English translation of Xiang Yu's stories

Doorman, who are you?

The next time you make a decision between two opposing options, one is primary and the other is secondary, ask yourself this question: What would Xiang Yu do?

The next time you have to make a difficult decision between primary and secondary, you might as well ask yourself this question: what would Xiang Yu do?

2. Xiang Yu was an imperial general in China in the 3rd century BC. He crossed the Zhanghe River with his troops and raided enemy territory. To the surprise of his soldiers, he ordered to break their pots and burn their boats.

Xiang Yu was a general in the ancient dynasty of China in the 3rd century BC. He led his troops across the Zhanghe River and attacked the enemy's territory. He ordered the pot to be smashed and the ship burned, which greatly shook his troops.

He explained that he imposed the necessity of defeating his opponents on them. What he said was certainly inspiring, but many of his loyal soldiers didn't really appreciate his words when they watched their ship burning in flames. But the genius of General Xiang Yu's conviction will be verified on the battlefield and in modern social science research. General Xiang Yu is a rare exception. He is an experienced leader, respected for his many conquests, and achieved the pinnacle of success.

He explained that what he imposed on them was the necessary measures to defeat their opponents. His words were undoubtedly very encouraging, but when many of his loyal soldiers watched their ship burning in flames, they disapproved of his actions. However, the talent shown by General Xiang Yu's practice of smashing pots and burning ships will be affirmed in the battlefield and modern social science research. General Xiang Yu is a rare unconventional person. He is an experienced leader. He is deeply respected because he has fought many battles and reached the peak of success.

He appeared in dan ariely's inspiring new publication Predictable Irrationality, which is an interesting survey of seemingly irrational human behaviors, such as keeping multiple choices open. Most people can't organize their minds for painful choices, even students at MIT, where Dr. Ariely teaches behavioral economics. In an experiment of investigating decision-making, hundreds of students couldn't bear to let their choices disappear, although it was obvious that they would benefit from it.

Dan Areli's inspiring new book Predictable Irrationality is devoted to Xiang Yu. This book makes a fascinating survey of seemingly irrational human behaviors, such as the tendency of human beings to keep multiple choices. Most people can't organize their thoughts and make painful choices, and the students of Dr. Areli's behavioral economics course at MIT are no exception. In an experiment of investigation and decision-making, hundreds of students can't bear to watch their choice opportunities disappear, even though they know it is good for them.

This experiment revolves around a game, which eliminates the excuse that we usually refuse to let go. In the real world, we can always say, "It is good to keep our choices." Want a good example? A teenager is exhausted by football, ballet, piano and Chinese lessons, but her parents won't stop any of them, because they may come in handy one day!

The experiment revolves around a game, removing the excuse that we usually refuse to let go. In the real world, we always say, "It is right to keep our choices." Want a good example? A teenage girl is exhausted by football, ballet, piano and Chinese lessons, but her parents won't let her stop any activities on the grounds that they may come in handy one day!

In the experiment, students play a computer game and offer cash behind three doors that appear on the screen. The rule is that the more money you earn, the better player you are. The total number of hits is 100. Every time students click to open a door, they will use up one click, but they won't get any money. However, every time you click on that door, you will get a fluctuating amount of money, and one door always shows more money than the others. An important part of this rule is that each door switch, although it has no cash value, will consume one click in 100. Therefore, the winning strategy is to check all the doors quickly and keep clicking on the door that seems to have the highest reward.

In this experiment, students will play a computer game: three doors will be displayed on the computer screen, and some cash will be provided behind each door. The rule of the game is that everyone can only click 100 times. The more money you click to get, the better you play. Every time students click to open the door, they will use a click, but they can't get the money. However, every time you click on that door, you will get a different amount of money. One of the three doors always shows more money than the other two. The key point of this game rule is that although there is no money return every time you change the door, you will still use it with one click. Therefore, the winning strategy is to check all the doors quickly, and then click only the door that looks the richest.

When playing games, students noticed a modified visual element: any door will shrink and disappear as long as it is not clicked for a short time. Because they have understood the game, they should ignore the disappearing door. Nevertheless, they quickly clicked on the smaller doors before disappearing, trying to keep them open. As a result, they wasted too many clicks to return to the disappearing door, and finally they lost money. Why do students like small doors so much? They may protest that they cling to the door to keep their future choices, but according to Dr. Ariely, this is not the real factor.

While playing games, students noticed a visual change: if a door is not clicked in an instant, it will gradually shrink and disappear. Now that they have understood the rules of the game, they should turn a blind eye to the disappearing door. However, before they disappeared, they couldn't wait to click on smaller doors and try to keep them open. As a result, they wasted so many clicks when they hurried back to click on those disappearing doors, and finally lost money. Why are students so attached to those smaller doors? They may argue that they seize these doors to leave more opportunities for the future. However, according to Dr. Areli, this is not the real reason.

Students have no excuse to keep their future choices, but hope to avoid immediate pain, although it is temporary. "closing the door to a choice is a loss, and people are willing to pay a lot of money to avoid the feeling of loss," Dr. Ariely said. In the experiment, the price can easily be measured by the lost cash. In life, the corresponding costs are often not obvious, such as wasting time or missing opportunities.

What is reflected behind their excuse to leave more opportunities for the future is that all students can't bear to see their immediate choices deprived, although the pain is temporary. Dr. Arelli said: "Every time you close the door of choice, it's like experiencing a loss. People would rather pay a huge price and avoid emotional losses. " In the experiment, the loss can be easily measured by the lost cash. In life, the corresponding losses are often not so obvious, such as wasting time and missing opportunities.

Dr Ariely wrote: "Sometimes these doors close so slowly that we can't see them disappear. "We may have worked longer, but we didn't realize that our children's childhood was slipping away."

"Sometimes, these doors close slowly and we don't see them disappear quietly," Dr. Areli wrote. "We may spend a lot of time at work, but we don't realize that our children's childhood is slipping away."

So, what can we do to restore the balance of life? One answer, says Dr. Ariely, is to impose more bans on overbooking. We can try to reduce our choices, delegate tasks to others, and even give ideas to others to pursue. Taking marriage as an example, he said, "In marriage, we have created a situation in which we promise not to leave any room for choice. We closed the door and announced to others that we had closed the door. "

So, what can we do to restore the balance of life? One way, says Dr. Arelli, is to stop more oversubscriptions. We can reduce our choices, delegate tasks to others, or even give up some ideas and let others do it. He takes marriage as an example: "In marriage, we promise not to keep the opportunity of choice, and we create favorable situations to get the best choice. We close the door of choice and tell others that we have made a choice. "

Dr. Ariely said that he has made conscious efforts to reduce his burden since he started the experiment. He urged the rest of us to resign from the committee, cut down the holiday card list, rethink our hobbies, and remember the lessons of being shut out like Xiang Yu.

Dr. Areli said that since the experiment of clicking on the door, he has made a conscious effort to reduce his burden. He urged us to resign from the committee, cut down the list of sending holiday cards, rethink our hobbies, and remember the inspiration from such close friends as Xiang Yu.

In other words, Dr. Ariely encourages us to abandon things that seem to have external value and pursue things that really enrich our lives. We are naturally inclined to believe that the more the better, but Dr. Ariely's research provides a powerful reality that this is not the case.

In other words, he encourages us to give up things that seem to have only superficial value and pursue things that can really enrich our lives. Naturally paranoid, we believe that the more choices, the better, but Dr. Areli's research strongly tells us that this is not the case.

In order to have more and more in life, what price have we paid? What kind of happiness and satisfaction will we bring by focusing our energy and attention more? Of course, we will have our own answers.

What is the price of getting more and more choices in our life? What kind of happiness and satisfaction can we get with more concentrated energy and attention? Of course, each of us will have our own answers.

Consider these important questions: Will we have more things by increasing choices, or will we have more things by choosing fewer and carefully? Which doors should we close in order to open the window of opportunity and happiness?

Think about these important questions: what will make us get more, increase our choices, or keep only a few carefully selected choices? What door should we close to open the window of opportunity and happiness?