The Ancient Persian Approach to Decision-Making: Employing Intoxication to Assess Options
Throughout the ages, societies have crafted their own methods of making decisions that might be deemed… unusual. As per the accounts of the Greek historian Herodotus, the ancient Persians had an intriguing practice. They would discuss significant choices while intoxicated and, after they had sobered, would review their decisions again. This process was also applied in reverse. If a choice was made while someone was sober, they would then drink and reassess it. The decision had to resonate both inebriated and sober states; otherwise, it would be disregarded.
While this might appear paradoxical, several behavioral scientists suggest that numerous individuals already make substantial decisions in a state akin to intoxication, albeit without conscious awareness. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely posits that the necessity to make a significant decision or strategic alteration intensifies emotions, placing individuals into what he refers to as a “hot” state.
When individuals are in hot, or emotionally triggered states, they may opt for decisions that they wouldn’t typically make when in a cold or unemotional state. When asked to forecast their reactions to situations in both hot and cold conditions, a stark contrast emerged.
“The findings were consistent and unmistakable—overwhelmingly unmistakable, alarmingly unmistakable,” states Ariely. The replies from individuals in hot states exhibited a greater tendency toward risk and unethical behaviors. Moreover, the study participants were entirely oblivious to the extent to which an elevated emotional state could alter their decision-making.
These two insights highlight the significance of distinguishing between hot and cold decision-making across all aspects of life. However, it holds particular relevance in a business context. Competitive arousal, sometimes referred to as auction fever, is a phenomenon associated with hot and cold decision-making. Engagement in auctions or competitive settings leads people to prioritize “winning at any cost,” with victory pertaining not only to the outcome but also to surpassing rivals.
Experienced negotiators often exploit this inclination. For instance, brokers might persuade prospective buyers to act immediately by informing them of competition from unnamed adversaries facing a pressing deadline. In truth, neither the competitor nor the deadline exists, yet an illusion of rivalry and urgency has been created. This triggers an elevated emotional response in the potential buyer, potentially accelerating their purchasing decision.
Thus, while the Persian custom of intoxicated deliberation may seem contrary, contemporary research now validates its cleverness. Ultimately, the “cleverness” in question lies in the cold state reassessment that follows the impulsive decision, though traditionally, one cannot occur without the other. Even if you’re hesitant to employ this tactic, it’s crucial to understand the significant influence our emotional state has on our decision-making. Being conscious of a “hot” emotional state at the moment and allowing time for a “cold” reassessment afterward can significantly differentiate between a wise choice and a regrettable impulse.