, Timis 307160
​Unsubscribe · Preferences​