OppThink and Opportunity Cost

One economics topic I always found intriguing is "Opportunity Cost" (I'll refer to it as OppCost). Since you cannot do two things at once (although cellphones and other technologies are helping to change that), when you choose to do X you typically lose the opportunity to do Y.

For example, if you take a job at Xerox, you can't simultaneously work at Yahoo. If offered a job by both companies, you would weigh the benefits of one job against the benefits of the other (and the second job's benefits make up the OppCost of taking the first job). In this example, the things you would gain from taking Yahoo's offer is the OppCost of taking Xerox's offer. Similarly, the things you would gain from taking Xerox's offer is the OppCost of taking Yahoo's offer.

Here is another example in the arena of investing: "A person who invests $10,000 in a stock denies herself or himself the interest that could have accrued by leaving the $10,000 in a bank account instead. The opportunity cost of the decision to invest in stock is the value of the interest. A person who sells stock for $10,000 denies himself or herself the opportunity to sell the stock for a higher price in the future, inheriting an opportunity cost equal to future price minus sale price." (source: Wikipedia)

In general, when deciding whether or not to do X, you should weigh the opportunity cost of doing X -- that is, add up all the things you give up if you decide to do X.

OppThink and Opportunity Cost (OppCost) are obviously related concepts. The OppCost of X is the value of "the opposite of X" -- where I define opposite here as all the things you can do if you don't do X. OppCost is another example of how looking at "opposite situations" or "opposite activities" can have great value.

One of the biggest benefits of applying OppThink in the realm of OppCost comes when you discover that the OppCost of doing something is too great. For example, suppose a man's OppCost of taking a 70-hour a week $700,000 per year job is a great loss of time he would have spent with his children (which to many parents is priceless - that is, infinite cost). In this example, the man should not take the job, even with its high salary, since the OppCost is even higher.

OppGames: Clever "20Q" Gameshow is Opposite of 20 Questions

As you may know, the game of 20 Questions involves person A thinking of a person, place or thing, and person B then asking a series of questions in order to narrow down the possible choices until one object - and one only - matches all the clues gathered so far. And B must whittle down the choices in 20 questions or less.

But how can you translate that into a watchable and fair gameshow? Well, it has kinda been done before, in a show I liked as a kid called "What's My Line?" In this case, it was always a person. The problem was that the host often had trouble answering, since there was no control over what the celebrity panelists could ask. Of course, that could lead to fun and humor, but the downside is the potential for throwing off the panelists by having a confused host say "Maybe" when it really was a "Yes", or misunderstanding what the panelist asked.

Cut to 2009, and the folks behind the new 20Q gameshow (to air on GSN) decided to come up with a fun and fully fair version of the game. They decided to DO THE OPPOSITE of games like 20 questions, 20Q (the hit handheld game) and What's My Line.

What's the opposite, you ask?
Instead of asking questions to get clues,
the players are just GIVEN A SERIES OF CLUES.

In this new gameshow, the players get to see one clue at a time, up to 20 of them. Players decide when they have enough clues to give an answer with certainty (or close to it). Of course, there is risk in answering incorrectly (you may get eliminated), so you have to balance waiting for more clues versus getting in with a right answer before the others.

Since the key element of "Players ask questions"
has been reversed to "Players get answers",
I submit that the TV version of 20Q is an excellent example of OppThink in the game domain. The new gameshow is basically "20 Questions In Reverse."

OppWords List: Reverse Verbiage

Parayesia: The belief that people are out to get you (to a better place).

Frienemy: an enemy you convert into a friend (or treat as a friend even if you disagree).

Willusion: an imaginary thing (e.g., obstacle) that disappears when you apply your will to defeat it.

Plemptyful: the state of X being full of potential creation even if X seems to be empty.

Abutdance: the dance of turning around all the "but"s surrounding a decision and seeing the abundance side of things instead.

OppThink Quote from J.D. Salinger on Paranoia in Reverse

"I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make me happy." - J. D. Salinger.

Do you see the glass as half empty, or half full? Salinger obviously believes the latter.
In fact, I would like to coin a new OppThink word (OppWord) in honor of this quote:

Parayesia: The belief that people are out to get you (to a better place).

OppWords: Reversals of Fortune (aka Look the Other Way)

'STRESSED' spelled backwards is 'DESSERTS'.

Something to think about.

OppThink Quote from Vince Lombardi on Winning and Losing

Vince Lombardi - "We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time."
Another famous quote worth learning from.

Here, Vince took the OppBelief of what most people would have just accepted (that is, "We lost the game"); the opposite is, of course, "We didn't lose the game."

Vince could be very convincing.
But how could he possibly justify this OppBelief?

With a supporting belief. And he found one: "Time ran out."
This is true, time did run out.

In other words, Vince's team would've won the game if they'd had more time to play.
If the game was 5 quarters instead of 4, they would have won, for example.
So now he can truthfully tell his team: don't think of yourselves as losers today.
Think of yourselves as winners who just needed a little more time to prove it.
You're not flawed - the game itself is flawed (for being too short)!
A great shift in mindset, courtesy of a little OppThinking.

Thanks, Vince. You're still invincible.

Small vs. Big OppThink: Levels, Zones and OppKnocks

One of the main ideas I hope to get across in this book is that there are always multiple levels and zones in our thinking, or the thinking within an organization. We need to know when to operate on one level or in one zone, and when to jump to another that is more relevant or useful.

Example: X and Y may be opposite beliefs or actions on Level L or in Zone Z.
There may be value in deciding which is best to adopt.
But it could be that deciding between X and Y is itself a wrong or wasteful/useless action.
A better action may be to forego or discard this decision altogether and jump to a different area of thinking, a more relevant level or zone.
(I use level for up/down movement -- higher and lower areas;
and zone for lateral movement -- different areas on the same level.)

Specific examples: why spend time deciding on leather versus cloth seats on a new Ford car before deciding whether you want to buy a new car at all? Why shop for homes in LA if you have not finalized a decision about whether to stay in LA or move? Solve the "higher choices" first before moving to "lower issues". OppThink can be applied to both the higher-issue questions and the detailed questions.

Similarly, learn to be adept at identifying OppKnocks -- moments when opportunity knocks and you can leap to another (better) level or zone. Knowing when to take opportunities to leap to better levels/zones when they present themselves also entails knowing when to abandon OppThinking that is no longer relevant based on the new data. If new data (an opportunity) says "I can move to NY for a great new job starting next Monday," then you can stop bickering with your roommate about chores for next Tuesday. The point is now moot. Move your reasoning and OppThinking attention to the new level or zone ASAP, and leave old levels/zones behind.

Summary:
Use OppThink methods to decide what is the right "zone of debate" or "area of OppThink operations" -- then go down to OppThinking specific beliefs when the time is right.

# # #

Another example: It occured to me that manipulation of OppThink beliefs applies to politics. A skilled (some might say devious or evil) politician P might try to get the press arguing about beliefs X and Y when in fact P could care less about these opposing beliefs. P may be hoping to distract the press and public from P's real agenda, which lives in a different level or zone of thinking, and which should be debated.

Knowing about and learning to identify Small OppThink versus Big OppThink can hopefully help us identify with politicians like P -- or any folks wanting our vote, our money, our attention -- are trying to distract us from what is truly important.