It’s no secret I keep chickens. I find this thoroughly rewarding, as not only are they lovely primordial creatures, but with some love and care will endow a supply of tasty eggs for around the same price as supermarket eggs.
Chickens are very odd creatures, and one cold morning recently I wondered what (if any) life lessons we might be able to learn from them. Given how many millennia chickens have been around humans, it is no surprise that we have many sayings involving chickens.Some of my favourites:
– “It is better to be the head of chicken than the rear end of an ox” – Japanese Proverb
– “Business is never so healthy as when, like a chicken, it must do a certain amount of scratching for what it gets” – Henry Ford
– “A hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg.” – Samuel Butler
– “The key to everything is patience. You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it.”
– “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch”
– “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”
There is some hilarious truth in many of these statements, in an divination or i-ching way perhaps considering chickens can help us reflect on our own decisions. After all, why did the chicken cross the road?
More than these amusing proverbs, chickens fear change. It takes months for them to get used to eating out of a human’s hand, and they scatter very easily (hence the playground speak for scared, “are you chicken?”). In this way, they seem to be very similar to people. A quick google of “people fear change” leads to 223 million pages.
A famous study on “Framing” by behavioural economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky suggests that our loss aversion (desire to minimise perceived change) almost always altered our choices even when the other choice was identical. David McRaney summarised the study nicely:
Imagine the apocalypse is upon you. Some terrible disease was unleashed in an attempt to cure male pattern baldness. The human population has been reduced to 600 people. Everyone is likely to die without help. As one of the last survivors you meet a scientist who believes he has found a cure, but he isn’t sure. He has two versions and can’t bear to choose between them. His scientific estimates are exact, but he leaves the choice up to you. Cure A is guaranteed to save exactly 200 people. Cure B has a 1/3 probability of saving 600, but a 2/3 probability of saving no one. The fate of hairlines and future generations is in your hands. Which do you pick? Ok, mark your answer and let’s reimagine the scenario. Same setup, everyone is going to die without a cure, but this time if you use Cure C it is certain exactly 400 people will die. Cure D has a 1/3 probability of killing no one, but a 2/3 probability killing 600. Which one?
Most people chose Cure A in the first scenario and Cure D in the second, but both situations presented are actually the same with different framing. The results showed how humans choose the option that minimises loss: the one with the least perceived change. According to lifehacker, because we’re so opposed to inciting change, logic can go right out the window.
By being aware of this bias, perhaps we can avoid the perils of “being a chicken”.