Recent Classification of Human Beings

Today I would like to share the results of recent study about the classification of human beings.

People can be classified into four basic personality types: optimistic, pessimistic, trusting and envious, a new study on human behavior has found.

Envious, is the most common, with 30 percent compared to 20 percent for each of the other three groups, researchers said.

The study, including researchers from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid in Spain, analysed the responses of 541 volunteers to hundreds of social dilemmas, with options leading to collaboration or conflict with others, based on individual or collective interests.

"Those involved are asked to participate in pairs, these pairs change, not only in each round, but also each time the game changes," said Anxo Sanchez, one of the authors of the study.

"So, the best option could be to cooperate or, on the other hand, to oppose or betray ..... In this way, we can obtain information about what people do in very different social situations," said Sanchez.

"The results go against certain theories; the one which states that humans act purely rationally for example, and, therefore, they should be taken into consideration in redesigning social and economic policies, as well as those involved in cooperation," said Yamir Moreno, from Universidad de Zaragoza in Spain.

After carrying out this kind of social experiment, the researchers developed a computer algorithm which set out to classify people according to their behaviour.

The algorithm organised 90 percent of people into four groups: the largest group, accounting for 30 percent, being the envious - those who don't actually mind what they achieve, as long as they're better than everyone else; the optimists - who believe that they and their partner will make the best choice for both of them - on 20 percent.

Also on 20 percent were the pessimists - who select the option which they see as the lesser of two evils - and the trusting group - who are born collaborators and who will always cooperate and who do not really mind if they win or lose.

There is a fifth, undefined group, representing 10 percent, which the algorithm is unable to classify in relation to a clear type of behaviour, researchers said.

They noted that this allows them to infer the existence of a wide range of subgroups made up of individuals who do not respond in a determined way to any of the outlined models.

The study was published in the journal Science Advances.

Stochastic Probability Theory

Consider this scenario: In a remote forest, a pregnant deer is about to give birth to a baby. It finds a remote grass field near by a river and slowly goes there thinking it would be safe. As she moves slowly, she gets labor pain…. at the same moment, dark clouds gather around that area and lightning starts a forest fire. Turning left she sees a hunter who is aiming an arrow from a distance. As she tries to move towards right, she spots a hungry lion approaching towards her.

Stochastic Probability Theory - Pregnant Deer Scenario
What can the pregnant deer do ….as she is already under labor pain ?
…
…
…
What do you think will happen ?
Will the deer survive ?
Will it give birth to a fawn ?
Will the fawn survive ? or
Will everything be burnt by the forest fire ?
…
…
…
…

That particular moment ?
…
…
…

Can the deer go left ? – Hunter’s arrow is pointing

Can she go right ? – Hungry male lion approaching

Can she move up ? – Forest fire

Can she move down ? – Fierce river


Answer: She does nothing. She just focuses on giving birth to a new LIFE.

The sequence of events that happens at that fraction of a second (moment) are as follows:

In a spur of MOMENT …a lightning strikes (already it is cloudy ) and blinds the eyes of the Hunter. At that MOMENT, he releases the arrow missing and zipping past the deer. At that MOMENT the arrow hits and injures the lion badly. At that MOMENT, it starts to rain heavily and puts out the forest fire. At that next MOMENT, the deer gives birth to a healthy fawn.

In our life, it’s our MOMENT of CHOICE and we all have to deal with such negative thoughts from all sides always. Some thoughts are so powerful they overpower us and makes us clueless. Let us not decide anything in a hurry. Let’s think of ourselves as the pregnant deer with the ultimate happy ending. Anything can happen in a MOMENT in this life. If you are religious, superstitious, atheist, agnostic… or whatever… you can attribute this MOMENT as divine intervention, faith, sudden luck, chance (serendipity), coincidence… or a simple ‘don’t know’. We all feel the same. But, whatever one may call it, I would see the priority of the deer in that given moment was to giving birth to a baby…. because LIFE IS PRECIOUS.
Hence, whether you are deer or a human, keep that faith and hope within you always.

Are you Planning for the future?

There was a kingdom and the kings were elected once in every five years.

No one wanted to become the king there since they had a custom of leaving each king after his period of five years in a dangerous forest nearby. No one survived in that forest so far.

One man volunteered to become a king. He was enjoying his five years as a king and the day came to set him inside the dangerous forest.

He happily came forward to go to the forest. All others were confused why this man was so happy to get into the forest. One asked him why he is so happy to die. 

The King replayed, "I knew clearly about our custom. So, in the first year, I sent 100 soldiers to kill all the dangerous animals in the forest. In the second year, I sent 500 wood cutters to cut all the trees. In the third years I sent 1000 farmers to turn the forest into a cultivating land. In the fourth year I sent 2000 villagers to build houses there and settle there. In the fifth year I built a palace there. Now, there is a new kingdom is waiting for me. Why should I worry?"..

Anchoring Effect

Today I would like to share some information about something called “Anchoring Effect”.

Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions.

In 1974, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman conducted a study on this matter. They asked people to estimate how many African countries were part of the United Nations, but first they spun a wheel of fortune. The wheel was painted with numbers from 0 to 100, but rigged to always land on 10 or 65. When the arrow stopped spinning, they asked the person in the experiment to say if they believed the percentage of countries was higher or lower than the number on the wheel. Next, they asked people to estimate what they thought was the actual percentage. They that found people who landed on 10 in the first half of the experiment guessed around 25 percent of Africa was part of the U.N. Those who landed on 65 said around 45 percent. The subjects had been locked in place by a psychological phenomenon known as the anchoring effect.

The trick here is no one really knew the true answer. They had to guess, yet it didn’t feel like a guess. As far as they knew, the wheel was a random number generator, but it produced something concrete to work from. When they adjusted their estimates, they couldn’t avoid the anchor.

“Anchoring Effect” –Another Experiment:

The anchoring effect can also slip in unannounced. Drazen Prelec and Dan Ariely conducted an experiment at MIT in 2006 where they had students bid on items in a bizarre auction. Ariely explains in his book, Predictably Irrational, that the researchers would hold up a bottle of wine, or a textbook, or a cordless trackball and then describe in detail how awesome it was. Then, each student had to write down the last two digits of their social security number as if it was the price of the item. If the last two digits were 11, then the bottle of wine was priced at $11. If the two numbers were 88, the cordless trackball was $88. After they wrote down the pretend price, they bid. Sure enough, the anchoring effect scrambled their ability to judge the value of the items. People with high social security numbers paid up to 346 percent more than those with low numbers. People with numbers from 80 to 99 paid on average $26 for the trackball, while those with 00 to 19 paid around $9.

The auction experimenters conducted another study in which they asked people to listen to annoying sounds for money. The researchers initially offered either 90 cents or 10 cents for a blast of awful electronic screaming, and then they asked the subjects how much would be the lowest possible price they would need to be paid to listen to the sound again. People who were offered 10 cents said it would take about 33 cents to continue. People offered 90 said it would take 73. They repeated the experiment in other ways, but no matter how they messed with the sounds or the payouts, those who were first offered a low payment consistently agreed to lower amounts than those used to better wages. People who got more money at first were unwilling to accept lower payments later.

The Duck with a Human Mind

I came across a beautiful article called "The Duck with a Human Mind" in internet.I am highly impressed with it and decided to share it in my blog.It reads as follows:

If two ducks get into a fight, it will never lasts long, they will separate and float off in opposite directions. Then each duck will flap its wings vigorously a few times, thus releasing the surplus energy that built up during the fight. After they flap their wings, they float on peacefully, as if nothing had ever happened.

If the duck had a human mind, it would keep the fight alive by thinking, by story-making. This would probably be the duck's story:" I don't believe what he just did. He came to within five inches of me. He thinks he owns this pond. He has no consideration for my private space. I'll never trust him again. Next time he'll try something else just to annoy me. I'm sure he's plotting something already. But I'm not going to stand for this. I'll teach him a lesson he won't forget". And on and on the mind spins its tales, still thinking and talking about it days, months, or years later.

 As far as the body is concerned, the fight is still continuing, and energy it generates in response to all those thoughts is emotion, which in turn generates more thinking. This become the emotional thinking of the ego. You can see how problematic the duck's life would become if it had a human mind. But this is how most humans live all the time. No situation or event is ever really finished. The mind and the mind-made " me and my story" keep it going.

We are a species that has lost its way. Everything natural, every flower or tree, and every animal have important lessons to teach us if we would only stop, look and listen. Our duck's lesson is this: Flap your wings - which translates as " let go of the story"- and return to the only place of power: the present moment.

Employee Engagement in an innovative way

The CEO of one company was determined that his employees understand the issues surrounding the company’s recent poor results and become fully engaged to help turn the company around. Here’s how he accomplished this. 

 The company held four brown bag lunch meetings over four weeks where employees could attend for free for one hour and hear from an outside professional about how to invest in the share market. Importantly, there was no obvious link between the meeting topic and the organization the employees worked for. At week three, they were analyzing annual reports and generally deciding whether they would invest in a particular company based on the information contained in the report. By the fourth week they were given another annual report and asked the same question, “would you invest in this company?” The answer was overwhelmingly no. And of course this last company was the one they all worked for, which brought them to the “Aha!” moment. Now the organization’s employees understood and were engaged and ready to become involved in turning the company around through teamwork and new initiatives.

Gold or Silver?

Once lived a great mathematician in a village outside Ujjain. He was often called by the local king to advice on matters related to the economy. His reputation had spread as far as Taxila in the North and Kanchi in the South. So it hurt him very much when the village headman told him, “You may be a great mathematician who advises the king on economic matters but your son does not know the value of gold or silver.” The mathematician called his son and asked, “What is more valuable – gold or silver?”“Gold,” said the son. “That is correct. Why is it then that the village headman makes fun of you, claims you do not know the value of gold or silver? He teases me every day. He mocks me before other village elders as a father who neglects his son. This hurts me. I feel everyone in the village is laughing behind my back because you do not know what is more valuable, gold or silver. Explain this to me, son.” So the son of the mathematician told his father the reason why the village headman carried this impression. “Every day on my way to school, the village headman calls me to his house. There, in front of all village elders, he holds out a silver coin in one hand and a gold coin in other. He asks me to pick up the more valuable coin. I pick the silver coin. He laughs, the elders jeer, everyone makes fun of me. And then I go to school. This happens every day. That is why they tell you I do not know the value of gold or silver.” The father was confused. His son knew the value of gold and silver, and yet when asked to choose between a gold coin and silver coin always picked the silver coin. “Why don’t you pick up the gold coin?” he asked. In response, the son took the father to his room and showed him a box. In the box were at least a hundred silver coins. Turning to his father, the mathematician’s son said, “The day I pick up the gold coin the game will stop. They will stop having fun and I will stop making money.” Sometimes in life, we have to play the fool because our seniors and our peers, and sometimes even our juniors like it. That does not mean we lose in the game of life. It just means allowing others to win in one arena of the game, while we win in the other arena of the game. We have to choose which arena matters to us and which arenas do not.