Stanford Exp: Think out of the box creative, non-linear, asymmet

Title: Unconventional Thinking Unleashed: Lessons from a Stanford Experiment

Introduction: Innovation often thrives when we dare to step outside the box, challenging conventions and embracing the unexpected. A captivating experiment conducted at Stanford Business School in 2009, orchestrated by the ingenious Professor Tina Seelig, brilliantly illustrates the transformative power of unconventional thinking. This experiment serves as an inspiring case study that sheds light on the essence of innovation, encouraging us to question assumptions, avoid distractions, and choose high-leverage approaches.

The Experiment: Professor Seelig presented her students with a deceptively simple challenge: Take $5 and two hours to generate the highest possible return on this initial investment. The twist? The students were to share their strategy and results with the class. What transpired next revealed the remarkable potential of creative, non-linear, asymmetric thinking.

The Conventional Path: The majority of student groups embarked on a conventional path. They used the $5 to buy items, engaged in barter or resale, and hoped to sell their final products for a marginally higher price. While this approach yielded modest returns, it was fundamentally linear and logical.

The Unconventional Trailblazers: However, a few visionary groups chose an entirely different path, seeing beyond the $5 and the constraints of time. They recognized a hidden gem—the presentation time in front of Stanford students. This "asset" was not just valuable; it was priceless.

Key Realizations:

Avoiding Distractions: The $5 was a distraction, a tempting pitfall that led many astray. Those who succeeded realized that the obvious solution was often the wrong one and had to be ignored.

Asking Foundational Questions: To break free from conventional thinking, one must ask fundamental questions that challenge underlying assumptions. What is the real problem to be solved? What are the core assumptions? What alternatives exist?

Selecting High Leverage Approaches: The winning group exercised patience and carefully evaluated their options. They selected the path most likely to yield asymmetric, risk-adjusted returns—a strategic choice that redefined the game.

Lessons Learned: This Stanford experiment illuminates three crucial steps for thinking differently and fostering innovation:

Step 1: Avoid the Distraction: Innovation often arises when we bypass seemingly straightforward solutions that lead us down well-trodden paths.

Step 2: Ask Foundational Questions: Deep and critical thinking is necessary to identify and challenge the assumptions that limit us.

Step 3: Select the High Leverage Approach: By evaluating options with an eye for unconventional, high-leverage strategies, we can create outcomes that defy conventional expectations.

Conclusion: Innovation isn't about following the crowd; it's about defying it. Professor Seelig's experiment and the bold approach of the winning group emphasize that creative, non-linear, asymmetric thinking can produce remarkable, asymmetric results. By embracing these lessons, we can propel ourselves beyond the boundaries of conventional thought, ignite our imaginations, and reshape the world around us. In the pursuit of innovation, let us dare to step outside the box, free our minds from distractions, and ask the questions that truly matter.

 

** 

• Sahil Bloom

  Sahil BloomSahil Bloom  • Following• FollowingExploring my curiosity and sharing what I learn along the way.Exploring my curiosity and sharing what I learn along the way.

  4h • 4h •

  This Stanford business school experiment will blow your mind...
  
  In 2009, a Stanford business professor named Tina Seelig split her class into groups and issued a challenge:
  
  Each group had $5 and 2 hours to make the highest possible return on the initial money.
  
  At the end, they'd give a short presentation on their strategy.
  
  The results were fascinating...
  
  Most of the groups followed a basic approach:
  
  • Use the $5 to buy a few items.
  • Barter or resell those items.
  • Repeat
  • Sell final items for (hopefully) more than $5.
  
  These groups made a modest return on their initial $5.
  
  A few groups ignored the $5.
  
  They thought up ways to make the most money in the 2 hours of allotted time:
  
  • Made and sold reservations at hot restaurants.
  • Refilled bike tires on campus for $1 each.
  
  These groups made a better return on their initial $5.
  
  The winning group took an entirely different approach.
  
  They had three core realizations:
  
  1. The $5 was nothing more than a distraction.
  
  2. The 2 hours of time was not enough to make an attractive, outsized return with a mini-business (like selling restaurant reservations or filling bike tires).
  
  3. The most valuable "asset" was actually the presentation time in front of a class of Stanford students.
  
  Realizing the value of this hidden asset, they offered the presentation time to companies looking to recruit Stanford students.
  
  They struck a deal to sell the time slot for $650, netting a monstrous return on the $5 of initial capital.
  
  The losing groups thought in linear, logical terms and achieved a linear, logical outcome.
  
  The winning group thought differently.
  
  So, what can we learn from this story?
  
  Three steps to start thinking differently:
  
  Step 1: Avoid the Distraction
  
  There will always be an "obvious" solution that is simple, clear, and entirely wrong.
  
  In the challenge, the $5 was nothing more than a distraction. It was a trap.
  
  To find the best path, you have to avoid the distraction.
  
  Step 2: Ask Foundational Questions
  
  Ask and answer questions that expose and vet underlying assumptions and logic.
  
  • What's the real problem you are trying to solve?
  • What's your hypothesis? Why?
  • What are your core assumptions? Why?
  • What evidence do you have?
  • What are your core options?
  • What alternatives exist?
  
  This takes time, but it's an essential exercise when facing a problem with the potential for non-linear rewards.
  
  Step 3: Select the High Leverage Approach
  
  Slow down and evaluate the options on the table.
  
  Select the path most likely to generate the asymmetric, attractive risk-adjusted returns.
  
  If the story teaches us one thing, it's this:
  
  Creative, non-linear, asymmetric thinking generates creative, non-linear, asymmetric outcomes.
  
  If you enjoyed this or learned something, follow me Sahil Bloom for more in future.

  Activate to view larger image,

  

  Activate to view larger image,

• I commit to learn one new thing daily. Your thought of this one? "The winning group thought differently. So, what can we learn from this story? Three steps to start thinking differently: Step 1: Avoid the Distraction There will always be an "obvious" solution that is simple, clear, and entirely wrong. In the challenge, the $5 was nothing more than a distraction. It was a trap. To find the best path, you have to avoid the distraction. Step 2: Ask Foundational Questions Ask and answer questions that expose and vet underlying assumptions and logic. • What's the real problem you are trying to solve? • What's your hypothesis? Why? • What are your core assumptions? Why? • What evidence do you have? • What are your core options? • What alternatives exist? This takes time, but it's an essential exercise when facing a problem with the potential for non-linear rewards. Step 3: Select the High Leverage Approach Slow down and evaluate the options on the table. Select the path most likely to generate the asymmetric, attractive risk-adjusted returns. If the story teaches us one thing, it's this: Creative, non-linear, asymmetric thinking generates creative, non-linear, asymmetric outcomes."