Status Updates From The Impulse Factor: Why Som...

We anticipate our examination of the DRD4 to be only the beginning of our search for more answers to the questions of why people do the things they do so we can develop more effective ways of doing those things.

To a large extent these paths will always be a matter of choice. Just as the launchpad can never fully determine the destination, neither can genetic testing ever eliminate free will. For an organization whose stated goal and responsibility is to put big ideas to the test, we see no other idea that deserves our attention more.

They are often perceived as being cold, isolated, or devoid of empathy. The seekers failure to connect can manifest itself in several negative ways in the office. 2 common problems that kept popping up were an aversion to delegation and they were perceived as distrusting colleagues.

As we compiled the results of our survey, it was clear that potential seekers were generally regarded as passionate visionaries. Writers commented that seekers were great people with leadership, they challenge you to think bigger, and see a bigger picture. On the flip side, they were also found lagging in their connections

....It requires you to recognize your weaknesses and introduces just the right amount of skepticism necessary to protect you from calamity. Our research at TalentSmart gave us essential insight into some of these ideas. Edward Hallowell and John Ratey recommend hiring a “closer” referring to a baseball pitcher who enters a game in later innings to seal a victory

The act of hiring someone to do the things you're not good at is closely related to the concept of binary thinking. Both are an admission that your judgment has its limits. Working with a closer is taking that one step further by recognizing that you need someone to help you define those limits. It requires you...

Make sure to frame these questions in a positive way. Opportunity costs are going to resonate more than reminders of risk. For example, don't ask what are the risks, ask yourself will this decision destroy future potential for me? Instead of asking could this decision damage my relationships with other people? Ask for this decision help me with beneficial relationships?

It won't be easy to put skepticism and restraint in front of the simulation of acting quickly but getting into the habit of asking key questions about the direction in which your impulses are headed can help you avoid some of the more irreparable disasters.

Becoming binary like Gates means always questioning your judgment. Force yourself to take time to reflect and ask yourself whether an action is in line with the direction you want to travel.

While they're not potential seekers actually make good decisions under time pressure or just feel like they do it's hard to know for sure. But we do know that the belief is persuasive among them. Nearly 40% of potential seekers responded that they make good decisions under time pressure, compared to less than 10% of risk managers.

We surveyed more than 1000 people and asked them what conditions led to their best decisions most risk managers surveyed believe that they make good decisions when they have enough time and enough information but potential seekers overwhelmingly said that their best decisions are made when they have to make them quickly.

In the case of the NFL draft, the endowment is a star college player your team just drafted. When a player is drafted, he becomes a part of the fans endowment. If he's sold or traded, this will be treated by the fans as a loss.

The endowment effect says that once we take possession of something, once it becomes part of our endowment, we hate giving it up. We hate it so much that we might even act impulsively when that cherished thing appears to be slipping away from us. Even if giving up our endowment will make our cash stretch further, we would prefer to hold on to it.

Renowned economist Richard Fowler believes the lack of trading on or immediately following draft day has something to do with what he calls the endowment effect. The interesting thing about the endowment effect is that it has more to do with decisions of fans than with the owners.

It is a delicate combination of trust and questioning that keeps impulsive thinking useful. On the other hand, people with dysfunctional impulsivity are generally not concerned with any path other than the one they're currently travelling on and that is what makes them so dangerously dysfunctional.

By acknowledging the importance of being directionally correct, functionally impulsive people acknowledge the limitations of their judgments. This allows them to trust their impulsive judgments, while at the same time reevaluating whether their judgments remain correct. Functionally impulsive people won't blindly follow impulses to the end of the earth without stopping to examine the course.

Becoming functionally impulsive requires that a person be binary like Bill Gates. Harnessing the power of an impulsive instinct is about taking risks while maintaining a clear focus on being directionally correct. Functionally impulsive people are better at reminding themselves that a correct path exists and that they may not be currently travelling down that path.

Impulsive people do not just make different decisions or arrive at different conclusions than cautious people. Impulsive people actually see the decision itself from a different angle. It is not necessarily that they choose risk over safety. It is more that they are naturally predisposed to pay little attention to risk because their mind is consumed by the potential reward.

They even went so far as to laugh at the nonconforming actor when he gave an incorrect answer. At the end of the study the subjects said flat out that they did not like the nonconforming actors. It was plain evidence that when a person chooses not to conform, that person pays a hefty social price. The study proved that, for most of us, being correct is trumped by the need to remain in the group.