Comments on: The Selective Perception of Human Brains: Why Startups Often Beat The Big Boys

By: Latarsha

Latarsha — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:37:13 +0000

All too often the big guys got big because they took some innovative risk.

Most often during the innovative risk phase is when the top is trying to carve out a novel market position.

But after successfully positioning their innovativeness as the new market leader, they have to constantly fight to defend that market position.

But then what happens needs….Yep. You guess it. Some other company is studying their model and finding a way to encroach in on their market position.

And yes…if the innovative big-boy-market-leader does not watch his back, he will soon find himself taking back seat the the new and more innovative kid on the block.

By: The Harbour Pilot

The Harbour Pilot — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:28:05 +0000

Yup, true enough. Hmm, well change can occur gradually – incremental improvement versus transformative and so on. Thing is, the clues that warn of transformative change are there, but people often miss the signs because they emerge in different fields. Sort of, the change in materials, leading to the change in computer manufacturing and design, leading to the feasibility of global supply chains, leading to the outsourcing of manufacturing, leading to macro economic changes… To the person only focused on say domestic demographics, the outsourcing phenomenon comes as a severe and unexpected shock.

I was more ruminating on the question of programming of the cognitive interpreter and its role in your selective perception. Seems to me that people make the evidence fit their understanding most of the time. In some philosophies – scientific method, some aspects of the legal system, diagnostic medicine – there is a requirement for falsifiable hypotheses that I think is intended to combat in part this selective perception problem.

The brain is wired for excitatory reaction to new stimulus, but programming is implemented to override the new stimulus with interpretation – hey that’s not a snake, that’s a piece of pipe… We get stressed and lazy, and allow our programming to override our natural impulses.

Maybe a natural entrepreneur has as a core characteristic of NOT permitting this dismissive interpretation…

Anyway, I always have been a bit of a contrarian
Thanks for raising the subject – I have a number of concerns surrounding education and domestic competitive capability that I follow, and I am pretty sure this ties in at some point, it’s a very important subject.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:58:35 +0000

Harbour Pilot,
Yes, the human brain is optimized to notice discontinuity and change, but I would argue that much of the problem with selective perception is that change occurs gradually, and is only discontinuous if observed from the outside, which is why entrepreneurs do so well.

By: The Harbour Pilot

The Harbour Pilot — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:41:12 +0000

Actually there is considerable evidence that the human brain is optimised for selection for discontinuity and change. The violation of expectation does NOT produce resistance, it produces excitatory stimulation. In fact, the frontal cortices exercise an inhibitory influence on this arousal, seeking to dampen it. It is over-training and miseducation that produces observer and perception bias. This is one of the reasons that entrepreneurial accomplishment is not predicted by education. The cure for this syndrome is rotation of executive talent, and cross-disciplining. And of course it is not just business that is challenged with this problem – medicine, education, and the legal system are also severely effected by this.
Great topic and post, by the way. Neuro-science has progressed a bit from Harvard in the 1940s.

By: Wally Bock

Wally Bock — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:58:40 +0000

There are three important reasons that market leaders lose sight of what’s actually happening in the market. One is that, after a while, they talk to each other more than they talk to customers. When you do that, all you hear are filtered versions of reality.

Related to that is the shift from talking about the benefits of your products or services and spending time talking about the details of their features. Benefits thinking looks outward. Features thinking looks inward.

Finally, there’s the curse of success. A company is successful. They got successful because they have something good and were confident enough to pursue it. They know they’re successful. They expect to continue to be successful.

The result can be that special arrogance called Hubris, which is inevitably followed by Nemesis.

By: Berislav Lopac

Berislav Lopac — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:05:57 +0000

One thing that makes Google different than any other big company is that they have all the information. They don’t have to do any market research, they have information on anyone’s research readily available to them. And they can’t be paranoid, because they can learn anything on anyone in a moment.

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:20:25 +0000

Great post. However, one of the reasons Google has remained on top is their ability to identify and acquire companies that have specific technologies that outperform their own.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:58:15 +0000

Hi Rob. Love your blog. As someone who has seen the young woman / old lady illusion before, I wanted to point out that your picture is missing a crucial piece of the illusion: the necklace. This is the proper image: http://tinyurl.com/3xwz4h

By: laurence haughton

laurence haughton — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:41:41 +0000

One cheap and simple way to beat the “only confirming evidence” trap:

Clients have asked me, “How can I get better at recognizing my company’s (or my personal) weaknesses?” They were shocked when I told them, “You can learn more about your weaknesses by listening to the slander your detractors spread.”

My reasoning is simple. People who like you will sugarcoat everything to the point where you can “miss the point.” But your detractors exaggerate your worst. There’s almost always truth in what detractors say or it wouldn’t be effective slander. It’s just that the bad is exaggerated and detractors ignore the good.

So one good way to figure out where you’re falling short (and fix them) is to listen to your detractors and learn.