Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing - Motley Fool Money: 07.04.2014

Episode Date: July 3, 2014

On this week's show, we revisit some of our favorite interviews on investor behavior.  Best-selling author Carl Richards talks about the benefits of the overnight test.  Christopher Chabris talks invisible gorillas.  And Dan Ariely talks investing and irrationality.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I'm Chris Hill. You know, each week here on Motley Fool Money, we dig into the numbers of business as we analyze the latest headlines and the stocks that are on our radar. But Warren Buffett, the greatest investor in modern times, has said the most difficult thing he had to master as an investor was not numbers or analysis. It was his temperament. So this week, we've got a special edition of Motley Fool Money on Tap, three of our favorite interviews, all dealing with investment behavior. We've got Christopher Chabris, author of The Invisible Gorilla, Dan Ariely on the upside of irrationality. But we begin our show with bestselling author Carl Richards, author of The Behavior Gap, Simple Ways to Stop Doing Dumb Things with Money.

I want to spot you up with a few chapter headings and have you expound on them. And the first chapter in your book, We Don't Beat the Market, The Market Beats Us. Wow, that's a little depressing. yeah i i mean there's a there's a lot to talk about there but i think one of the um the mistakes we make a lot is we we think like you know that's a bad investment and i remember in fact i think the story in the book is when i was eight years old i remember hitting a sprinkler head with the lawnmower and running inside and saying to my mom the sprinkler head or the lawnmower hit a sprinkler head and she patiently described patiently explained to

me lawnmowers don't hit sprinkler heads eight-year-old boys hit sprinkler heads and so i think sometimes we have a tendency to blame investments you know the stock market's bad this investment was bad well in the end most of the time it's the investors making the mistake with the exception of obviously some of the fraudulent activities we've seen but most of the time. It's us making mistakes ourselves. And I think whenever we really try to spend a bunch of time and energy trying to outsmart the market, we end up hurting ourselves. You also blog for the New York Times. And one of your recent blog entries, you wrote that everyone should use the overnight test. For our listeners,

if you could please explain the overnight test. so often we get emotionally attached to an investment you know we maybe we inherited it maybe we bought it for some reason in the past and and we end up sort of collecting these series of investments like you know the 10 hot funds you want to own now and then next year you buy the next 10 hot you've got this collection well i think occasionally it's really smart for us to say this happens to me when clients come in and say what would you do with these investments I think if you've decided to build a plan for the future and you've got a collection of investments, it's really smart to say, all right, look, let's figure out if these investments are still appropriate.

And one way to do that is to take the overnight test. Just say to yourself, okay, what happens if somebody sold all these investments overnight and I woke up and I had cash in my account? And again, this is hypothetical. I know nobody needs to yell at me about taxes and commissions. It's just an idea. It's an exercise, people. Come on. You wake up in the morning and you just have cash.

Would you reinvest the money in exactly the same holdings? And chances are the answers are no. And if the answer is no, then we ought to go through the process of dealing with reality. Like, what implications would that have in taxes? What would it cost us? But at least it's a good way to figure out if your investments are. appropriate or they're just emotional attachments. Probably my favorite heading of any of your chapters is chapter six, which is entitled Plans Are Worthless. Carl, you're a certified financial

planner. Tell me you're not using that as part of your marketing. As I said in the book, it's actually fun to say that out loud. Plans are worthless. It feels slightly liberating. But here's the point. The point is I think we've gotten used to, or at least people have gotten frustrated with the financial planning sort of industry because financial plans have almost become like a product, and we think of like this two-inch thick book that you leave. And we all know the moment you leave, that thing is outdated. And I think the best comparison is flight plans. Like all the pilots I know, they spend a lot of time building a flight plan, but they also know the second they take off, the wind is going to be slightly different than what they projected. And so if you think about all the assumptions that are going into a financial plan, a financial plan is nothing more than a just big pile of assumptions, and there's no way we can get them right.

So that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. And if you read on in the book, of course, it says financial plans may be worthless, but the process of planning is invaluable. and we've got to realize it's not a one-time event. It's an ongoing recalibration, an ongoing course correction to make sure you end up in Boston and not Miami if Boston was your goal. When you look at the universe of dumb moves when it comes to money, what do you think is the single dumbest mistake that investors make? It's the one that we repeat the most often.

It's, you know, it didn't, I don't know who taught me this, but I think most of us learned pretty early that the key to investing is buying an asset low, holding on to it, and selling it for a higher price later. But we do the opposite. And so I think the dumbest mistake, and again, you know the word dumb is meant to be tongue-in-cheek slightly. It's hopefully a fun way of helping us all figure this problem out. But we continually want to buy things after they've gone up. and we continually want to sell them after they've gone down that's a plan to buy high

and sell low and and we just keep doing it and and i understand it genetically i understand because it feels right we want more of those things that give us safety or um satisfaction or pleasure and we want to get rid of things that are causing us pain but do you see what a problem And that is, it's the only thing Americans, stocks are the only thing Americans buy after they've been marked up and want to get rid of when they're on sale. Well, so that leads to a question that we frequently get here at The Motley Fool, and that is the question of, when do I sell a stock? So whether it's in your own life or working with a client, what are the questions, the processes that you go through when deciding whether to sell a stock? yeah i well i think that comes back to sort of a fundamental belief right so first we start with building out a a plan for the future and then we define how much should we have an equity exposure

to meet a certain set of goals then we go out once we've determined the equity exposure we then go out and determine okay what how should we get that exposure what's the cleanest efficient way to get exposure to equities, the returns that you get from stocks. Well, my belief is, and I've read lots of stuff on The Motley Fool about this, is for most of us, the cleanest, most efficient way to do that is through index funds. And so I end up most of the time when we're having discussions about individual stocks, unless you're able to spend the time, which there are some people who can. But, you know, the odds are stacked against us, if we're honest about it. It's, again, not impossible, just improbable. Unless you're willing to spend the time to do all the research, we've

got to ask the question first, should you own an individual stock? You know, you can always drop us an email. Radio at Fool.com is our email address. That's Radio at Fool.com. Coming up, more with Carl Richards. Stay right here. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. if you've got the money i got the time we'll go honky-tonking welcome back to motley fool money chris hill here in the studio talking with our guest carl richards about his new book the behavior gap for someone who is looking to work with a financial planner what are a couple of questions that they should be asking i think a lot of people are interested in working with a financial planner but maybe aren't really, they feel like they're walking blind into the interview process.

What are a couple of key things anyone should ask when it comes to working with someone with their money? Yeah, that's a really good question. That's probably the question I get the most often is like, hey, is there a list of things I could do to find a planner? The challenge, of course, I'll give you, I'll answer your question after this disclaimer. And the challenge, of course, is it's really hard to find somebody to trust. And we've all heard all the news stories, but the hopeful thing is there is a secret society, and I joke about this, there's a secret society of real financial advisors out there. The problem is there's no heading like that in the yellow pages, and so finding them can be difficult. Here's a couple of the questions I would ask.

I'd really want to be very clear about how they were compensated. Now, what the client is charged and how the advisor is compensated could be two different things. So I mean it specifically, how is the advisor compensated? And what you want to know, of course, is that the compensation comes mainly from the client. You know, if they're getting compensated from product or, you know, products or custodians, you'd want to know that. And I'm not saying that you wouldn't want to work with them. I'm just saying you'd want to know it so that you understand where the conflicts may lie. If the only compensation is coming directly from the client, then at least you understand that.

The second piece, that's being independent. The other question I think is really interesting, again, it doesn't rule anybody out, but it's good information, is understanding if they're willing to act as a fiduciary. It's a big word. It simply means you have a legal obligation to put the client's interests ahead of your own. And there are advisors out there that are willing to say, yes, I'm a fiduciary, and there are others that aren't allowed to say that. It's an interesting question for you to know.

The other thing I would do, ask for references. We're kind of gun-shy about that, but I would ask for references, and I would call them and just say, you know, how long have you been working with the advisor? And then the last piece, it always helps, is sort of the last check. Go to the SEC's website and just type in their name. You know, just make sure you're at least comfortable with any disciplinary action that may have been taken. Just make sure, as your final check, that you double-check the SEC's website. You're listening to Motley Fool Money.

Warren Buffett obviously has had an amazing track record of success. When you look at his career, what do you think is the secret ingredient? it i i think the thing that um buffett and i i think sums up he summed it up himself with this great quote of uh the the uh there's two quotes i think are interesting and i may fodder both of them but um the key to investing is being fearful when everyone else is greedy and greedy when everyone else is fearful. And I think most of us are genetically wired to sort of herd mentality. We're genetically wired to buy high and sell low. And I often joke, unless you wake up in the morning and see Warren Buffett in the mirror, you're most likely making those mistakes. He's

one of the few individuals we know about publicly. I know there's a lot more, but he's the most famous person we know that's been able to be really boring and really disciplined and stick with it for years and the other one was the key to our investment process is benign neglect bordering on sloth i hadn't heard that one before yeah and and i somebody better fact check me but i i remember that quote specifically because again it was the idea was look we find great companies and we hold on to them for a long time now do we know my question is about buffett always is do I think it's pretty fair for us to say it's statistically it's really challenging to say whether he was very lucky or very smart I think we could all probably agree guy had a unique talent

the question is how would we have known that 15 years ago you know like if we're looking for the next Warren Buffett that's a whole new challenge because identifying them before is really really hard and i have to plug you for a little bit of free consulting on the financial planning what are a couple of things that everyone can do in 2012 to get their finances in order make a commitment to do it right like it's so it's it it really starts that we have so we we sometimes we make it so complex that we don't even want to touch it and it's i know it's boring it is it's complex It's the last thing on your list over the weekend. Like, I get it.

Most of us would rather spend an hour with a dentist. But I think if you just make a commitment to do two things. Number one, get super clear about your current reality. And I used to think that was the easy part, but the more I talk to people, the more I realize people don't really even know that. Build a personal balance sheet. And if you don't know how to do that, don't be ashamed, because most people don't. Google, use the Google, and type in personal balance sheet, and it will show you. They'll get really clear about where you are today.

And then start having some discussions about money with spouse, partner, family, kids, people that you care about. Start defining what your goals are. It just starts by having these conversations. I grew up in a, I think most of us grew up in a neighborhood, in homes where money, sex, and politics were not talked about in polite company. And I think if we could do one thing this year to make some change, it would be let's start talking about it. And now we talk invisible gorillas with Christopher Chabris. So what do smart chess players and stupid criminals have in common? Should you be more like a weather forecaster or a hedge fund manager?

Is it always better for investors to have more information? Chris Chabris is a professor of psychology and neurology. He's a chess master, and he's the author of the just-released book, The Invisible Gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Chris, welcome to Motley Fool Money. Thanks for having me. Let's start by talking about invisible gorillas. For those who aren't familiar with the famed experiment, can you give us a quick overview

and what is the main takeaway? Sure. The title of our book refers to an experiment that Dan Simons and I did at Harvard University about 12 years ago. It was a very simple experiment. We created a video which showed two groups of three people passing basketballs back and forth. One of the groups was wearing white shirts, and the other was wearing black shirts. And the white-shirted people passed the ball among themselves, and the black-shirted people passed the ball among themselves. About halfway through this 60-second-long video,

a person in a gorilla suit saunters into the game, turns to face the camera, thumps its chest, and walks off at a leisurely pace, remaining on the screen for about nine seconds. We showed this videotape to people, and we asked them to count the number of passes that the white players were making. And then at the end, we asked them how many passes they had counted,

and we said, did you see the gorilla? And the surprising result was that about half the people who saw this video did not see the gorilla at all, and they accused us of switching the tape and of making it up and all kinds of things. But in reality, there was a gorilla there, and about half the people didn't notice the gorilla. So it shows really two things. One, we're missing a lot of stuff in our world around us. If we can be missing a gorilla walking through a basketball game, what else are we missing? But two, we're not really aware of how much we're missing. We're surprised to find out that we don't pay attention to as much as we think we do, and we don't notice as much as we think we

do, and it seems that we have a lot of other ideas about how our own minds work, which are similar to this one. They're sort of predictably wrong in surprising ways. Should you be more like a weather forecaster or a hedge fund manager? Which is it? Well, it really depends, of course. If you're trying to forecast the weather, you probably want to be more like a weather forecaster. The question is really meant to get at the idea that there are some areas of knowledge where it is really possible to know how much you know and how much you don't know. People complain about weather forecasters all the time because sometimes they get it wrong. But when you actually look at their track record, when they say there's a 75% chance of rain, if you look at all those days

when they said 75% chance of rain, it actually rained 75% of those days. So they're not perfect. They don't say 100% all the time and 0% all the time. But they're actually very well aware of how much they know. And if they say 75%, that's pretty much correct. On the other hand, there are many famous cases of hedge fund managers who made tremendously large bets on particular ideas about the direction of markets. We tell the story in the book of Brian Hunter, who was a trader in energy futures. And he bet billions of dollars on directional movements in natural gas prices, did well for quite a while, and then blew up his fund completely. And that's the kind of thing that someone with an awareness of how little they really know

about the system they're trying to model would probably not do. We've got more with Chris Chabris as we discuss mutual funds, poker, and snap judgments. Stay right here. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. I got my youth and health. What do I want with wealth? Money is the root of all evil. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Chris Hill.

We're talking to Christopher Chabris, the author of The Invisible Gorilla. One of the other questions in the book that you get at that mentioned right at the top, what do smart chess players and stupid criminals have in common? Well, that's another funny one, I think. Chess players and criminals usually don't seem that much alike, But there's one way in which they're quite alike and in which they're, in fact, like all of us. They are overconfident in their own abilities. So let's take the criminals first because they're a bit funnier.

There are many examples of stupid crimes. For example, a guy named MacArthur Wheeler tried to rob some banks in Pittsburgh without a disguise in broad daylight. And the reason why he thought he could get away with this was that he rubbed lemon juice on his face, thinking that that would render him invisible to security cameras. Much like, I guess, children writing in lemon juice think they're writing in invisible ink and invisible messages and so on. Of course, they broadcast the security footage of him, and he was caught an hour later. And he seemed incredulous when he told the police that his method didn't work. He was very incompetent as a bank robber, but at the same time woefully overconfident of his abilities as a bank robber. And what research has actually showed with cleverly designed experiments is that the people who are the least able at something are often the most overconfident or the most confident in their abilities.

Chess players have a rating system that tells them exactly how good they are. You know, if you're a bank robber, you don't really have, like, a numerical rating system that tells you how good a bank robber you are. Right. I think Morningstar is working on something like that, like a five-star rating for bank robbers. Right. Well, if they could get it right for mutual funds, that would be a start. And the fact is that in almost all fields, we don't have perfect feedback about how good we are. In chess, we do. There is a rating system in chess which is very well calibrated, and it tells you exactly how likely you are to beat somebody else based on your two ratings.

We surveyed chess players at large chess tournaments and found out that, despite having this really high-quality information available to them, and they all know it, they still thought they were much better than they actually were. So there's this sort of innate tendency to think that our skills, our knowledge, our abilities are better than they actually are. And that can obviously get us into trouble when we're making investing decisions or managing other people's money. One of the things you write about is an experiment involving two mutual funds, and the subject has a choice. They can receive feedback and be able to change their allocation every month, every year, or every five years.

As investors, how often should we want that information? Well, we posed this sort of as a thought experiment. if you were an investor, how often would you want to get the information about how your funds were performing and the chance to change the allocation? And I think the answer that most people would give is as often as possible. And in fact, we can do that every day. Right now is generally the way things are set up. But in this experiment, which is done by behavioral economist Richard Thaler and some of his colleagues, it turned out that subjects who are randomly assigned to get feedback only once every five years had the best track record over about a 30-year period of performance

than people who got feedback every month. Of course, this was not a 30-year-long experiment. This was simulated time and simulated time periods, but the result was the same. Actually having less information about your performance and about how the market was doing resulted in better performance. The reason for that is that the two mutual funds in this experiment, simulated mutual funds, one was a bond fund,

so it had a very low return but also very low volatility, and one was meant to be like a stock fund, so it had high return but also high volatility. So people who allocated money to the stock fund found that sometimes they suffered large losses month to month, as the stock market is wont to do, and that made them move out of the stock fund into the bond fund. But over the 30-year period, it was a bad idea to have all your money in bonds, so those people didn't wind up making that much money. They got a lot of sort of short-term information about volatility,

and that obscured them from understanding the long-running trend in the market. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. We're talking with Chris Chabris about his new book, The Invisible Gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Now, in addition to writing the book and all of your work, you're also a chess master. What game do you think investing most approximates? Well, the obvious answer is something that has a little bit more gambling in it. If I had to choose, though, I think the right game I would pick is something more like poker.

And a lot of people sort of analogize investing to a casino and so on. And to the extent that it has those characteristics, that's probably bad. But a game like poker involves both skill and chance. You can have the edge if you study and if you practice, and especially if you know yourself. And one of the big ways to have an edge in poker is to get control over your own emotions and to understand when you're acting impulsively and when you're not thinking things through and you're not thinking long-term. And, of course, those are the same characteristics that I would think investors would want to have also.

So you don't want to be making decisions based on intuition, gut instinct, and so on. You want to be making them on a long-term plan that you can stick with and sort of use to ride out emotional swings. All right. Before we let you get away, we've got to end with a quick round of buy, sell, or hold. Let's start with, well, you know, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a bestseller entitled Blink based on this concept. Buy, sell, or hold snap judgments. i'm gonna say i'm gonna say sell snap judgments i wouldn't hold on to them right now i think they're quite overrated uh and it's not necessarily malcolm gladwell's fault i actually enjoy his book

very much but i think people have somehow taken the lesson from his book and from a few things that he says in that book kind of isolated sentences that the world would be a better place if we all trusted our guts more and uh you know one um i was reading a fascinating book that I'm sure a lot of others have read, Too Big to Fail, and it talked about what happened with Lehman Brothers. And it turned out the president of Lehman Brothers, as they were sort of circling the drain 2007-2008, was a big devotee and had exhorted all of his friends to go with their guts and so on. And I think there are some situations where it is good to trust your intuition, your gut instincts, deciding what kind of ice cream you like and what you want to eat and so on.

But investment decisions and really weighty matters might be a good time to step back and go for a little more rational analysis. So I'm going to sell those right now. One of the big topics in your book is confidence. This guy epitomizes confidence. Buy, sell, or hold Donald Trump. That's a good one. I don't know. You have to admire his confidence.

And Donald Trump really does. I don't know the man. And I do like some of his appearances on TV. But he really does illustrate one thing we call the illusion of confidence, which is that if you act confidently, other people are going to believe what you're saying and believe that you have the skills and the knowledge and the ability. And that can actually carry you a long way. And I think, you know, you're right that that's one of his attributes. I think I'd put a hold on him right now, though, because I think there could be too much of a good thing there. And finally, your book is, well, your book is on sale everywhere, including Amazon.com.

Another book that I found on Amazon.com is entitled Practical Intuition in Love. Let your intuition guide you to the love of your life. Now, you and your co-author are both married. So buy, sell, or hold the role of intuition when dealing with one's spouse? Well, I thought you were going to say when finding a spouse. And in that case, I was going to put a buy on that one, because I think attraction is one of those areas where a lot of rational analysis is not going to tell you who you should be attracted to and who you shouldn't be attracted to. So I would go with intuition there. Now, as far as dealing with your spouse, that's a different question.

So now I'm going to actually answer the question you posed. And I would, on that one, I'd put a hold, because here you've got two sides of intuition involved. One is you want to be sensitive to how someone's feeling. You want to be sensitive to your own emotions and all that kind of stuff. And I'm not really that kind of psychologist, but I can appreciate that. But two, you want to be aware of when you're making assumptions about things like who remembers what and who said what when and what people know and what they don't know. And a lot of arguments I've noticed after I wrote this book, the more I started to look at my own behavior and my own life, a lot of the things we argue about are based on people thinking they have perfect memory of what happened in the past. You know, you said that two weeks ago.

That's exactly what you said. I remember exactly what you said. And you can get into too many ridiculous arguments with your spouse, other people in your life, and so on, if you really believe that you are perfectly aware of what's going on and you have perfect memory and your knowledge is better than everyone else and so on. So I would really watch out for those kinds of intuitions, the kinds of intuitions about how your mind works and how good you are, which are the ones we're really sort of warning about in this book.

So on balance, I'd have to give it a hold because it's a half a buy and half a sell. The book is The Invisible Gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. It is available everywhere. Chris Chabris, thanks so much for being here on Motley Fool Money. Thank you. Coming up, a look at irrationality and investing with bestselling author Dan Ariely. This is Motley Fool Money. As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about.

Don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Chris Hill, and we wrap up this week with bestselling author and behavioral economist Dan Ariely. And we begin the conversation by talking about how investors should behave. Dan, the market is up from its lows in 2009. A lot of investors have seen their stocks regain some of that lost ground. How do you invest your own money? And how do you find yourself reacting when your investments go up?

Yeah, so I try not to react. And I mean it seriously. So people do lots of mistakes when they invest. And one of the mistakes, of course, is to let emotion rule us. So here's kind of a way to invest badly. is you start in the morning and you get to the office and you open your portfolio and if you're up you're a little happy and if you're down you're really miserable and now you make your decision based on this particular emotion

that was evoked by the randomness of the stock market. And I try to think about this strategy without looking at my portfolio. So I don't look at specific things that I gained or lost because that's kind of water under the bridge. It's not very helpful and I don't want to be emotional but I can look at it and say, what do I think about the future? Where do I think things are going up? Where do I think things are going down?

And let me take an action of those, independent of how much money I've lost in the past. It's kind of irrelevant. That's the first thing. And the second thing is that I try to avoid the status quo bias. So what happens is that you create a portfolio and you open it, and now the question is, what do you change? Like, what do you sell?

What do you buy? How do you change your portfolio to a slightly different portfolio? And that means that whatever decisions you made in the past, rational, irrational, thoughtful, not so thoughtful, is going to keep on escorting you through life. And what I try to do is try to imagine once in a while that somebody went at night and somehow sold everything I have. So I'm at just cash. And now I sit and I say, okay, assuming I just have cash, what would I get now? And that basically helps you alleviate some of the problems. Imagine you bought a stock for $100 and it's now $80.

It's very painful to sell it, even if you think it's going to go down. So people often hold on to losing stock for too long. So from time to time, it's good to start from scratch. And imagine you just have cash. Say, what would you do now? And then move on on this strategy. The subtitle of your book is The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home.

I want to ask you, in general, how do we act irrationally at work? So big bonuses is one example, where we pay people tremendous bonuses. We think they will work better. And, in fact, big bonuses really work very well for physical tasks. So if I wanted to jump many times, you will jump more if I gave you high bonuses. But they backfire for cognitive tasks. Other ways in which these things work is that people fall in love with their own ideas. They fall in love with the things that they make.

They don't see the downside of anything that is connected to us. You know, we are wonderful people. We're exceptional, and therefore everything we touch, all the ideas we come up with are exceptional as well. And I talk a little bit about revenge as well. And there's actually one chapter that I think is particularly interesting and kind of starts, I start in the book from a story about the financial industry, which is a chapter about the meaning of work. And the story is that one of my students, ex-students, came back to visit me and he told me that he worked for three weeks on a PowerPoint presentation for some big merger. And he sent it to a boss the day before the merger and the boss said, nice work, but the merger is canceled.

And that guy was completely devastated. He was completely unmotivated in the next task he was going to do. And he said everything functional was just perfectly fine. Everything functional. His boss appreciated it. He worked hard on it. He enjoyed it while he was doing it. He was sure he would get the raise.

Everything seems perfectly functional. But at the same time, he was completely demotivated. So we created the following experiment to kind of capture this. In one condition, you build robots from Lego. And you get paid for them less and less and less the more you build. So you get $3 for the first one. And when you finish, I say, Chris, do you want to build another one? You'll get $2.70 for that one.

You say, yes, I'll give you the next one. I say, hey, do you want another one? You'll get $240 for the next one, and so on, until you decide, at this price, I don't want to build them. This is one condition. And I tell you that when you finish building all of them, when you finish the experiment, I'll unassemble them, put them back in the boxes for the next participant.

For the second group of participants, you build the first one. I said you want the second one. As you build the second one, I already take the first one to pieces. I break it up to pieces already and put the pieces back in the box. And if you want to build a third one, I give you the first one back, the one that you built and I unassembled and you can assemble it again. So what happened? Two things happened.

The first thing is that in this condition, which we call the specific condition, people stopped working much, much faster. And the second thing is for everybody, we measured how much they liked Legos and how long they persisted in the task. And what we found was in the first condition, when we didn't kind of crush the meaning of labor, there was a high correlation between how long people persisted in a task and how much, in general, they liked Legos.

But in the specific task, the correlation was basically zero, which tells me that we were able, with this very simple manipulation, to squish the joy that people were having from this task. People are capable of creating lots of intrinsic value and motivation from tasks, even tasks that are not so meaningful, like building robots from Lego for a few minutes. But we as job places can easily squish the joy out of those things. And I think the challenge for the workplace is to say, how do we, one, help people get more value out of their work?

How do we explain to them the value of what they're doing, the connection to other things, the meaning in their work? And, of course, how do we not make it worse? How do we not kind of crush the feeling of meaning that people can naturally create in their labor? You're listening to Motley Fool Money. We're talking with Dan Ariely, author of the new book, The Upside of Irrationality. Dan, time to close things out with a round of buy, sell, or hold. Let's start with something that a lot of businesses use, buy, sell, or hold focus groups.

Sell, sell, sell. Why? Because it turns out that focus groups give people lots of confidence that they'll learn something and they know what they're doing. but the actual value in terms of information is really, really low. It's kind of the same value as you get from listening to people who analyze at the end of the day what happened in the stock market and tell you exactly a story about why they can predict what happened in the past. People are really good in telling stories about what happened

even when they have no idea about what is reality. All right. You write about the biological imperative for variety. So buy, sell, or hold monogamy. Woo! Are you trying to put me into a tough spot here? If I had to bet, I would sell. Tell me why. So monogamy is an incredibly hard thing to maintain.

And it turns out that one of the interesting things that controls monogamy is a drug called oxytocin. And so if you give people oxytocin, they become more trusting and more monogamous. But we don't have that much oxytocin. Some animals have more, some animals have less. We don't have a lot of it. And I think that despite the fact that we get upset with Tiger Woods and other politicians when we discover that they've not been monogamous, the reality is that most people are not. So we have kind of this double standard.

When this thing happens in society all the time, we just don't seem to admit it to ourselves that this is incredibly much more common than it is. And, you know, the reality is that, you know, people do other things from time to time. That's just how things are. And finally, you're a married man. I'm a married man.

Buy, sell, or hold telling your spouse they're not being rational. Ooh, that's definitely, you never, never, never want to do that. Never, never, never. So you've never gone there with your lovely bride, Sumi? With my lovely wife, let me say it again, my lovely, lovely wife, who's incredibly generous and forgiving on a daily basis. No, telling her it's irrational is not the right thing. First of all, she's always rational, always making the right decision.

But no, this is not the right standard to have a discussion with your significance. The book is The Upside of Irrationality, The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home. It's available everywhere. It is a fascinating read, so pick it up. Dan Ariely, thanks so much for being here. My pleasure as always. That's it for this week.

If you missed any part of the show, you can find it at our website, motleyfoolmoney.com. Our engineer is Steve Broido. Our producer is Matt Greer. I'm Chris Hill thanks for listening we'll see you next week