We instinctively resist things that violate our established mental categories. The visceral rejection of drinking fresh water from a pristine toilet demonstrates this powerful bias. Disruptive innovations often fail not because they are bad, but because they force people to break a well-defined mental category, causing cognitive dissonance.
Related Insights
Even revolutionary ideas can be crippled by self-doubt. Kate Raworth sketched her now-famous "donut" diagram and immediately dismissed it as "fluffy and fuzzy," hiding it in a desk drawer for months. This reveals the vulnerability innovators feel and the courage required to share a concept that breaks from convention.
When pursuing breakthrough ideas ("10x thinking"), the process is inherently uncomfortable. It's crucial to distinguish this discomfort, which signals you're pushing boundaries, from the feeling of being wrong. Embracing this discomfort is key to innovation in ambiguous, early-stage product development.
The success of 'false choice' buttons stems from a cognitive bias called the 'framing effect,' which leverages loss aversion. People react more strongly to potential losses and negative self-perceptions than to potential gains. The brain is hardwired to avoid feeling stupid, making the negatively framed 'no' option a powerful deterrent.
Even Donald Hoffman, proponent of the consciousness-first model, admits his emotions and intuition resist his theory. He relies solely on the logical force of mathematics to advance, demonstrating that groundbreaking ideas often feel profoundly wrong before they can be proven.
When introducing a disruptive model, potential partners are hesitant to be the first adopter due to perceived risk. The strategy is to start with small, persistent efforts, normalizing the behavior until the advantages become undeniable. Innovation requires a patient strategy to overcome initial industry inertia.
Beyond testing hypotheses, real-world experiments serve a crucial social function: reducing employee fear of change. By co-designing experiments with skeptics to test their specific assumptions, innovation teams can quell fears with data, turning organizational resistance into buy-in.
The human mind rejects ideas that are too novel. Effective communication and innovation should be grounded in the familiar, introducing only about 20% new information. This principle, from designer Raymond Loewy, helps make new concepts intelligible and acceptable.
![Wolfgang Hammer - The Power of Story - [Invest Like the Best, EP.447] thumbnail](https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/adaa55e4-bead-11f0-a5d6-a799713dc0a0/image/a76713c3a8fb2abf443f9164703734c5.jpg?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&max-w=3000&max-h=3000&fit=crop&auto=format,compress)
The gap between AI believers and skeptics isn't about who "gets it." It's driven by a psychological need for AI to be a normal, non-threatening technology. People grasp onto any argument that supports this view for their own peace of mind, career stability, or business model, making misinformation demand-driven.
Once people invest significant time, money, and social identity into a group or ideology, it becomes psychologically costly to admit it's wrong. This 'sunk cost' fallacy creates cognitive dissonance, causing people to double down on their beliefs rather than face the pain of a misguided investment.
People resist new initiatives because the "switching costs" (effort, money, time) are felt upfront and are guaranteed. In contrast, the potential benefits are often far in the future and not guaranteed. This timing and certainty gap creates a powerful psychological bias for the status quo.