But on this holiday I would like to say that I am immensely grateful for one particular cognitive bias: The one where people tend not to change an established behavior unless the incentive is compelling. This is commonly referred to as the status quo bias.
Why would I be grateful for the status quo bias? Good question. The answer is that if the bias did not exist then there would be no value in odd, unorthodox theories about how the world could be improved, otherwise known as “optimism.” If people were not irrationally rigid in their ways then there would be little use for entrepreneurs or creative types more generally.
Maybe an example would help. Here’s Michael Lewis (hat tip: Andy McKenzie):
Outside of baseball there had been, for decades, an intellectual revolt, led by a free thinker named Bill James, devoted to creating new baseball knowledge. The movement generated information of value in the market for baseball players, but the information went ignored by baseball insiders. The market’s willful ignorance had a self-reinforcing quality: the longer the information was ignored, the less credible it became. After all, if this stuff had any value, why didn’t baseball insiders pay it any attention? To see the value in what Bill James and his crowd were up to you had first to believe that a market as open and transparent as the market for baseball players could ignore valuable information—that is, that it could be irrational.
I have an example of my own. I have decided that if I go back for grad school (which would likely be either Duke or NC State), I am going to try out for the basketball team and legitimately expect to not only make the team but to contribute in a meaningful way. This despite not having played competitively since middle school.
Before you start questioning my sanity, let me say that I am fully aware that compared to even the average Division II walk-on, I am a laughably bad basketball player in almost every way. I’d have no hope of staying in front of anyone on defense, I could hardly be expected to grab a rebound even if it came right to me, and my vertical leap and release point are such that 92% of my shots would get blocked right into my grill.
But here’s the thing: I wouldn’t try out for the team as a “regular” basketball player. That’s not my comparative advantage. I’d try out for a specialist role that for some mysterious reason most basketball teams don’t think they need (status quo bias).
Although I didn’t play much competitive basketball, I used to shoot free throws as a tot for hours at a time late into the night. I am currently an 88-90% free-throw shooter, and I am confident that if I trained regularly and intensively that I could get in the 95-97% range. In other words, I could easily be the best free-throw shooter on either Duke or NC State.
Yeah but so could a lot of people. The challenge would be not so much proving that I can make free throws but convincing the coaches that they need me. I think I can do that. See if you buy my argument:
Coach,
It’s obvious that having a free-throw specialist would help the team immensely. The difference between having a 75% and a 95% free-throw shooter at the line at the end of a close game is 2-5 losses per year, which is potentially the difference between an 8 seed and a 1 seed. Practically speaking, the difference in TV, ticket, and merchandise revenue is many millions of dollars.
It’s also obvious that being able to make a free throw is useless unless you can:
(1) get open to receive the pass.
(2) handle the ball well enough to not have it stolen from you.
(3) brush off the pressure of 28,000 screaming fans.
My proposal is this: Let me join the team and I will train just as intensively as the rest of the team but only on those 3 skills (plus free-throw shooting, of course). Justin Wehr would be to [Duke/NC State] as Mariano Rivera is to the Yankees: the old reliable man you call in whenever you need to finish a game.
What do you have to lose? A roster spot? Come on, be serious. You have 15 of those, and you’ll use maybe 9. I am white and I am local and kinda cute in a goofy way, which means fans would adore me. Plus, I’m 26, which means I’m infinitely more mature than even your seniors. And I have 4 years of eligibility. And I understand the importance of loving gropes.
If I don’t prove my worth by the end of the first year, then you can have my scholarship back.
Think it would work? I’m willing to give it a try.
The broader point is that fantasizing about these sorts of scenarios wouldn’t be possible if I didn’t believe that (a) people are stupidly rigid in their ways, and (b) with a compelling enough incentive, they will change.
