Photo: Stockbyte/Getty Images I consider myself to be a pretty rational person, but I also make dumb decisions every day. I buy face lotions I don’t need, hit snooze until I’m late, and spend 45 minutes mulling over what to wear to a wedding this weekend instead of working on an assignment with a pressing deadline. I know I can’t dwell on these infractions, and try not to go spinning into “What is wrong with me?!” territory. But I still wish they didn’t happen.
We are all Humans, and we will never be Econs. No matter how disciplined we are, the world will outwit us with shiny, wonderful things to do and buy instead of guarding our long-term financial well-being. However, with motivation and self-awareness, we can take a more Econ-esque approach to our money, at least some of the time — the best we mortals can hope for, really. We can automate our savings, train ourselves to shop less, and stop ignoring our bank balances.
So, how to spot that point of temptation? The key is to catch yourself in the midst of mental gymnastics. “If I can rationalize my behavior, then I’m more likely to do it, even if it runs counter to my financial or other personal goals,” says Pate. “When I notice that I’m rationalizing my behavior to myself, that should be the moment of awareness where I recognize the slippery slope I’m on, and the point where I can actually stop.
Interestingly, the rationalization trap is particularly hazardous for creative people: Research published in the Harvard Business Review found that “participants with creative identities” were more inclined to engage in wiggly self-justification than their less-imaginative peers. One explanation is that they’re better at making up reasons to do what they want; another, more insidious reason is that they feel entitled to do so. “In the U.S.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: politico - 🏆 381. / 59 Read more »
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »
Source: EW - 🏆 713. / 51 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »