The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home (Chinese Edition)

The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home (Chinese Edition)

by Dan Ariely

The provocative follow-up to the New York Times bestseller Predictably Irrational

  • Why can large bonuses make CEOs less productive?
  • How can confusing directions actually help us?
  • Why is revenge so important to us?
  • Why is there such a big difference between what we think will make us happy and what

…  See more details below


The provocative follow-up to the New York Times bestseller Predictably Irrational

  • Why can large bonuses make CEOs less productive?
  • How can confusing directions actually help us?
  • Why is revenge so important to us?
  • Why is there such a big difference between what we think will make us happy and what really makes us happy?

In his groundbreaking book Predictably Irrational, social scientist Dan Ariely revealed the multiple biases that lead us into making unwise decisions. Now, in The Upside of Irrationality, he exposes the surprising negative and positive effects irrationality can have on our lives. Focusing on our behaviors at work and in relationships, he offers new insights and eye-opening truths about what really motivates us on the job, how one unwise action can become a long-term habit, how we learn to love the ones we're with, and more.

Drawing on the same experimental methods that made Predictably Irrational one of the most talked-about bestsellers of the past few years, Ariely uses data from his own original and entertaining experiments to draw arresting conclusions about how—and why—we behave the way we do. From our office attitudes, to our romantic relationships, to our search for purpose in life, Ariely explains how to break through our negative patterns of thought and behavior to make better decisions. The Upside of Irrationality will change the way we see ourselves at work and at home—and cast our irrational behaviors in a more nuanced light.

Read More

Editorial Reviews

Kyla Dunn
As in his previous book, the best-selling Predictably Irrational, the experiments Ariely describes generate entertaining and often counterintuitive insights…deciding how to apply [these] insights is a pleasure that lingers long after the book is finished.
—The New York Times
Publishers Weekly
Arielly examines the powerful sway that irrational motivations and urges have on our personal and professional lives. His discussion mixes both his personal experiences and a variety of research, including many experiments performed by him and colleagues. With his crisp English accent and assertive delivery, Simon Jones can be wonderful to listen to for much of the book. However, his own personality is so overpowering that it becomes difficult to remember that the conclusions are the author's--not the reader's. The difficulty to discern the authorial voice behind the narrator's is made more problematic as a creeping arrogance creeps into Jones's reading that the writer clearly did not intend. A Harper hardcover (Reviews, Apr. 12). (June)
Kirkus Reviews
The follow-up to the author's bestselling Predictably Irrational (2008). In his previous book, Ariely (Behavioral Economics/Duke Univ.) discussed how the human tendency toward irrational decision-making can lead to undesirable outcomes. Here he addresses similar ideas but turns them on their head. In some cases, he explains, the irrational course of action can actually be the best way to go. The book is divided into two sections addressing the ways people "defy logic" at work and at home, respectively, featuring descriptions of behavioral experiments Ariely and his colleagues have performed. Many of the results are surprising. Logic would suggest, for example, that taking breaks during a boring or unpleasant task would be beneficial. Not so, writes the author, whose experiments indicated that taking breaks actually makes it harder to adapt to a task, making it more difficult. In another experiment, he examined why people are more likely to give to charities when they feel an emotional connection to them, and found that when people think rationally about charities, they tend to give much less. Nearly all of Ariely's experiments are convincing, and his amiable tone is often charming. He also brings a welcome personal aspect to the book, drawing on the story of a tragedy from his youth. When he was a teenager in the Israeli Defense Forces, an accidental discharge of a magnesium flare left him with severe burns on 70 percent of his body. His recovery-which also involved a contraction of hepatitis from a blood transfusion-was long and grueling, but it gave him some keen insights into human behavior. He writes perceptively about his excruciating experience to effectively back up various behavioral concepts-such as why some victims of accidents develop a heightened tolerance for pain, while terminal cancer victims do not. Consistently sharp.

Read More

Product Details

Tian Xia Wen Hua
Publication date:

Read an Excerpt

The Upside of Irrationality
The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home

Chapter One

Paying More for Less

Why Big Bonuses Don't Always Work

Imagine that you are a plump, happy laboratory rat. One day, a gloved human hand carefully picks you out of the comfy box you call home and places you into a different, less comfy box that contains a maze. Since you are naturally curious, you begin to wander around, whiskers twitching along the way. You quickly notice that some parts of the maze are black and others are white. You follow your nose into a white section. Nothing happens. Then you take a left turn into a black section. As soon as you enter, you feel a very nasty shock surge through your paws.

Every day for a week, you are placed in a different maze. The dangerous and safe places change daily, as do the colors of the walls and the strength of the shocks. Sometimes the sections that deliver a mild shock are colored red. Other times, the parts that deliver a particularly nasty shock are marked by polka dots. Sometimes the safe parts are covered with black-and-white checks. Each day, your job is to learn to navigate the maze by choosing the safest paths and avoiding the shocks (your reward for learning how to safely navigate the maze is that you aren't shocked). How well do you do?

More than a century ago, psychologists Robert Yerkes and John Dodson* performed different versions of this basic experiment in an effort to find out two things about rats: how fast they could learn and, more important, what intensity of electric shocks would motivate them to learn fastest. We could easily assume that as the intensity of the shocks increased, so would the rats' motivation to learn. When the shocks were very mild, the rats would simply mosey along, unmotivated by the occasional painless jolt. But as the intensity of the shocks and discomfort increased, the scientists thought, the rats would feel as though they were under enemy fire and would therefore be more motivated to learn more quickly. Following this logic we would assume that when the rats really wanted to avoid the most intense shocks, they would learn the fastest.

We are usually quick to assume that there is a link between the magnitude of the incentive and the ability to perform better. It seems reasonable that the more motivated we are to achieve something, the harder we will work to reach our goal, and that this increased effort will ultimately move us closer to our objective. This, after all, is part of the rationale behind paying stockbrokers and CEOs sky-high bonuses: offer people a very large bonus, and they will be motivated to work and perform at very high levels.

Sometimes our intuitions about the links between motivation and performance (and, more generally, our behavior) are accurate; at other times, reality and intuition just don't jibe. In Yerkes and Dodson's case, some of the results aligned with what most of us might expect, while others did not. When the shocks were very weak, the rats were not very motivated, and, as a consequence, they learned slowly. When the shocks were of medium intensity, the rats were more motivated to quickly figure out the rules of the cage, and they learned faster. Up to this point, the results fit with our intuitions about the relationship between motivation and performance.

But here was the catch: when the shock intensity was very high, the rats performed worse! Admittedly, it is difficult to get inside a rat's mind, but it seemed that when the intensity of the shocks was at its highest, the rats could not focus on anything other than their fear of the shock. Paralyzed by terror, they had trouble remembering which parts of the cage were safe and which were not and, so, were unable to figure out how their environment was structured.

Yerkes and Dodson's experiment should make us wonder about the real relationship between payment, motivation, and performance in the labor market. After all, their experiment clearly showed that incentives can be a double-edged sword. Up to a certain point, they motivate us to learn and perform well. But beyond that point, motivational pressure can be so high that it actually distracts an individual from concentrating on and carrying out a task—an undesirable outcome for anyone.

Of course, electric shocks are not very common incentive mechanisms in the real world, but this kind of relationship between motivation and performance might also apply to other types of motivation: whether the reward is being able to avoid an electrical shock or the financial rewards of making a large amount of money. Let's imagine how Yerkes and Dodson's results would look if they had used money instead of shocks (assuming that the rats actually wanted money). At small bonus levels, the rats would not care and not perform very well. At medium bonus levels, the rats would care more and perform better. But, at very high bonus levels, they would be "overmotivated." They would find it hard to concentrate, and, as a consequence, their performance would be worse than if they were working for a smaller bonus.

So, would we see this inverse-U relationship between motivation and performance if we did an experiment using people instead of rats and used money as the motivator? Or, thinking about it from a more pragmatic angle, would it be financially efficient to pay people very high bonuses in order to get them to perform well?

The Bonus Bonanza

In light of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent outrage over the continuing bonuses paid to many of those deemed responsible for it, many people wonder how incentives really affect CEOs and Wall Street executives. Corporate boards generally assume that very large performance-based bonuses will motivate CEOs to invest more effort in their jobs and that the increased effort will result in higher-quality output.* But is this really the case? Before you make up your mind, let's see what the empirical evidence shows.

To test the effectiveness of financial incentives as a device for enhancing performance, Nina Mazar (a professor at the University of Toronto), Uri Gneezy (a professor at the University of California at San Diego), George Loewenstein (a professor at Carnegie Mellon University), and I set up an experiment. We varied the amount of financial bonuses participants could receive if they performed well and measured the effect that the different incentive levels had on performance. In particular, we wanted to see whether offering very large bonuses would increase performance, as we usually expect, or decrease performance, analogous to Yerkes and Dodson's experiment with rats.

The Upside of Irrationality
The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home
. Copyright © by Dan Ariely. Reprinted by permission of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Available now wherever books are sold.

Read More

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >