Patrik Edblad's Blog, page 13

The 80/20 Principle: How to Prioritize Effectively

In the late 1800s, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto was tending his garden when he made a small discovery that would have huge implications.

He noticed that a minority of the pea pods in his garden produced a majority of the peas. And that got him thinking about economic output on a larger scale. Could this unequal distribution be taking place in other areas as well?

At the time, Pareto was studying the wealth of different nations. And as he started analyzing the distribution of wealth in his home country, he indeed found that about 80 percent of the land in Italy was owned by just 20 percent of the population. Expanding his work into other countries, Pareto found that a similar distribution applied in those places, too.1

Similar to the pea pods in his garden, the majority of resources were controlled by a minority of the group. And as he continued his research in various societies, industries, and even companies, this trend turned out to be remarkably consistent. The numbers were never quite the same, but the approximate 4-to-1 ratio kept showing up.

The 80/20 Principle in Business

Over time, this idea—that a minority of things account for the majority of results—became known as the Pareto Principle or, as it’s commonly referred to these days, the 80/20 principle.2

Since Pareto’s discovery, the 80/20 principle has been most popular in business settings. Companies have often found that, for example:

20 percent of their customers brought in 80 percent of their revenue.20 percent of their sales reps closed 80 percent of their sales.20 percent of their costs made up 80 percent of their total expenses.

And that’s valuable information that can help increase efficiency and profits for companies.

The 80/20 Principle in Life

The 80/20 principle is just as useful outside of business. You can ask yourself, for instance:

Which 20 percent of your relationships create 80 percent of your happiness?What 20 percent of your daily habits account for 80 percent of your well-being?What 20 percent of your stuff do you use 80 percent of the time?

By answering questions like these, you can increase the efficiencies in your life. You’ll know who to spend your time with, what daily habits to focus on, and what clothes to keep in your closet.

And those are just a few examples, of course. The 80/20 principle is very useful anytime you want to figure out the most impactful causes and efficient actions.

In fact, it’s a great way to read this website. As you explore the articles, think about which 20 percent of them that will provide 80 percent of usefulness to you. Then read those ones first.

Get into the habit of thinking 80/20, and you’ll spend a lot more time on what’s truly essential.

Footnotes



Cours d’économie politique by Vilfredo ParetoManual of Political Economy by Vilfredo Pareto

The post The 80/20 Principle: How to Prioritize Effectively appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

The 80/20 Principle: How To Prioritize Effectively

In the late 1800s, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto was tending his garden when he made a small discovery that would have huge implications.

He noticed that a minority of the pea pods in his garden produced a majority of the peas. And that got him thinking about economic output on a larger scale. Could this unequal distribution be taking place in other areas as well?

At the time, Pareto was studying the wealth of different nations. And as he started analyzing the distribution of wealth in his home country, he indeed found that about 80 percent of the land in Italy was owned by just 20 percent of the population. Expanding his work into other countries, Pareto found that a similar distribution applied in those places, too.1

Similar to the pea pods in his garden, the majority of resources were controlled by a minority of the group. And as he continued his research in various societies, industries, and even companies, this trend turned out to be remarkably consistent. The numbers were never quite the same, but the approximate 4-to-1 ratio kept showing up.

The 80/20 Principle in Business

Over time, this idea—that a minority of things account for the majority of results—became known as the Pareto Principle or, as it’s commonly referred to these days, the 80/20 principle.2

Since Pareto’s discovery, the 80/20 principle has been most popular in business settings. Companies have often found that, for example:

20 percent of their customers brought in 80 percent of their revenue.20 percent of their sales reps closed 80 percent of their sales.20 percent of their costs made up 80 percent of their total expenses.

And that’s valuable information that can help increase efficiency and profits for companies.

The 80/20 Principle in Life

The 80/20 principle is just as useful outside of business. You can ask yourself, for instance:

Which 20 percent of your relationships create 80 percent of your happiness?What 20 percent of your daily habits account for 80 percent of your well-being?What 20 percent of your stuff do you use 80 percent of the time?

By answering questions like these, you can increase the efficiencies in your life. You’ll know who to spend your time with, what daily habits to focus on, and what clothes to keep in your closet.

And those are just a few examples, of course. The 80/20 principle is very useful anytime you want to figure out the most impactful causes and efficient actions.

In fact, it’s a great way to read this website. As you explore the articles, think about which 20 percent of them that will provide 80 percent of usefulness to you. Then read those ones first.

Get into the habit of thinking 80/20, and you’ll spend a lot more time on what’s truly essential.

Footnotes



Cours d’économie politique by Vilfredo ParetoManual of Political Economy by Vilfredo Pareto

The post The 80/20 Principle: How To Prioritize Effectively appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

The Map is Not the Territory: How to Improve Your Judgment

In 1931, mathematician Alfred Korzybski presented a paper in which he introduced the idea that the map is not the territory.1 A map always comes with certain inherent problems. Here are some of its limitations:

A map can be wrong without you realizing it. A map is by definition a reduction of the territory, which means it leaves out certain important information. A map needs interpretation, which is a process that often leads to mistakes. A map can be outdated and represent something that has changed or no longer exists.

The distinction between map and territory is a useful metaphor of the differences between impression and reality. What you think something is like differs from what it’s really like.

The Map is Not the Territory

Imagine, for example, that you’re checking out the social media profile of an acquaintance. Browsing through her countless updates of happy pictures, you conclude that she has to be a happy person.

But the map is not the territory. The life she’s portraying on social media says little about what her life is really like.

And there are many other examples of where we tend to confuse the map with the territory.

A commercial is not the product. An online dating profile is not the person. A documentary is not the complete picture. A resume is not the applicant. A test score is not your intelligence.

Perception is Not Reality

On a deeper level, your perceptions of reality can also be considered maps.

You brain takes what you perceive through your senses and creates maps of reality written in neural patterns. And that kind of map is just as problematic as any other.

Why? Well, firstly, our senses are neurologically limited and only operate within a certain bandwidth. Our brains are not equipped to perceive the full range of reality. Which is why, for example, we can’t hear the ultrasonic sounds of a bat.

Secondly, our minds are heavily influenced by cognitive biases that distorts our thinking and logical fallacies that derail our reasoning. Which is why, for example, we unduly favor information that confirms our existing beliefs.

So as we create our inner representations of the external world, we do so using incomplete and distorted information. As a result, we often end up with beliefs that don’t match up with reality.

Treat Maps as Maps

A map is never the same as the territory, and most of us struggle to make that distinction. In the words of author Shane Parrish:

“For many people, the model creates its own reality. It is as if the spreadsheet comes to life. We forget that reality is a lot messier. The map isn’t the territory. The theory isn’t what it describes, it’s simply a way we choose to interpret a certain set of information. Maps can also be wrong, but even if they are essentially correct, they are an abstraction, and abstraction means that information is lost to save space.” 2

Be skeptical of maps. Remember their limitations. And always be willing to switch them out whenever you find a better one.

That way, you’ll be less rigid in your thinking and more accurate in your judgments. And that’s a great foundation for making intelligent decisions.

Footnotes



A Non-Aristotelian System and its Necessity for Rigour in Mathematics and Physics by Alfred KorzybskiThe Map Is Not the Territory by Shane Parrish

The post The Map is Not the Territory: How to Improve Your Judgment appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

System 1 and System 2: How to Think Better

Imagine that I ask you, “What’s 2 + 2?”

You can’t help but think of the answer. The number “4” instantly pops into your head. If you’ve learned basic math, it’s impossible not to immediately think of the answer. This is the result of what scientists call reflexive brain.

Now, imagine that I instead ask you, “What’s 39 multiplied by 26?”

Most likely, your brain goes blank. It doesn’t have an instant answer. Unless you’re a math wizard, you have to go through the tedious process of calculating it. You have to use what is known as your reflective brain.

System 1 and System 2

In his book Thinking Fast and Slow1, Daniel Kahneman termed these two modes of thought as System 1 (reflexive) and System 2 (reflective):

“System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations.”

In other words, System 1 is intuitive, and System 2 is deliberate. These two modes of thought complement each other, and they’re both active whenever we’re awake.

System 1 is the first layer of thinking that our brains delegate problems to. System 2 only comes into the picture when System 1 doesn’t have an answer.

That arrangement usually works pretty well because System 1 is generally good at what it does. It’s not perfect, however, and there are many situations where decisions should ideally be delegated to System 2, but System 1 makes them anyway.

As an example, consider the simple math problem below. Don’t try to solve it—just observe the intuitive answer that comes to mind.

The Bat and the Ball

The total cost of a baseball bat and ball is $1.10. The cost of the bat is $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

System 1 will tell you that the ball costs 10 cents, which is the wrong answer. If you do the math using System 2, you’ll realize that the right answer is 5 cents (and $1.05 for the bat).

This example illustrates the problem with System 1. While fast and effortless, it’s also prone to mistakes. In fact, the sloppiness of System 1 is what creates the cognitive biases and logical fallacies I’ve written about previously.

How to Use System 1 and System 2

Despite its flaws, you shouldn’t try to turn off System 1 and operate solely in System 2. According to Kahneman, that wouldn’t be possible nor desirable:

“Constantly questioning our own thinking would be impossibly tedious, and System 2 is much too slow and inefficient to serve as a substitute for System 1 in making routine decisions. The best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high.”

When you’re making mundane and inconsequential decisions, let System 1 run. It’s okay that it’s wrong now and again because it saves valuable mental energy and reduces decision fatigue.

But when you’re about to make an important decision, switch to System 2. Deliberately slow down, take your time, and use mental models to reach the best decision possible.

Footnote



Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

The post System 1 and System 2: How to Think Better appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy: How to Spot Unreasonable Assumptions

High school student David wants to spend the weekend with his friends, but his mom won’t let him.

“You have to study on Saturdays,” she insists, “If you don’t, your grades will suffer, you won’t get into a good university, and you’ll never get a job!”

This is a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy; assuming that a relatively small first step will lead to a chain of events that eventually culminates in a significant, usually negative, outcome.

In other words, you assume that if A occurs, then B will follow, and if B occurs, then C will follow.

And since C is something you really don’t want, you shouldn’t allow A to happen.

How Slippery is the Slope, Really?

Some slippery slopes are real, but often they’re not, and that’s when we’ve got a slippery slope fallacy on our hands.

To analyze this kind of reasoning, we need to examine each link in the chain.

So, let’s assign some rough probability estimates to every assumption David’s mom is making.

She’s saying that, if he doesn’t study on Saturdays:

A: “Your grades will suffer.” It’s possible, but not very likely. A lot of students get good grades without studying on weekends. Let’s give this a 5% probability estimate.

↓

B: “You won’t get into a good university.” That depends on what counts as a good university. David could also be eligible for non-academic scholarships. We’ll give this a probability of, say, 10%.

↓

C: “You’ll never get a job.” This is obviously the weakest link in the chain. It’s really nothing but wildly pessimistic speculation. It gets a probability of 0,1%.

As you can see, every link in the chain is weak. And the chain as a whole compounds those weaknesses.

Here’s how the math works out:

 .05 x .10 x .001 =  There’s a 0.0005% risk that David’s mom’s assumption is correct. Not a very slippery slope.

Mitigating The Slippery Slope Fallacy

Of course, it’s very difficult to predict the likelihood of a complex chain reaction.

We can’t know if our probability numbers are accurate.

But a rough guesstimate can still provide a useful hint about the likelihood of a chain of events.

So, when you come across slippery slope assumptions, tease out the links in the chain, and ask yourself how likely each of them are to be true.

Then keep these two things in mind:

The chain is only is only as strong as its weakest link. So, if you spot just one weak claim, the entire line of reasoning is also weak.Weaknesses in the links have a compounding effect. So, the strength of the whole chain is almost always even weaker than its weakest link.

Be skeptical of hypothetical chain reactions, and you’ll be much less vulnerable to fall for slippery slope reasoning.

The post The Slippery Slope Fallacy: How to Spot Unreasonable Assumptions appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

The Middle Ground Fallacy: How to Avoid Irrational Compromises

I’ve previously written about the false dilemma fallacy; our tendency to consider only two options even though more exist.

The middle ground fallacy is effectively an inverse false dilemma.

That is, instead of only considering two options, we only focus on a middle point between them.

Let’s say James is convinced that vaccinations causes autism in children.

But his friend John, who’s a doctor, says that claim has been debunked and proven false.

Listening to their discussion, their mutual friend Robert concludes that vaccinations must cause autism sometimes, but not all the time.

The Tricky Middle Ground

While the correct position on a topic often is somewhere between two extremes, that cannot be assumed without considering the evidence.

Sometimes, one of the extreme positions is entirely true, and the other one completely false. When that’s the case, a compromise always misses the mark.

Other times, both extreme positions are wrong. And when that’s the case, the truth can’t be found anywhere in the spectrum between them.

So, if we don’t pay attention to it, the middle ground fallacy can lead to poor reasoning and bad decisions.

Here Are Some More Examples



My teacher says it’s never okay to skip classes. My friend Michael says it’s okay to skip as many classes as you want. Therefore, it’s okay to skip class sometimes.Jennifer thinks I should follow my doctor’s prescription to treat my illness. Linda says I should use holistic medicine. Therefore, I’ll take half of my prescriptions, and half of the holistic’s recommendation.William thinks the Philadelphia Eagles will win the game. David thinks the New England Patriots will win. Therefore, I’ll place a large bet that game ends in a tie.Some people believe in man-made climate change. Others claim global warming isn’t real. Therefore, climate change is real, but people aren’t causing it.Some people think slavery is wrong. Other people think slavery is right. Therefore, we should allow slavery in some places, but not all.



How to Avoid The Middle Ground Fallacy

Compromises are often useful, but not always. As the saying goes: Half a kitten is not half as cute, it’s a bloody mess.

So, whenever you’re presented with two opposing views, don’t automatically assume that the truth has to exist somewhere between them.

Instead, examine the evidence of each claim independently.

Ask yourself how likely they are to be true, and if a compromise between them is truly warranted.

That will help you make much more accurate assumptions and better choices.

The post The Middle Ground Fallacy: How to Avoid Irrational Compromises appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

The False Cause Fallacy: How to Avoid Making Irrational Assumptions

Imagine that it’s a sunny day at the beach.

It’s terribly hot, so you decide to cool off in the ocean.

As you make your way to the shoreline, you spot an ice cream stand.

Now, before you decide whether or not to treat yourself, consider the following statistical fact:

When sales of ice cream go up, so does deaths by drowning.

How should that information affect your decision?

Correlation ≠ Causation

If you’re like most people, you’ll assume that having ice cream before going into the water is dangerous.

But it’s really not, and to understand why, we need to recognize the difference between correlation and causation.

Correlation means that there is a relationship between two things. Causation means that one thing causes another thing to happen.

Just because there is a correlation between two things, that doesn’t necessarily mean there is causation between the two.

So, the fact that there is a relationship between ice cream sales and deaths by drowning doesn’t necessarily mean that ice cream causes drowning.

Ice Cream ≠ Drowning

You see, underlying these statistics is a third factor: temperature.

When it’s hot outside, people buy more ice cream.

They’re also more likely to go swimming, which increases the number of drownings.

So, ice cream sales and deaths by drowning correlate with each other, but only because they both correlate with temperature.

Funny Correlations

Whenever there’s a relationship between two things, we tend to assume that one of them caused the other.

But, as any good statistician will tell you: Correlation does not equal causation 1.

And there are plenty of quite funny statistical findings that illustrates it 2.

For example, during the years of 2000 through 2009:

The number of people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with the number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in.The per capita cheese consumption correlates with the number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets.The divorce rate in Maine, New England, correlates with the per capita margarine consumption.

How can these things correlate?

Well, if you have a big enough pile of data, you can find plenty of variables that just happen to have a statistical correlation.

It’s a complete coincidence, but still, it’s very tempting to try to come up with an explanation for why Nicolas Cage’s movies makes people stumble into pools.

We Like to Explain Stuff

It’s human nature to force causal links:

“My friend ignores me because she’s mad at me.”“I failed the test because I suck at math.”“The team is failing because of the coach.”

Explanations like these help us bind facts together, but they’re often inaccurate.

The world is a complicated place, and we overestimate our ability to understand the connections within it. 

Maybe your friend is just having a bad day.

Perhaps you failed the test because you’ve never had a decent math teacher.

And the team might be failing because the players aren’t putting in the necessary work.

How to Avoid The False Cause Fallacy

It’s very difficult to accurately determine the true relationship between different factors.

So, pay attention to your tendency to presume that one thing caused another.

Be skeptical of your assumptions, open to alternative explanations, and willing to change your mind.

That way, you’ll be less vulnerable to false cause reasoning.

Footnotes



Correlation does not imply causationSpurious Correlations

The post The False Cause Fallacy: How to Avoid Making Irrational Assumptions appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

Bias Blind Spot: How to Avoid Irrational Overconfidence

The more you learn about cognitive biases, the more you’ll notice that they show up in everyday life:

Maybe you’re discussing politics with a friend, and you spot a strong confirmation bias in his views.Perhaps someone expresses worry for a terrorist attack, and you realize it’s because of availability bias from watching the news.Someone might tell you about the great deal they got on their new TV, and you recognize that they’ve fallen for the anchoring bias.

It’s certainly useful to be aware of the mental errors going on around you.

But the real benefit lies in identifying these flaws in your own thinking.

Because it’s only when you recognize the limitations of your cognitive apparatus that you can improve it.

The Bias Blind Spot

Unfortunately, it’s much harder to spot biases in ourselves than in others.

In fact, that tendency is itself a mental error known as the bias blind spot or the bias bias.

Behavioral decision researcher Erin McCormick provides this explanation 1:

When physicians receive gifts from pharmaceutical companies, they may claim that the gifts do not affect their decisions about what medicine to prescribe because they have no memory of the gifts biasing their prescriptions. However, if you ask them whether a gift might unconsciously bias the decisions of other physicians, most will agree that other physicians are unconsciously biased by the gifts, while continuing to believe that their own decisions are not. This disparity is the bias blind spot, and occurs for everyone, for many different types of judgments and decisions.

What’s particularly striking about this tendency is how widespread it is.

A study by McCormick and her colleagues2 found that out of 661 participants, only one claimed to be more biased than the average person.

The other 99,8% rated themselves as less biased than other people.

And that, of course, is statistically impossible.

How Can That Be?

Why do we assume that we are less biased than others?

A lot of it has to do with the self-serving bias and our tendency to protect our self-esteem.

We generally consider biases undesirable, so we like to think of ourselves as unbiased or, at least, less biased than average.

But there’s nothing wrong with being biased.

Biases are hard-wired into our brains because we need them to navigate the world.

And denying their influence only gets you stuck in your old ways of thinking.

Embrace Your Limitations

If you’re still thinking that you’re probably less biased than others, remember where that thought comes from.

That’s right; it comes from your brain —and your brain is biased to to think that it’s not biased.

Let go of the intuition that your thinking is somehow immune.

Accept that you are just as vulnerable to thinking errors as everyone else.

It’s counterintuitive, but it will open up you up for sharper judgment, smarter decisions, and better results.

Footnotes



Everyone has a bias blind spot, researchers findBias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences

The post Bias Blind Spot: How to Avoid Irrational Overconfidence appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

Anchoring Bias: How to Avoid Irrational Conclusions

Imagine that you’re out shopping, and as you walk into a clothing store, you spot a jacket you like.

You try it on, check yourself out in the mirror, and decide you have to have it.

Now, imagine the following two scenarios:

You check the price tag, and the jacket is $500. But a salesperson walks by and says: “I’m sorry. That price is wrong. The jacket is really $300.”You check the price tag, and the jacket is $100. But a salesperson walks by and says: “I’m sorry. That price is wrong. The jacket is really $300.”



Which Jacket Would You Buy?

If you’re like most people, you’re much more likely to buy the jacket in the first scenario.

But that doesn’t really make sense, does it? After all, the price you’d have to pay are exactly the same in both scenarios.

So, how come we’re more comfortable buying in the first one?

The answer is what psychologists refer to as anchoring 1. As soon as we’ve read the price tag, we’ll use it as a reference point — an anchor — for everything that happens after that.

If the initial price was higher, we’ll feel like we’re getting a good deal. And if the initial price was lower, we’ll feel like we’re getting a bad deal.

Marketing Anchors

Marketers are well aware of this bias and use it to their advantage all the time. Here are some examples of anchoring strategies often used in marketing:

Original vs discounted price — Retailers often present the old price of a product next to the new, discounted price. This way, the old price acts as an anchor that makes the new price more appealing.



Price perception manipulation — Car dealerships often place their most expensive cars at the front of their display rooms. Once you’ve walked past them, the cars in the back don’t seem all that expensive.



Purchase quantity limits — Stores sometimes use signs like “Limit: 12 per customer.” The number 12 then acts as an anchor that makes customers buy more than they intended.



Everyday Anchors

Anchoring doesn’t just occur in purchasing decisions. There are many examples of anchoring in everyday life, such as:

Teacher’s judgments — In some schools, children are tracked and categorized by ability from an early age. Those categories then become anchors that shape the teacher’s expectations in the children. 



Longevity assumptions — If your parents lived to be very old, you’ll likely expect to live a long life, too. But if your parents died young, you’ll probably be surprised if you live for a long time.



First impressions — When you meet someone for the first time, that encounter becomes a reference point for all future interactions. It’s unfortunate and unfair, but first impression matter A LOT.



Counteract the Anchoring Bias

As you can see, the anchoring bias has a huge impact on our lives.

So, as you draw conclusions, form judgments, and make decisions, keep this sneaky tendency in mind.

Ask yourself if you are giving adequate consideration to all the information available, or if you’re giving unduly weight to some prior reference point.

That way, you’ll avoid getting stuck to irrelevant and irrational anchors.

Footnotes



Anchoring bias in decision-making

The post Anchoring Bias: How to Avoid Irrational Conclusions appeared first on Patrik Edblad.

Loss Aversion: How to Avoid Costly Mistakes

Imagine that I invite you to play a game right now. The rules are simple. We’ll flip a coin.

If it shows heads, you’ll lose $100. And if it shows tails, you’ll win $100.

Would you take the bet?

If you’re like most people, you wouldn’t.

And since the risk and reward of the bet are precisely the same, that makes sense.

So, let’s change the rules a little.

If it shows heads, you’ll still lose $100. But if it shows tails, you’ll now win $110.

Now Would You Take the Bet?

Interestingly, most people would still not want to play.

The game has a positive expected value of 10%, meaning that, on average, you’ll win $10 every time you play.

But that doesn’t matter.

Psychologically, the risk of losing our hard-earned $100 outweighs the potential reward.

We enjoy winning. But we really, really hate losing. And that leads to poor reasoning and silly decisions.

“Ridiculously Loss Averse”

When researchers offer people to play the coin flip game, they find that most of us demand a chance to win $200 or more to participate.

And that, in the words of psychologist Daniel Kahneman is “ridiculously loss averse.”

A major implication of loss aversion is something called the “endowment effect”; our tendency to perceive things as more valuable just because we own them.

To understand how it works, let’s have a look at another experiment.

Mugs vs. Candy

In this study, the researchers took a big group of students and split them into two groups.

They gave the first group a mug and asked: “For how much would you sell your mug?” and “How much would you pay for a candy bar?”

Then they gave the second group a candy bar and asked: “For how much would you sell your candy bar?” and “How much would you pay for a mug?”

Since they gave out the mugs and candy randomly, you would expect that many people would prefer the other item.

But that’s not at all the case. What you’ll find when you do this experiment is that almost no one switches.

Mine is Better

The people who get mugs suddenly think mugs are amazing.

And the people who get candy bars now think candy is terrific.

So, both groups end up valuing their item higher and sticking to what they already have.

Loss aversion and the endowment effect makes us overprotect and overvalue what we have.

And that often lead to choices, big and small, that are not in our best interest.

It can make you hang on to losing stocks that ruin your portfolio, and it can make you keep needless possessions that clutter your house.

How to Avoid Loss Aversion

Whenever you feel anxious about a potential loss, compare the downside to the upside.

Then dare to make the decision that makes rational sense, even if it feels uncomfortable.

Over the long run, that will lead to much better results.

The post Loss Aversion: How to Avoid Costly Mistakes appeared first on Patrik Edblad.