Schulz starts with one underlying question: Why do we love being right? Is it for sport or some other deep seated need, she writes, “unlike many of life’s other delights — chocolate, surfing, kissing — it does not enjoy any mainline access to our biochemistry: to our appetites, our adrenal glands, our limbic systems, our swoony hearts.” but that’s not quite the case she continues, “we can’t enjoy kissing just anyone, but we can relish being right about almost anything,” including that which we’d rather be wrong about, like “the downturn in the stock market, say, or the demise of a friend’s relationship or the fact that at our spouse’s insistence, we just spent 15 minutes schlepping our suitcase in exactly the opposite direction from our hotel.”
Isn’t the way marketers explain how to capture customers some of the oddest verbiage out there? The old mousetrap technique.
Here is the big problem with the state of mouse. These little squeaky things they’ve gotten intelligent and somehow they have evolved. So that spring loaded mousetrap with the cheese you have in the basement hasn’t even been touched and if it has it’s been dismantled without you even noticing.
[this post is a combination of a few ideas from my book I’m steadfastly working to complete]
When the internet really got going the ability to be anonymous was really the natural state of interaction. As the web has matured this ability has slowly eroded. For social scientists, social anthropologists, and just plain old people watchers this is a burgeoning market.
I would argue that we used to be able to classify people in three parts. The person you are at home, the person you are at work, and the person you are online. These different persona’s are quickly coming to an end. As we take our real world connections and connect online suddenly this opens up the ability to build out a full 360 degree person.
There is a lot of conversation about what this means for people, transparency, the future of the workplace, and that it will foster a better society. The more open we are the more likely we are all going to act responsibly. That’s great but I just don’t find that interesting. Here’s what I find interesting…
I really enjoy reading ‘why people buy’ books. The author Martin Lindstrom decided to take on the largest scientific and most expensive study on buyer behavior worldwide to answer some of these questions.
In the last chapter the author Dan Airely talks about a study he did involving how people order food or drinks.
Essentially what he found is when we make public what we would like, even in this close trusted environment, that this effects each individual persons order.
But in strange ways. The first person to order is generally more happy with what they order, essentially because they got what they wanted. But as you go down the line what you find is people tend to have a strong need to be individualistic.