Home > 2014 > Personal Finance

5 Mindsets That Can Keep You From Your Goals

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 0 Comments

“Shark attacks in 2010 rose 25%!” screamed one headline.  Below it was a picture of a sign posted at a tourist spot in the U.S.: “WARNING: Recent shark attack. Beach closed.”

You all remember the summer of Sharkmageddon.  There was an epidemic of shark bites on swimmers.  Well, there was an epidemic of stories, anyway.

As you should know by now, numbers can lie just like pictures can lie. Here’s the truth about the latest summer of Jaws. There were 79 attacks in 2010, up from 63 a year earlier. That is indeed a 25% jump.  But you really don’t care what the number of attacks was – the real question is: What are the odds that you will get chomped? Are the world’s oceans really 25% more dangerous? We’ll ignore the fact that 5 of the attacks in 2010 were the result of two angry sharks that had a human-eating orgy during a four-day stretch that year.  Let’s just put the data into a different context.

There are about 3 billion people on the planet.  Let’s say on any given day 1% of them swim … forget it, let’s say in any given year, 1% of them swim in an ocean or body or water that might have a shark. That’s 30 million people. Let’s say these swimmers average five swims per year. That’s 150 million treks into shark-infested waters.

2009: 0.0000042 attacks per swim (63/150 million)

2010: 0.0000053 attacks per swim (79/150 million)

In other words, 99.99958% of swims were shark-attack free in 2009, vs. 99.99947% in 2010.  That’s not really a 25% increase in risk, is it?

Risk-assessment is one of the most critical ways that humans process data, and we do it constantly.  Is it too risky to drive in this snowstorm? Is it too risky to sleep with this person you met at the bar? Is it too risky to eat that leftover meat that’s been in the fridge for four days? The problem is, most humans are terrible at making risk calculations, constantly choosing emotions over data.  Far, far more people die driving to the airport than flying in an airplane, yet you don’t hear much about airport taxi phobias, do you?

Even worse, we live in the age of Big Data, when single slices of facts are thrown around like Gospel, when in fact they contain more lie than fact.  Executive suites and conference rooms alike are teeming with “Shark Attack”-like pronouncements from spreadsheet-wielding analysts who believe that only items worth counting are worth doing.  That’s one reason customer service has suffered so greatly in our time — it’s a lot easier to count the number of minutes that agents spend on the phone than the way consumers feel after an interaction.

Bad risk analysis is really the function of bad data, which falls under the category of Data Idolotry in the eight reasons people get stuck.  Workers are often afraid of taking the leap towards a new job, or a new career, but don’t realize that sitting still carries with it even more risk.

There’s plenty of reasons that people make ineffective choices over and over again.  They get bad information.  They get limited information – using only a scale to assess health, for example.  Sometimes, they poorly weight the information – a doctor says have surgery, a neighbor says try drinking herbal tea every night for a month, and they consider both these inputs equally.  And then, there’s the most common problem: we react poorly to information we receive.  We choose to ignore critical information that tells us we’ll likely be laid off within six months, or that a new competitor has improved on our product and is stealing our customers. Here are five categories of data idolatry and poor risk assessment. The first, ignoring measurements, is probably killing your retirement savings. Here’s why:

Ignoring Measurements

If the stock market collapse of 2008 proved anything, it’s this: We stink at assessing risk. Not just Americans; everyone.  There’s no more direct, comprehensive or scientific experiment we could hope to conduct.  Most of the world made bets, consciously or unconsciously, and most of us lost. In fact, we lost 45% of the world’s wealth, countless trillions of dollars. That’s quite a doozy.

Of course, the world is full of proof that we are terrible at risk assessment. We fear sharks but don’t wear condoms — or wash our hands. We’re terrified of turbulence but drive drunk. We subject grandmas to full-body frisking at the airport, but let terrorists on watch lists get onto airplanes. We buy lottery tickets, often described as a tax on the mathematically disinclined, despite knowing the odds.

Maybe you are above all that.  And maybe you feel like you could blame all those market losses on other things – a lack of information, terrible advice, even criminal behavior.  Those are perfectly good explanations, but they prove our point.  We incorrectly assessed the risk that criminals giving bad advice and hiding data controlled the markets. We can do better. In fact, we have to.

These primal skills, sadly, have remained relatively primal.  Brain studies show that when humans encounter risks, what’s sometimes called the “reptilian” portion of our brains take over. The reptilian brain controls base functions we have in common with most of the evolutionary world – fight or flight responses. It was designed to optimize our ability to run away from dinosaurs in a crisis. Sadly, when faced with decisions about things like money and investing, many people’s brains believe they are being chased by a dinosaur and act accordingly. That is, they run. Metaphorically speaking.

Our reptilian brains might be useful at assessing a trip down a double-black-diamond ski slope. But we’re relatively awful at assessing the risk of a mutual fund, inflation or trusting our current place of employment. As a result, many people are overly risk-averse, not realizing how risky that is.

The reptilian brain, as you might imagine, is about as good with subtlety as a Gila monster.  It can muster two thoughts: BUY and SELL.  QUIT or STAY. It definitely can’t come up with the advantages of dollar-cost averaging in a falling market.  OK, it usually comes up with one additional thought when it comes to money: PUNT!  They find a money manager, and they say, Please, Mr. Man in a White Shirt – take care of this for me so I don’t have to think about it.

And trust us, Mr. Man in a White Shirt is happy to take your money while making sure you can’t live without him for the rest of your financial life. He’s going to send you long paper statements you can’t really understand. Sometimes these statements will show your pile of gold is larger, and you’ll be happy.  Sometimes, it will shrink, and your reptilian brain will yell, “SELL!”  You’ll call, and he will calm down the reptile within you – that’s his main skill, speaking to that part of your brain. And you’ll decide to BUY again.  You’ll make that decision over and over, which really is the definition of insanity. It’s also the definition of a plateau.

Or, you’ll do what most Americans do and simply stop opening the monthly statements.  Somewhere, someone told you (probably that Man in a White Shirt) that the best thing to do with your investments is to ignore them, to “set and forget” the money you’re putting in your retirement account.  Sometimes, your retirement planning can be one of those background tasks we discussed in the introduction. However, usually, it’s not a good idea to punt on your future like that. But again, “Don’t worry about it. I’ll take care of it,“ is a secret message aimed directly at your reptilian brain.  Just ignore it and everything will be fine! Can you imagine the gall of this advice? Thank God our ancestors didn’t fall for this trick.  Imagine if no one ever checked to see if insects were devouring the winter grain stored in the grain elevators!

Back in 2008, a majority of U.S. adults had put their money into set-and-forget mode.  Clearly, that didn’t work.  How do you break free from this reptilian, all-or-nothing, buy-or-sell cycle?  By measuring things, and listening to what the measurements tell you. Try managing some of your own money for a while, depositing it into an S&P 500 index fund, and compare that to the performance of the Man in a White Shirt over time. If you are doing better, than you really need to fire him.  Real data is the key to moving the decision out of the part of your brain that made you choose whether you should or shouldn’t jump off that high wall outside your elementary school when you were 8 years old.

Data is hardly infallible, however.  It needs to be placed in proper context. It needs to be interviewed with hard questions.  Otherwise, it simply creates a hall of mirrors. So here are ways that data can fool you.

1. Counting the Wrong Things

Why do airlines mess up one planeload’s entire day when a single flight has a mechanical problem, rather than simply shift everyone one flight later? Because the FAA rewards that behavior. On-time performance is all about percentage of on-time flights. That’s why it’s OK to screw over hundreds of passengers, delaying them 24 hours or more.  When you create a metric, people often simply conform to that metric. That’s why so many of us are ineffective. It’s why call centers reward the speedy over the effective. When you are deciding what to do with your money, or your career, the markers you pick are just as important as the goals you pick.

2. Opportunity Cost

Give most people a choice, and they will pick a known unpleasant experience over an unknown every time. Many folks are very bad at measuring what they are giving up whenever they make choices. Go on vacation here, and you can’t go there.  Take this job, and you can’t take that one.  Stay in place at work and…you’ll never have an adventure. The way to avoid asking yourself “what might have been” is to carefully think about “what might be.”

3. Magical Thinking

Remember that day you hit every light just right and got to work in 16 minutes? Well, that day is not today. In fact, it may never happen again.  Yet you still leave with only 16 minutes to go to work. Why? You are a victim of magical thinking. Many folks get stuck – or they are perpetually late — because they can’t help being overly optimistic in all their endeavors. Magical thinking leaves us wondering why one-hit wonders can’t repeat their success. Never forget: Luck is quite a real phenomenon. Statisticians call it an “outlier.” Chasing after an outlying event will leave you chasing your tail.

4. Overweighting Grandma

We used to joke that news is what happens to your editor on the way to work. No matter what reporters say, if an editor’s block has potholes, the town has a major pothole problem. Everyone is like this. If your grandma says at dinner that there’s too much color pink in TV these days, you’ll suddenly shy away from using pink in your next design. It’s human nature. A similar quality is called “recency.” You might read 27 reports going into a big meeting, but if someone says something to you as you walk into the room, you will give that person’s thought equal weight to all those reports.

5. Accidental Reinforcement

Imagine you’ve been put a rat in a trap maze. If the rat solves the maze, she gets a piece of food dispensed from above. The idea here is to teach the rat to solve the maze as quickly as possible. But let’s say you work in a lab that’s particularly hard-hit by funding cutbacks, and your rate maze hasn’t been updated since the 1960s. It’s been acting up lately, but you have a test to run, so you drop the critter into the maze. She’s skittish, and so the first thing she does is panic and bang into a maze wall. Your aging trap shakes, and your food dispenser erroneously delivers a food pellet right where the rat is now seeing stars.

What happens next?  The rat jealously scoops up the crumb, devours it with satisfaction, and then starts banging her head into the wall, expecting more food. You try explaining, cajoling, begging, even picking the rat up and putting her at the end of the maze, where more food awaits. No matter. She learned quickly that banging walls = food, and she’s going to keep on trying that, again and again. This is the torture called accidental reinforcement.

Often, an early success is the worst thing that can happen to a person.

If you, like me, enjoy data, then you probably realize that many of these maladies are SOLVED by GOOD data.  Understanding that grandma’s observation represents a small sample size, you can burn out your observational bias with good data.  However, good data is hard to find, and I hope you also recognize that in nearly all these flaws, dirty data is to blame.  Given that we rarely have access to great data when making life choices, maintaining a healthy skepticism to the data you do get is essential to avoid falling into the data idolatry trap.

More Money-Saving Reads:

Image: Wavebreakmedia Ltd

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team