Latest news with #behavioralscience
CNA
2 days ago
- General
- CNA
Dislike being bound by the clock? You might be an 'event-timer'
A few years ago, I was 45 minutes late to an anniversary dinner with my then-boyfriend. The mood turned sour immediately because he had to pay pricey parking fees for the additional time I took to arrive. From then on, his voice had an undertone of resentment. That was not the first time I had been tardy on our dates – on numerous occasions he had to wait for me as I was still commuting when he had already arrived. I prefer to go along with the flow and move onto a new activity only after completing a previous task, perceiving the 'end' in a more fluid manner than some other people. In stark contrast, he abides strictly by the clock and when a meeting time is set, deviating from it is inconceivable in his mind. Our inability to reconcile with how we approached time was one of the reasons we broke up, and that dinner was the last straw. Looking back on that parting of the ways, I did some research and learnt about concepts that describe the differences in the ways that my ex-boyfriend and I structure our day. I operate on what behavioural scientists call 'event time', referring to a system where individuals progress at their own internal rhythm, transitioning between tasks when they feel that the last one is finished. As I was working on a project before our ill-fated meeting, I had hoped to make sure it was done well before heading out so that I would not have to think about it for the rest of the night and could enjoy the meal with him. To me, this was more important than meeting up at the predetermined time, which of course backfired in the end. This contrasts with 'clock-timers' who use external cues to guide the way they schedule their actions. If they allocate two hours to finish something, when the two hours have passed, the work is done. While one way of managing time is not necessarily better than the other, the world operates based on the clock. After all, there are non-negotiable activities like flights and doctors' appointments. Would an entire planeload of passengers wait for you just because you are late? Productivity and performance expert Charlene Ng said the dominance of clock-time culture reinforces a narrative of failure for anyone who doesn't fit in. Ms Cindi Wirawan, a career coach, agreed. She said: 'Being an event-timer can be mentally challenging as you could be perceived as disorganised or even unproductive for failing to adhere to schedules. 'They may feel anxious or struggle with guilt whenever they can't keep up.' However, event timers can push themselves to follow the clock out of necessity, punctually submitting work and respecting others' time in order to be empathetic, dependable friends. This does not mean it is their ideal or preferred method of planning their time. Looking back at my time with my ex-boyfriend, I wondered if I had tried to adapt to his way of managing time, the relationship might have kept going. So what are some time management strategies that event-timers can adopt to function better in a world where the clock is dominant?
Forbes
4 days ago
- Health
- Forbes
My Kidney Cancer Taught Me That Patients Aren't Consumers
concept - kidney tumor. Most normal people, when told they have kidney cancer, worry about what that means for their long-term health. I'm not normal. When I discovered I had a 1cm tumor growing on my left kidney, I wondered: 'How much is this going to cost me?' My lack of normality results in part from my profession – I'm a physician and behavioral scientist who believes that every experience is an excuse to conduct research. I'm also a famously discerning consumer (my euphemism for being a cheapskate). So when I realized I had a kidney mass that needed medical attention, I made sure to figure out how much every test and treatment would cost me. I found myself trying to live up to what free market enthusiasts say we need in this country – patients who bring consumer savviness to the medical marketplace. I was going to scrutinize my medical alternatives like a five-star chef at an organic farmer's market, squeezing the metaphorical offerings to determine which goods are worth which prices. But I quickly discovered that no patient is a decision- making island, and therefore healthcare consumerism will never work as well as its enthusiasts hope. My cancer journey began when I went to the bathroom and noticed bright red urine. I remember feeling simultaneously shocked because my urine was full of blood and disappointed that I hadn't felt pain that would signal a benign problem like kidney stones. 'Shit,' I thought to myself, 'could I have cancer?' A few days later, a CT scan revealed a 1cm mass hanging off the lower pole of my left kidney. My urologist explained that the kidney mass had nothing to do with my bloody urine: 'It's too small and too far away from the center of your kidney to account for hematuria.' 'Then what could have caused me to bleed?' I asked. 'Probably a vein in your prostate,' he answered. 'As you can see,' he said, pointing to the CT image which he pulled up on his computer screen, 'your prostate is quite large.' As for the kidney mass, the urologist confirmed that it was probably cancerous: 'But it's such a small size, we have a 98% chance of curing it. We just have to decide what treatment approach you like best.' One treatment alternative was cryotherapy. With this procedure, an interventional radiologist would stick a needle in my back and inject the tumor with freezing liquid. 'The main advantage of cryotherapy is its gentility,' he told me. 'You'll be playing tennis in a week', no small consideration for an avid exerciser like me. The disadvantages? 'Well, they will biopsy the mass before freezing it, but there is no guarantee the biopsy will yield diagnosable tissue, so we might never know whether the lesion they zap is cancerous or benign.' There was also a chance the freezing wouldn't kill all the tumor cells, an 8-10% likelihood, in fact, that the tumor would grow back over the next five years and require further treatment. Finally, to monitor for such a recurrence, I would need CT or MRI scans of my kidney 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the treatment, plus annually for the next five years. Determined to be a savvy shopper, I did some quick math. I had already paid $45 to see my primary care doctor, another $45 to see the urologist, and another $150 for the CT scan. (These payments are what insurance companies call co-pays. Although they usually cover only a small portion of overall healthcare expenses, studies have nevertheless shown that even modest co-pays are enough to make many patients think twice about seeking out medical interventions.) Now the urologist was recommending 8 more scans, each costing $150; plus 8 follow-up appointments at $45 a pop, plus parking; plus the $450 cost of the kidney freezing procedure, . . . I could see this adding up to a decent chunk of change. But I had a second alternative – robotic, laparoscopic surgery. The urologist would make four incisions in my belly, and through a series of cameras and instruments, remove the mass. 'The advantage of surgery,' he told me 'is that we will remove the entire mass with clean margins. It will be gone, with only a 2% chance of recurrence over the next 5 years.' Because the procedure was more definitive, I would only need follow-up at one and five years. Two scans instead of eight, saving me close to $1200. But the surgery had a major downside because the urologist would cut open my belly, and I'd have to go six weeks without vigorous exercise while my tissues healed. I decided to get surgery, to avoid all the additional imaging tests, tests that would cost not only money but time. So far, my decision-making was a textbook example of how patients as consumers should make decisions. I learned about my treatment alternatives, their medical risks and benefits, as well as their financial costs, and made the choice that fit my values. It was only after returning to the urologist's office, two weeks after surgery, that I realized that this textbook was missing a chapter on the powerful role that physicians play in patients' medical decisions. After appropriate pleasantries, the urologist showed me the pathology report confirming that my mass was a renal cell cancer, a small one 'with clean margins,' meaning that he had cut out enough healthy tissue surrounding the tumor to be confident that no cancer cells remained. He then went over the follow-up plan, which I was surprised to discover had changed significantly since we last discussed it. 'Now the NCCN guidelines,' he told me, 'say that we don't need to do any follow-up imaging for someone with a tumor as small as yours.' The NCCN is the National Cancer Center Network, a professional organization whose clinical practice guidelines hold a lot of weight with physicians, because they represent a thorough assessment of the scientific evidence. 'But in your case,' he went on, 'you are so much younger and healthier than average, I would want to get a follow-up scan in three months, then annually after that for the next five years.' Huh? Before the surgery he told me that I would only need follow-up scans at 1 and 5 years, a factor that had influenced my choice of the procedure. Now he was telling me that I should receive six more scans. Surprised by this new course of action, I pushed back: 'How fast do renal cell cancers grow?' 'Usually about 0.6cm per year,' he answered. 'Then why do we need annual scans?' 'Recurrent tumors usually grow faster than primary cancers,' he answered, meaning that the 0.6cm figure he had given me five seconds earlier hadn't been an answer to the question I had asked. 'Look,' he said gently, 'we can have fewer scans if you want, but I hate to take the chance of missing a treatable recurrence in a young guy like you.' I was 51 at time, whereas the average age of someone diagnosed with renal cell cancer is 64. 'If you were older, with a bunch of competing health problems, I wouldn't be so worried. Most of my older patients with tumors like yours end up dying of other diseases, like heart problems, so getting frequent scans in them doesn't make sense.' Earlier in the visit, he had remarked upon how little fat he'd seen around my kidneys during the operation, and had commented on how quickly I was recovering from the procedure. My relative youth and healthiness were seemingly causing him to push for a more aggressive follow-up. He reiterated his recommendation that I receive an MRI in 3 months. I flashed a skeptical look in his direction, so he quickly elaborated: 'I just saw a patient at the three month follow-up today who already had a recurrence. Now he had a different tumor than yours,' (which seems like a pretty relevant fact to me), 'but I have seen too many bad cases in my career, patients whose tumors we discovered too late. Better safe than sorry.' Hard to argue against the logic of 'better safe than sorry.' But in my case that logic led down a path of potentially unnecessary tests and procedures, all of which cost money—not only to me, the patient forking over a co-pay, but also to the rest of the healthcare system. And of course, just two weeks earlier I had chosen to have my cancer removed surgically to avoid all those follow-up tests. In most consumer markets, individual consumers decide what products they want to buy at which prices. My experience with kidney cancer reminded me that in medical markets, physicians often play a large role in deciding what tests or procedures individual patients will receive, with little regard for the price of such services. In such settings, it defies logic to expect patients to make the kind of discerning choices that maximize market efficiency. We are undergoing a silent revolution in medical care in this country, with insurers and employers encouraging an increasing percent of Americans to enroll in high out-of-pocket health insurance plans. This move fhas been built on the assumption that giving patients a larger financial responsibility for the cost for their healthcare will turn them into more discerning healthcare consumers. My experience belies that assumption. Even savvy healthcare consumers – aka patients – will have a hard time reining in healthcare spending in the face of physicians preaching an ethic of better safe than sorry. In the end, the urologist and I compromised. I skipped the three month follow-up that he recommended but agreed to receive a scan at twelve months. I doubt that many patients would have been able to resist the recommendation for the earlier scan. Even I left the office that day wondering, worrying really, whether I had made a mistake, fretting about whether a small nexus of undetected cancer cells was silently rejoicing, knowing they had an extra window of time to draw strength from my blood. I had won a victory for medical markets and for common sense. But it left me wondering: would that victory cause me to lose the war?
Forbes
22-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Making Money Matter More: The Power Of A 'Massively Transformative Purpose'
Net worth is easy to measure. But what makes it worthwhile? What justifies the effort, investment, or sacrifice required to pursue financial success? And how is that—financial success—even defined in the first place? And then, once you've reached whatever definition of financial success you've determined, what gives your wealth meaning? (A question worth considering) Redefining Financial Success We've long been taught to measure financial success with numbers: net worth, portfolio returns, retirement dates, income generated, gifts granted, taxes paid and avoided, inheritance left behind. Yet one could check every box—and still feel unfulfilled. In fact, many people go to great lengths to achieve supposed financial success—but at the expense of their time, influence, health, and relationships. This all-too-common phenomenon begs the question: What's it really worth? This nagging question is one that has plagued my firm since its inception, nearly 30 years ago. And it's why we coined our own term—Net Worthwhile®—designed to remind us and our clients that our pursuit is not solely numerical…that a mountain of wealth can be worthless without purpose while bringing meaning to money can empower families, both personally and financially. Behavioral Science Meets Financial Planning Here, we're taking concepts rooted in behavioral science, like Self-Determination Theory (SDT)—which suggests that identifying with a purpose enhances intrinsic motivation, boosting persistence, engagement, and performance when tasks align with personal values—and extrapolating it to wealth management. Others have done the same in other fields. For example, building on Jim Collins' BHAG concept (Big Hairy Audacious Goal), Peter Diamandis and Salim Ismail introduced us to the concept of the Massively Transformative Purpose (MTP) in their ode to entrepreneurs in their book, Exponential Organizations. What's A Massively Transformative Purpose? Hyperbolic by design, a Massively Transformative Purpose for a business is a clear, aspirational statement that articulates an organization's deeply held purpose to create meaningful, large-scale impact. 'It establishes a long-term goal for the company so sweeping and profound that it is always within reach yet always unreachable,' Ismail suggests. 'It inspires employees and customers. And it galvanizes employee morale and retention.' For example, at my company, we review our version of an MTP with the entire firm every quarter: 'We are going to impact the lives of 10,000 families by 2030 because financially healthy families and individuals change the world.' This infuses our collective efforts with a purpose well beyond profit, while providing a standard against which all of our individual initiatives and decisions can be gauged. What's Your Net Worthwhile®? The concept of Net Worthwhile®, therefore, can be used to help those families we impact with a similar plumbline for their financial planning. Net Worthwhile® helps bring money to life (and life to money) in three key ways: At its simplest, your Net Worthwhile® is the completion of this sentence: For the relationally oriented, Net Worthwhile® serves as a family financial mission statement. For the practically minded, it becomes a clear set of marching orders from client to advisor. For the analytical, it provides the standard by which goals and next actions in the plan are evaluated. And for the experimental, it may serve as a catalyst to expand what's typically considered possible in financial planning. For some, Net Worthwhile® serves as a phrase or sentence. For others, a paragraph or bullet points or even pictures. Its effectiveness is judged not by its articulation but by its power to activate and motivate. So, what's yours? What's the Massively Transformative Purpose that gets you up in the morning, that inspires you to push through when you face resistance, that gives you clarity in the midst of confusion, that brings meaning to money? What's your Net Worthwhile®?
Fast Company
16-06-2025
- Health
- Fast Company
5 signals that make you instantly more trustworthy at work
Believe it or not, first impressions are biological. When meeting someone for the first time, well before your résumé or title is considered, your brain and body are sending and receiving subtle signals that influence trust. In today's workplaces, where hybrid teams and digital interactions dominate, those signals matter more than ever. The good news is that you can learn to send them more intentionally. In my work developing Leadership Biodynamics, a biology of behavior approach to executive presence, I help leaders become more aware of how trust and connection are built at the behavioral level. The signals that trigger trust are not abstract: they're cues the human brain is wired to read quickly and deeply, because in evolutionary terms, deciding whether someone was safe to approach was once a matter of survival. That's still true in the modern workplace. Whether you're onboarding to a new team, pitching an idea to executives, or building rapport with clients, the signals you send, especially those of warmth, create the foundation for influence. Here are five warmth signals, rooted in behavioral science, that can make you instantly more trustworthy at work. 1. Listen With Full Attention In any conversation, your body gives away whether you are truly listening. Direct eye contact, open posture, leaning slightly forward, and subtle nods all signal active attention. These cues calm the other person's limbic system, reducing social threat and increasing openness. Research on neuroception, the brain's unconscious scanning for cues of safety, shows that listening behaviors have an outsized impact on trust. When someone perceives you as fully present, they are more likely to see you as trustworthy. 2. Acknowledge and Validate Others Warmth is not just about being friendly. It's about making others feel seen and valued. Small behaviors, such as verbally acknowledging good work, validating concerns, or thanking colleagues meaningfully, send powerful signals. In Leadership Biodynamics, I teach that validation is a key biological mechanism of social bonding. When you acknowledge another's contribution, you activate neural circuits linked to oxytocin release. This reinforces affiliation and trust. 3. Focus On Others In Conversation It's easy to let a conversation drift back to your own experiences or ideas. However, warmth signals are amplified when you keep the focus on the other person. Ask questions. Draw them out. Let them shine. Behavioral science research supports this. Studies show that people rate conversations more positively when the other person shows genuine interest and curiosity about them. This behavior is linked to increased perceptions of trustworthiness and likability. 4. Be Approachable and Easy To Relate To Approachability is a behavioral signal with deep biological roots. From a neuroscience perspective, a smiling face, relaxed tone of voice, and nonthreatening posture lower others' cortisol responses and increase approach behaviors. Even small shifts in physical demeanor can change how others regulate their own behavior in response to you. Warmth cues such as smiling when greeting colleagues or using humor appropriately make you easier to approach. As a result, you are more trusted. 5. Show Thoughtfulness In Small Actions Trust is cumulative. Seemingly minor actions, like following up after a conversation, remembering a colleague's birthday, or offering help without being asked, signal consistency and care over time. Behavioral scientists have shown that such acts trigger reciprocal altruism mechanisms in the brain. This strengthens relational bonds. In leadership terms, they contribute to what I call a positive relational 'microclimate,' a state in which trust, loyalty, and collaboration flourish. Why These Signals Matter Now In hybrid workplaces, where informal trust-building moments are fewer, warmth signals become even more important. They help compensate for the missing relational glue that office proximity once provided. The latest research on team trust and psychological safety confirms this. Teams that build trust quickly perform better, especially under uncertainty. Warmth signals are often the fastest path to that trust. It is not status or credentials, but behavioral cues that others can feel in the moment. Trust is not built by charisma. It is built by signals your biology already knows how to send. The opportunity is to send them more intentionally. The bottom line is this: if you want to become more trustworthy at work, start small. Tune your warmth signals. Listen fully, validate openly, focus on others, be approachable, and act thoughtfully. In the biology of behavior, these are the cues that connect. And connection is what drives trust and influence.
Globe and Mail
15-06-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
When stock markets turn ugly, these four tricks will help prevent knee-jerk reactions
On April 4, the S&P/TSX Composite Index fell almost 5 per cent. While some investors hammered the sell button, others went on with their day and made no changes to their portfolios. Same red numbers, two opposite reactions. Why? Behavioural science says big losses should, in theory, jolt us out of knee-jerk habits and push us into careful 'System 2 thinking' – a term psychologist Daniel Kahneman used to describe our deliberate reasoning, analytical mode. 'System 1' is its opposite: fast, automatic, fuelled by emotion and mental shortcuts. System 2 is reflective, methodical, the part that double-checks math homework and rereads contracts. The trick is getting the brain to shift gears from the first to the second when markets turn ugly. New research published in the Judgment and Decision Making journal offers a clue. Experiments found that financial losses prompt people to spend more time thinking and to make better, more deliberative decisions – but only when there is enough time and cognitive space to think. Add a tight deadline, or the perception of a time pressure, and the benefit disappears: participants flip back to snap (System 1) judgments. The authors paid volunteers to solve brain-teaser questions. Get one right, earn 25 cents in one series of questions. Get it wrong, lose 25 cents in another series. When a potential loss was on the line, subjects spent more time thinking and arrived at more correct answers. That's evidence that the sting of loss can summon System 2. Opinion: If you lose money in the stock market, do you double down? That's called a martingale strategy, and it's dangerous Then the experimenters imposed a 20-second countdown clock. Under the gun, performance tanked and participants defaulted to the fast, intuitive – and often wrong – answer. Losses can prompt deep thinking or blind panic. What decides the outcome is whether the brain is given breathing room. Now bring that insight to Bay Street. Markets embed their own stopwatch: price quotes refresh almost instantly and social feeds stir up emotions around the clock. Investors do not merely sense urgency: both mainstream and social media revolve around it. Worse, the clock never stops. Extended-hours trading sessions for Canadian investors are already available from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET for many stocks, and overnight trading (8 p.m. to 4 a.m. ET the next morning) effectively makes stock trading available around the clock. Given that cryptoasset trading has no market close, maybe the move to around-the-clock security trading is inevitable. But while retail platforms tout overnight access as empowerment, the side effect is obvious: we have lost the natural curfew the closing bell once provided. Instead of cooling off overnight, a jittery investor can unload shares at 3 a.m., when liquidity might be thin and fear might be thick. Opinion: The Big Six banks are to blame for the lifeless Toronto Stock Exchange In contrast, regulators and exchanges recognize the need for oxygen. Market 'circuit breakers' halt stock market trading after big losses occur in a single trading session. These engineered breathing spaces give market participants time to digest what is happening. The implication for investors is obvious: while market losses can jolt us into deeper, more careful reasoning, this benefit is only realized if we have the time and mental space to reflect. In fast-moving markets, or when pressured to make quick decisions, the advantage of loss-induced deliberation may be lost so we need to figure out how to buy time or avoid reflexive decision-making. Here are four practical defence strategies that could help: 1. Write an investment policy statement before you need it. Even a one-page policy, drafted when you are calm, acts as a lighthouse when seas get rough. 2. Automate what you can. Prescheduled contributions and auto-rebalancing reduce decision points. 3. Use a checklist buddy. Talk decisions through with an adviser or trusted friend. Saying it out loud acts as a speed bump against emotion. 4. Respect the bell (even if markets ignore it). For investors that day-trade, decide in advance that you will not place trades outside regular hours unless a preset rule demands it. Sleep, like diversification, can be free risk management. I'm probably guilty of banging the drum on this but investors should remember that platforms hungry for order flow wave the 'democratization is good for all investors' flag proudly. But more access is not synonymous with better outcomes. Investors need to keep their eyes open. When markets nosedive, the colour red is not the true enemy – the alarmism and perceived time crunch is. Give your brain a little oxygen or adopt systems to avoid reflexive responses and the same loss that might have provoked a panicked sale might be avoided. Sometimes the smartest trade is no trade at all and the best circuit breakers may be the ones you install for yourself. Preet Banerjee is a consultant to the wealth management industry with a focus on commercial applications of behavioural finance research.
