This post was contributed by a guest author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Richard or MovetheMarkets.com
Which opportunity would you take?
(A) You can automatically double your income, but the two people in this world that you dislike the most will triple theirs.
(B) You will receive a 50% increase in your income for the year, and those same two people you dislike, would see a dramatic decrease in their wages.
Paul McKenna poses this question a different way in his book, “I Can Make You Rich.”
I don’t believe in The Secret, but I do believe that there are often times psychological obstacles that must be overcome to achieve success. Mark Douglas covers many of them in The Disciplined Trader, but he really doesn’t do a great job of teaching you how to overcome them. However, I am aware of them. I’m hoping that Paul McKenna’s book (and CD) will take over where Douglas left off.
This post was contributed by a guest author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Richard or MovetheMarkets.com
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I’d take “A”, no hesitation. I don’t wish ill on people I don’t like, I just want them out of my life and one of the great things about being a trader is I can get that. If I don’t like someone, I don’t have to ever see them again. What does it matter to me if some people I don’t like make more money than I do, I’m sure I’d hate most billionaires.
By your final comment about overcoming psychological hurdles, are you saying that you’d chose B?
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
Moral of the story, if you hate yourself more than anyone else, you can choose A and sextuple your income, while the person you hate second-most only triples theirs. You can use your newfound financial leverage to make them miserable, which should make you both richer and happier, and probably only slightly more disgusted with yourself than when you started.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
tyro: no, my issues are different…i just found it interesting that from what the author says, many people will choose an option that isn’t in their own best interest, just to be the top dog…granted, my example took a few liberties, but i wanted to throw it out there, and see if anyone would admit to taking it
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I think I would choose B, or at least I’d be sorely tempted.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I think this is part of the “Schadenfreude” phenomenon. Here’s a quote from an article about a study done by Nature:
…when the unfair player received a painful shock there was, at most, very little sign of anything registering in the empathy-related region of the men as opposed to the reward-related area where there was activity. They expressed more desire for revenge and seemed to feel satisfaction when unfair people were given what they perceived as deserved physical punishment.
I don’t know if y’all allow hyperlinks in the comments, so I won’t “href” it, but the article is at http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/51271/
There have also been similar experiments where you could have a hundred dollars, but someone else would get a thousand, or else you could have 10 and they would LOSE a thousand, and most people chose “B”. We have some kind of instinctive need to adjust the RELATIVE position of ourselves to others (especially our enemies), and if we can take them down 10 notches by taking ourselves down one, we seem to gravitate towards that choice.
In my experience, traders very much enjoy seeing other traders lose and despise their gains, even though it’s in private and their “public” reaction may be appropriately sympathetic or congratulatory.
I spent a good portion of my life frustrated that I was living as I was “supposed” to, as defined by my cultural surroundings and family of origin, yet no amount of skill or hard work equated to success, while for others who were simply fortunate enough to choose the right parents, everything came effortlessly even though they were often complete clods.
A couple of things changed my life: One, some of the lessons of “Walden,” “Zen and the Art,” Alana Watts, even most of the stuff J.C. said which I had to quote from toddlerhood in those little country churches — all began to take on a new meaning as I started to genuinely question my own attachment to human-defined success. Two, “Fooled By Randomness,” which explained more clearly than anything ever has the disconnect between skill, effort and financial reward.
I now live more modestly than anyone I know who has “half” my income, I have a bit less of the “I’m gonna show them all” mentality, and I’m much more content with my lot in life and my mortality. Also my daughters can observe (”do as I say” means very little, it’s what I “do” that they imprint on) through me that the Hedonistic Treadmill is a sham, and sometimes going for a walk in the woods is more fun than any old wine-and-diamonds party.
Shit, I’m rambling here. Beer and burgers waiting, then work at 0600. Later dudes.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
will: leave some bread crumbs on that path to help guide me along the way…it sounds like you are well on your way to where i need to be
September 24th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Id go for A
September 25th, 2007 at 9:51 am
The question sure does spark several human emotions: Envy, Revenge….. In real life this situation would never arise. I would like to say I would choose A but since this is fantasy land and there are no consequences for my choice, I would say B to destroy my enemies. However, in real life I would choose A to buy weapons to destroy my enemies.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
[...] week or so by a few things: one was a post by Bass Ackward Trader over at Move the Markets called Simple Question, which reminded me of the Schadenfreude [...]