In much of life we're used to things adding up — got one scoop of ice cream? Two is likely to be better. Buying one thing? Getting another free is probably a good thing. The dilution effect, however, illustrates an interesting action of our brain when evaluating our options. Niro Sivanathan showed that when displaying possible side-effects of drugs, if you were to add another side-effect, a minor one like 'itchy feet', instead of the extra negative side-effect increasing our overall perception of the risk of the drug it actually lowered it. So, people would deem a drug with the side effects heart attack, stroke, and itchy feet, as less risky than one with just heart attack and stroke.

In another clever experiment by Christopher Hsee at the University of Chicago, people were willing to pay less for a new dinnerware set when the set was actually larger but also included some broken items. Even though a set had more intact items the presence of a few broken ones decreased the set's perceived value.

And the same may be true when making an argument to persuade someone to see our point of view. If you have 2 strong points and 1 weaker one, your argument may actually be made weaker by adding the extra point. As Niro Sivanathan, an Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at London Business School, explains: Arguments don't add up. They average out.

Next time you're making your case, consider sticking to your strong arguments.

Hear Niro Sivanathan explain the dilution effect in his 10 min TED talk The counterintuitive way to be more persuasive

The paper: Sivanathan, N., Kakkar, H. The unintended consequences of argument dilution in direct-to-consumer drug advertisements.Nat Hum Behav 1,797–802 (2017).

The dilution effect

It's an old economists' joke. A person out walking at night comes across a man scrabbling on the floor under a lamppost. The man on the floor says he lost his keys. When asked when he dropped them, he replies, "Oh, I dropped them over there, but the light's better here."

The joke is also known as the streetlight effect or the drunkard's search. It's an apt metaphor for how, if we're really honest with ourselves, sometimes we find ourselves working, or searching, or staying in the places where we find it easier rather than the places where we know we ought to be.

Also see: the cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek.

Looking under the lamppost

When it comes to innovating, counterintuitively, I think the surest way to producing something new and noteworthy is to start by replicating work you admire. If you're making music, first play the music from your favourite artists, then make music like theirs, and only when you've mastered that do you need to go your own way. If you admire Hemingway, practice writing like him and your own voice will likely develop by itself. Before helping develop cubism Picasso was first an accomplished artist.

It's easy to look at the best and think you have to be different. But standing up first makes it easier to stand on the shoulders of giants.

What's more, copying is much lower pressure.

I learned this idea while working at Jump Associates

Get my new weekly sketch in your inbox

Replicate then innovate