A QA engineer walks into a bar. Orders a beer. Orders 0 beers. Orders 99999999999 beers. Orders a lizard. Orders -1 beers. Orders a ueicbksjdhd.@brenankeller on Twitter:
People want to share their experiences with their social circles, even if nobody gives them money for it.
There are many reasons for this, from wanting to look like the most informed person in the community to simply wanting to help others. In fact, being selfless is so important to some of us that financial incentives can hinder our willingness to recommend a product to our friends.
And here we have the marketer’s conceptual dilemma. Can they make a referral look like an organic, word-of-mouth type of invite?
Consider the following sentence: “You will both get 10% off your next order.”
By rephrasing it to “You’ll get 10% off your next order. Your friend will also get 10% off their next order,” we haven’t changed the meaning of the sentence. The offer is still the same; the person sending the referral and their invitee each get exactly 10% discount, yet in an A/B test, each message will usually yield different results.
What many experiments find is that a pro-social emphasis will see better results. Interestingly, we often see that more people will submit to a campaign that says “Your friend gets 10% off their next order, and you’ll also get 10% off.” Why this happens is anybody’s guess, but it might be because the phrasing does a better job of reducing the amount of guilt a referrer may feel for being rewarded.
A “Boston marriage” was, historically, the cohabitation of two wealthy women, independent of financial support from a man. The term is said to have been in use in New England in the late 19th/early 20th century. Some of these relationships were romantic in nature and might now be considered a lesbian relationship; others were not.
In 1930, John Maynard Keynes wrote an essay titled, “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” in which the economist attempted to predict the future during the bottom years of the Great Depression. Keynes wrote that within 100 years (by 2030), humanity would be so much more technologically advanced that the problem of scarcity would already be solved, and we would only have to work 15 hours a week.
Then, the anthropologist James Suzman spent 30 years studying and living with one of the world’s enduring hunter-gatherer societies. His work with the Ju/’hoansi people in southern Africa has provided a unique lens into our modern obsession with work.
As Suzman writes in his new book, Work: A Deep History, From the Stone Age to the Age of Robots, hunter-gatherer societies spent only about 15 hours a week meeting their material needs. Despite being deeply impoverished by modern standards, they considered themselves affluent.
It just so happens that, in our modern urban world, there actually isn’t a whole lot of life outside of work for most people. Some of the hardest working people are actually the ones who should have to work the least. It’s as if the reward for work were more work.
It’s not only you. When Bill Gates was asked about work-life balance at a conference, he said, “I never took a day off in my twenties. Not one.”
Mere opinions, in fact, were as likely to govern people’s actions as hard evidence, and were subject to sudden reversals as hard evidence could never be. So the Galapagos Islands could be hell in one moment and heaven in the next, and Julius Caesar could be a statesman in one moment and a butcher in the next, and Ecuadorian paper money could be traded, for food, shelter and clothing in one moment and line the bottom of a birdcage in the next, and the universe could be created by God Almighty in one moment and by a big explosion in the next — and on and on.
— Kurt Vonnegut in Galapagos
A few years ago, we built a startup headquartered in Rome. Everyone on the team was Italian except for me, the only outsider welcomed into this dolce vita. I quickly learned what seemed to be the most important rule in negotiations: first we eat, then we talk business.
Italians seem to have learned that hungry people make bad decisions, probably in much the same way that tired people do. And the easiest way to make sure you and your negotiation partners are both well fed? Take everyone out for lunch.
All roads lead to Rome
Hospitality plays a key role in Italian business culture anyway, and one way or another, it usually involves eating. Refusing an invitation for dinner is likely to be taken as an insult. It’s actually polite to let your business partners invite you out. By letting them demonstrate their “Bella figura” to make a good impression on you, you are allowing them to express their goodwill and hospitality, which makes them look good.
Negotiations start by building relationships. Perhaps a sense of urgency can be seen as an attempt to weaken the other’s bargaining position, but a business discussion can only truly start once trust has been established and every last bit of urgency has been purged from the discussion. A rushed decision might invite regret later on, and a remorseful deal is not a good deal for any involved.
Writing a resumé is an exercise in persuasion, even if it doesn’t sound like one. The purpose of a resumé is simple: to communicate, with clarity, why the writer is the ideal candidate for the job, and to persuade the employer to hire them.
“Good writing is not a natural gift. You have to learn to write well.”
– David Ogilvy
David Ogilvy, the “father of advertising,” or the original “Mad Man,” was a proponent of clear and concise writing. From him, we gain at least two takeaways that will help improve any CV.
- Know your audience. A good resumé will be tailored to the role you’re applying for. Step into the employer’s shoes and ask: Who are they seeking? What skills and experiences would their ideal candidate possess? Emphasize your corresponding experience, and you’re golden.
- Keep it short and simple. Don’t use jargon where you don’t have to; remember, your CV will probably be read by HR first, and they too need to understand your words. Include only facts and experience that help your case, and leave out things that are not relevant.
“The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.”
– Robert R. Coveyou
In the paper “Strong theorems on coin tossing,” mathematician Pál Révész tells a story about a high-school class. The teacher leaves the room, and the children are told to divide into two groups.
In the first group, students have to flip a coin two hundred times and record whether a flip lands heads or tails. In the other group, students have to come up with random heads-or-tails sequences, but without using an actual coin; instead, they have to “generate” random numbers in their head.
Once all the students each have 200 lines recorded, the teacher returns and tries to guess which student belongs to which group. Most of the time, the teacher guesses quite well.
Their secret is this – for the average person, it doesn’t feel right to put down five, or even four, consecutive heads or tails. That many runs just doesn’t sound plausible. However, a statistician knows that when a uniformly random coin generates a sequence of 200, it’s very likely to have runs of six or more. Its probability is close to 97 percent.
“She loves me,” says a man in love, picking off the first petal of a daisy. “She loves me not,” he says a moment later, picking off the next petal. And so, he continues removing the petals, until the last of the flower is gone and the results are in. The daisy helped the player determine whether or not he’s loved by the girl he desires.
But how did the daisy know that?
The daisy’s trick is that it gets a little help from the man himself. People play the “she-loves-me-she-loves-me-not” game with all sorts of questions, and the answer is not always 50-50. And sure enough, if we observe someone de-petaling a daisy in this way, we will usually see them adjust the rules midway through.
“I’m not even sure this is really a daisy,” a player might say as they get halfway through a flower and start to suspect that the result might be unfavorable in the end. They then go on to find another daisy to restart the game and discard the results of the first one. This improves their chances – now it’s only one in two flowers that has to have an even number of petals.
Our internal compass knows exactly how many times we are allowed to start again to balance out the game’s probabilities. If we give ourselves a 9-in-10 chance to be loved back, we might end up “cheating” three to four times, but not more. After that, if the last daisy has bad news, we’ll probably accept the verdict.
After the hack of Sony Picture’s internal emails, the world learned that American Hustle actress Jennifer Lawrence had gotten fewer back-end points than her male counterparts in the movie.
Lawrence largely blamed herself when she wrote about this experience on her website: “I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early. I didn’t want to keep fighting over millions of dollars that, frankly, due to two franchises, I don’t need,” she wrote. “But if I’m honest with myself, I would be lying if I didn’t say there was an element of wanting to be liked that influenced my decision to close the deal without a real fight.”
The actress’s experience is not unfamiliar to researchers. Studies tell us that, in many situations, women face a higher social risk than men if they initiate negotiations. This can help explain why women are more likely to avoid transactional behavior.
Women report greater anxiety about negotiation and are less likely to perceive situations as negotiable. It’s easy to see how this is bad news for women; proverbs such as “You’ll never get what you don’t ask for” exist for a reason. If even a small percentage of uninvited negotiations are successful, according to the rule of compounding interests, those differences in starting salaries can lead to substantial compensation gaps over time.
Gender inequality lowers the quality of life for both men and women. Women suffer the largest and most direct cost of these inequalities, but the costs span across society and families. It’s not a women’s issue nor is it only a men’s; it’s a problem that needs everyone’s attention and participation.