Defying The Odds

Anthropology is a tough subject. The study of human being is tricky because people are, in some sort of way, cunning.Statisticians previously thought that physical events like mortality rate or car accidents are the predictable function of a limited and stable set of factors. That if you would have made a graph out of it, you would get a “bell curve”, a normal distribution, one with an ups and downs at both extremities. But human behavior have repeatedly deviate from statistical orderliness. Human inspires and be inspired. They change their mind. They analyse then determine. Human also do stupid things. They falter under pressure. They copy one another. They choked and panic. In other words, humankind defy the odds.

Such was the case in how human accept losses. In a simple experiment done by psychologist Kahnemann and Traversky, a group of people were told to imagine that they had $300 . They were given 2 choices : A) receiving another $100, or; B) toss the coin where if they won they got $200 and if they lost they got nothing. It turns out most of us prefer A than B. Then, Kahnemann and Traversky did another experiment. The people were told to imagine that they had $500 and ask them if they would rather : C) give up $100, or; D) toss a coin and pay $200 if they lost and nothing at all if they won. Now, most of us prefers D than C.

What was the experiment telling us ? Well, the first experiment show how people dealt with profit. The second shows just the opposite; how we face our losses. From a probabilistic view, both are identical because knowing one is the same as knowing the other. Theoretically, Profit equals No Losses. But in this case, the law doesn't apply. Why? Because we have strong affinity towards them. Because we're more willing to gamble when it comes to losses, but dislike risks when it interferes with our gains.

The people at the Columbia University also did a study quite similar to that of above. Psychologist, Carol Dweck said that people generally hold one of two equally firm belief about their intelligence; they consider it either a fixed trait (something that “that is just me”) or a malleable trait (something that can be developed over time). The experiment were conducted at the University of Hong Kong where all classes are conducted in English. Dweck and her colleagues approached a large group of social-sciences students, took data of their English-proficiency marks, and asked if they wanted to take a course to improve their English language skills. Common view would say that those who marks are poor would sign up. As a fact, The University of Hong Kong is a rigorous institution, and to do well in the social sciences without strong English skill is unthinkable. Interestingly however, only the ones who believed in malleable intelligence expressed interest in the class. The students who believed the contrary ; that their intelligence is a fixed trait, were so concerned about appearing to be inferior that they preferred staying home.

Certainly nothing is conclusive. However, one would surely asks what does all this tell us. What does it it mean when we find out that we hate to lose. What does it signify when we frequently make choices outside rational thinking. And the most satisfying answer I can give is, nothing. Nothing can tell us about ourselves. We have the tendency to defy statistical orderliness. We deviate from simple equation. We frustate the curve. For one thing, human are a carbon-based creature. We are born asymmetrically. We are hardwired to be unpredictable. In the most simple words, we are predictably unpredictable.

Ahmad Ardy