If true, then it gives a strong argument for multitasking.

1. Define project #1 and give yourself a framework.
2. Shift to other projects for the rest of the day.
3. Sleep on problem #1 with good REM sleep
4. Return to problem #1.

My friend Dan Hawthorne, at Cogniphany, has taken my analysis one step further. In today’s blog post, he’s applied Robert Cialdini’s work on Influence to Seth’s announcement. It’s a very nice analysis. If you want to read about applying the psychology of influence, read here.

Related Post: Seth Godin Creates a Tribe through Social Capital

Being less bad will not save the world . . . the only way that you can move beyond zero and make a positive difference is by influencing others.

Tim’s specific point relates to talking about the green movement–reducing carbon, reducing waste, and avoiding harmful impacts. He encourages people to tell others what they’re doing to make a difference environmentally.

Tim’s point provides a clear example of the psychology of Influence–specifically the principle of social proof. Let’s look at it through the lens of Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive (Goldstein, Martin, and Cialdini).

You’ve probably seen the small signs in hotel rooms that politely ask you to reuse your towel.  The authors took this small card as an opportunity for a social psychology experiment.

When the card said “the majority of other guests in this hotel have reused their towel at least once during their stay” — there was a 26% increase in reuse over the industry standard.

When the card said “the majority of other guests in this room have reused their towel at least once during their stay”–there was an increase of 33% in reuse over the industry standard.

What difference does it make whether other guests have reused towels? Why should I care whether previous people in my room reused towels?

Language has power. Social proof has power. You can either be a drain or a positive influence. The first appraoch is easy. Just stay quiet. The second approach requires you to speak up and create influence.

When we reached the exit, it was actually mile marker 20–the average between the two guesses. I mention this story because it illustrates how powerful our “second thought” mechanism can serve us, if we know how to make use of it.

Ed Vul (of MIT) and Hal Pashler (of UC San Diego) published a study in Psychological Science that shows that the average of our first and second guess can be more accurate than either our first or second guess. Let’s look at my road-trip example.

• First guess–mile-marker 22
• Second guess–mile-marker 18
• Average of two guesses–mile marker 20 (exactly right)

It’s an interesting approach to making estimates. First, take your best guess, then pause a few minutes and reweigh the options. Your answer is probably close to the average of your two guesses.

If you want to learn more, check out the summary article in The Economist.

Scientists have shown that we put more value on an item because we can call it “mine.” It’s been named by researcher Richard Thaler as the “endowment effect.”

the endowment effect has been seen in hundreds of experiments, the most famous of which found that students were surprisingly reluctant to trade a coffee mug they had been given for a bar of chocolate, even though they did not prefer coffee mugs to chocolate when given a straight choice between the two.

Moreover, it is now possible to see the effect in the brain. In the June 12th edition of Neurone, Brian Knutson of Stanford University describes a brain-scanning study he carried out recently. The pattern and location of the activity he observed suggests the endowment effect works by enhancing the salience of possible loss. ["It's Mine I Tell You." Economist. June 9, 2008]

We invest more value into things because they are “ours.” I wouldn’t be surprised if that principle also causes us to hang onto things, even when a rational external perspective would tell us to let them go.

You might know someone who is a packrat. You may even know someone who clings to a pattern of behavior or an idea that has long past its usefulness.

The phrase “this is how I roll” provides an excuse for us to make irrational decisions and continue habit-formed behaviors.

An entrepreneur may cling to a business model longer than it remained viable. A person may remain in a marriage even though they know it has failed years ago. Yes, these behaviors come close to “sunk costs,” but they also differ because the person can say “It’s my business or even its my job.”

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? Well, it all depends on the value of the birds, doesn’t it? If bird in your hand is a seagull, and the ones in the bush are hyacinth macaws . . .

Michael S. Gazzaniga is a cognitive neuroscientist. In the June/July 2008 issue of Scientific American: Mind he writes that there are cases where our brains completely betray us.

Imagine the following experiment. There’s a light. 75% of the time, it will flash red. 25% percent of the time, it will flash green. However, each time, the color is selected randomly. There is no pattern.

People are asked to predict whether the red light or the green light will appear.

There are two possible strategies one can use: frequency matching or maximizing. Frequency matching would involve guessing red 75 percent of the time and guessing green 25 percent of the time. The problem is that the order of occurrence is entirely random it can result in a great deal of error–being correct only 50 percent of the time . . .

The second strategy, maximizing, involves simply guessing red every time. This ensures an accuracy rate of 75 percent because red appears 75 percent of the time. Animals such as rats and goldfish maximize. The “house” in Las Vegas” maximizes. Humans, on the other hand, match. The result is that nonhuman animals perform better than humans in this task.

Gazzaniga’s work focuses on patients who have had the hemispheres of their brain split (by severing the corpus callosum). It’s a good read, but let’s focus on the behaviorial implications.

Humans look for patterns, even when there aren’t fundamental patterns. We’re wired to seek order and have explanations (or rationalizations) for our choices.

How often do you spend time searching for a pattern when there is no underlying pattern?