Three & A Half Ideas around Preferences, Choices, Communication, and Sub-Optimal decisions

Roger Ebert, the great movie critic, often had a grouse with many movies relying on a particular kind of trope. The criticism: the plot kept going because the characters act like idiots or fail to say basic things to each other. (‘Idiot Plot’, explained here.) Think of movies like Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham where half the drama can be skipped if the characters just said what they wanted.

Robert Trivers has this fascinating book (called Folly of Fools) about the evolutionary reasons why we lie – to ourselves and to others. Lying to others gives us some benefits – more food because we claim to be starving, more rest because we claim to be sick, or more sex because we claim certain things that make us more attractive to the other person.

We lie to ourselves because it makes it easier to lie to others, if we genuinely believe in the lie ourselves. Hence self-deception. Self-deception can be organisation-wide too and, at times, to disastrous effects. That’s also how ‘conventional wisdoms’ and groupthinks are formed.

Idea #1: Look at Actions and Not Words.

Self-deception also shows itself in the form of lies that we tell – “I want to make the healthy choice”, while having that double cheese pizza with Coke, or “I want to watch that Kurosawa movie after this,” while we play Houseful 5 on Netflix.

Economists have this idea of revealed preferences – that one’s preferences and motivations are better judged by actions instead of words.

“Your call is extremely important to us,” as you wait on hold for 5 mins; “I will give my 110% to this,” and giving a half-hearted submission to the task; “You are an extremely important part of the team and very valuable,” while giving a rating of 2 on 5 at appraisal; or “I will connect you to xyz who can really help you on this,” and you still wait for the connect after the 7th reminder.

Word to the wise though: sometimes people are genuinely busy or absent-minded and a variation of Hanlon’s Razor – never attribute to malice (or lies or ill-intent) what can be attributed to stupidity (or absent-mindedness) – serves us well.

Idea #2: Avoid the Fallacy of Self-Sacrificing for Others’ Perceived Preferences.

Once we start inferring based on people’s actions instead of their words, we’re faced with another complexity.

Not all actions are true signals of motivations or preferences. There are also actions based on self-sacrifices.

Self-sacrificing for other’s preferences is great and noble. I am all for it and it links to the idea of rational reasons for co-operation I’ve written about earlier (here)

There are also self-sacrifices caused due to actively avoiding conflicts or choosing the path of least resistance. And then there are self-sacrifices because we want X and think the other person wants Y while they actually want Z. And both end up at Y instead of either of X or Z, what the two actually want.

Wife: “What do you want to have for dinner?”, while secretly craving Italian.

Husband: “Let’s have Asian?” thinking that she actually wants to have Asian food, and he doesn’t really mind it. But pasta would be great 

The colleague who volunteers for every event and activity, thinking that it would fall apart if he doesn’t volunteer. And the colleagues actually resent this, preferring more equal participation.

 

The office intern has an excellent new idea on approaching that product modification but stays silent thinking the idea is ‘obvious’ or has already been considered and rejected. Meanwhile, the boss, has to resort to the same minor tweak approach that she detests.

So, counter to idea #1, listen to other people’s words and not just infer from their actions. But, more importantly, encourage people to reveal their true preferences and not just what they think we want or want to hear.

Valuing transparent communication – and valuing not just with superficial words but genuine belief and fostering an environment where we can reveal our true preferences, thoughts, or ideas helps reduce a whole lot of cognitive load and charades.

Idea #2.5: Preference Falsification

Timur Kuran has coined this extremely powerful and insightful concept of Preference Falsification. In essence, it’s when our stated preferences are different in private than in public, often due to peer pressure, the need to blend in, or for fear of consequences if we ‘speak the truth’. Typically a common phenomenon in authoritarian regimes, cultist groups, or groups with a strong tendency for ‘with us or against us’. Also common in extremely hierarchical organisations that value obedience and rule-following over independent thought or risk-taking.

It was only after USSR broke up that many common Russians realised just how much other Russians too wanted a breakup of USSR.

We can choose the game we want to play – an authoritarian regime with our words being set in stone and any divergence from our instruction is seen as a personal slight, or, that we’re all working towards an overall single goal, with difference of thought, disagreements, and discussions actually leading to a better solution.

I keep this intentionally as a 0.5 idea because, for full justice, a lot more space should be devoted. And, that’s for another day.

Idea #3: Radical Candour

We humans sugar-coat. To make ourselves appear more pleasant to others, to get things we want of them, or to seek their validation in some or other form.

The idea for this post came up first when, last week, a few friends and I were discussing about the problem one of them was facing in their office – around how they can communicate to a colleague that they should use a deodorant for the benefit of all others in that office. This is a manager and found it awkward telling their reportee. I was genuinely confused about the problem – in that I’d actively want someone to tell it privately to me, to avoid such a situation.

What I do with such feedback – if I act on it or not, is another matter. And another friend in the group pointed out – quite correctly – that we are all sensitive about feedback in different contexts. I may actively seek candid feedback along some aspects but may get offended when offered along some other axis.

At this time when even AI is adapting to our need for validation by just randomly praising us for the ‘good questions’ that we ask it, it’s all the more important to retain and project a certain authentic self of ours.

Candour isn’t rudeness, unsolicited feedback, or unkind truth-telling for its own sake. It’s about saying what we actually believe, want, or feel – with clarity and care.

It also means skipping the performative dance around ‘appropriateness’, ‘third/fourth guessing’ what they would feel (second guessing is perfectly fine! :D), or playing 4D chess with colleagues/partner/friends.

Tying it All Together

Sometimes stating “I have a mild preference for pasta but okay with Thai but definitely no sushi,” “I am scared about this next step,” or “Boss, this idea is a bad one because of xyz reasons; I am airing these concerns now and after we commit on your path suggested, I would be fully committed towards the vision too” lead us all to better and more preferred outcomes.

Because when our words reflect our real preferences, when they close the gap between what we say, what we do, and what we want – others are able to meet us where we actually are, not where we pretend to be.

But, while the overarching concepts – that we lie to ourselves and others → it shapes our decisions → it misleads others → we should strive for speaking plainly – hold good as a general rule of thumb, it still is just that. A rule of thumb, and not a universal fact.

Sometimes diplomacy, timing, and social nuance matter more than raw truth. Sometimes silence preserves peace.

In a world of well-meaning half-truths, radical candour isn’t a blunt tool. It’s a quiet, consistent choice to speak a little more plainly – and to invite others to do the same.

If our lives were movies, may they not provoke the Ebert complaint – that half the drama could have been avoided if we had just spoken honestly. However, the answer to the question “Do I look fat in this dress?” is always and without any exceptions a prompt and immediate “No! Not at all!”.