Sway

Why do intelligent, experienced people make choices that defy logic—sometimes even with devastating consequences? In Sway, Ori and Rom Brafman argue that human decisions are not always guided by reason; instead, they’re pulled, nudged, and molded by invisible psychological currents. These forces—ranging from the fear of loss to the trap of commitment and the blindness of labels—often lead us astray even when we think we’re acting rationally. The authors contend that by understanding these hidden influences, you can anticipate, recognize, and counter them before they derail your judgment.

The idea is simple yet profound: we all get "swayed." Whether it's a business executive ignoring warning signs, a doctor misdiagnosing a patient, or a politician clinging to a failing policy, the same psychological undercurrents are at play. The Brafmans unite stories from psychology, economics, medicine, sports, and history to show that our irrational decisions are not random errors but systematic patterns guided by emotional triggers and mental shortcuts.

The Core Premise

At the heart of Sway are a few recurring biases that distort human judgment. The first is loss aversion—our tendency to fear losses more than we value gains. This fear pushes us to make risky or counterproductive choices just to avoid feeling the pain of loss. It can cause an investor to cling to falling stocks, a leader to pursue a doomed war, or an airline captain to make catastrophic errors. The second major force is commitment, which locks us into past decisions even when new information suggests that we should change course. These two forces often feed off each other, creating spirals of irrational escalation (much like in Max Bazerman’s famous “twenty-dollar auction” experiment where rational students bid $204 for a twenty-dollar bill).

When Rationality Breaks Down

The Brafmans explore vivid examples—like Captain Jacob Van Zanten, the famed KLM safety instructor whose impatience led him to take off in deep fog without clearance, causing the worst aviation disaster in history. Van Zanten wasn’t reckless by nature; he was caught in a web of loss aversion and commitment. He faced the looming loss of time, money, and reputation, and his emotional drive to “not lose” overpowered his training. In many ways, the book feels like a journey into the anatomy of a cognitive riptide: our instincts tell us to swim harder against it, yet that’s exactly what gets us pulled further away.

Beyond Economics: The Psychology of Everyday Sways

Traditional economics assumes we are rational actors who make decisions for maximum benefit. But as behavioral economists like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (who inspired much of Sway) revealed, humans are consistently irrational in predictable ways. The Brafmans add a conversational framework: our irrationality isn't just statistical but deeply personal. It affects our relationships, leadership, and creativity. They illustrate this with stories—from emergency rooms blind to “frequent flyer” parents (diagnosis bias) to Joshua Bell’s ignored subway performance (value attribution). These anecdotes make abstract psychological principles feel concrete and relatable.

Why It Matters

Understanding Sway matters because irrational forces aren’t flaws to be fixed—they’re features of human cognition. You can never eliminate them, but you can learn to recognize when they’re pulling you off balance. The Brafmans encourage a new kind of awareness: pause when emotions spike, question when certainty feels too strong, and always look for the long view. The book suggests that by embracing uncertainty and dissent, we can navigate these psychological riptides more wisely. In the end, Sway isn’t just about explaining why people make irrational choices—it’s about teaching you how to swim parallel to the current of your own mind.

Loss hurts more than gain feels good. That’s the essence of loss aversion, one of the most powerful and universal psychological forces explored in Sway. It’s the hidden hand that makes shoppers panic over small price hikes, investors cling to dying stocks, and professionals ignore warnings that contradict their goals. We experience potential loss not just intellectually but viscerally—it feels like pain. This emotion drives us to make irrational decisions that prioritize avoiding losses over achieving rational outcomes.

From Egg Prices to Airplane Crashes

The authors begin with a simple example: Daniel Putler’s study of egg buyers in California. When prices went up slightly, shoppers reduced consumption two and a half times more than when prices fell the same amount. This asymmetric reaction reveals our hypersensitivity to losses. But the Brafmans connect this everyday behavior to tragic high-stakes situations, such as Captain Jacob Van Zanten’s KLM flight at Tenerife. In his case, avoiding the “loss” of punctuality and reputation took priority over safety protocols, ultimately causing the world’s worst aviation disaster. Like Putler’s shoppers, he couldn’t bear the emotional pain of loss—only the consequences were infinitely more severe.

The Greater the Stakes, the Stronger the Sway

Columbia’s Eric Johnson explains that the higher the potential loss, the more irrational we become. This amplifying effect showed up in stories of investors like Jordan Walters’s client who refused to sell biotech stock as it plummeted from $47 to pennies. The client’s obsession with “getting back to even” blinded him to reality. Like Van Zanten, he clung to the illusion of recovery. The pain of seeing losses on paper triggered panic, which disguised itself as perseverance. These examples illustrate how a sense of personal identity—being a punctual captain, a successful investor—magnifies the emotional reaction to loss.

Loss Aversion in Everyday Life

You see this pattern everywhere. We overpurchase phone plans “just in case,” overpay for rental car insurance, and avoid selling underperforming assets. We mistake avoidance for prudence. But as the book shows, acknowledging loss aversion makes you less vulnerable to it. You can reframe decisions by reminding yourself that small losses rarely define the big picture. (This echoes Kahneman’s advice in Thinking, Fast and Slow: zoom out and evaluate the long-term portfolio, not the short-term scare.)

Key takeaway

Loss aversion doesn’t just skew economics—it shapes our behavior whenever fear of loss threatens our self-image. The more we attach emotional meaning to what’s at stake, the more likely we are to act irrationally to protect it.

Once we commit to a path, the psychological cost of turning back can feel unbearable. The Brafmans call this dynamic the Swamp of Commitment—a force that keeps us clinging to failing strategies simply because we’ve invested time, energy, or pride into them. When combined with loss aversion, commitment creates dangerous spirals of persistence that defy logic, from battlefield blunders to business fiascos.

Football, Auctions, and Wars

University of Florida coach Steve Spurrier shattered the college football status quo by introducing his high-risk “Fun-n-Gun” offense. His rivals played defensively, trying “not to lose,” trapped in a commitment to old strategies. When Spurrier’s aggressive tactics succeeded, the opposing coaches still refused to change. Their attachment to tradition overrode evidence of failure. Similarly, Harvard professor Max Bazerman demonstrated this principle with his $20 auction game, where bidders kept raising their offers beyond $20—to as high as $204—just to avoid the loss of quitting.

From the Football Field to the Oval Office

The commitment trap can escalate from classrooms to political wars. Lyndon B. Johnson’s escalation in Vietnam followed the same irrational pattern. Initially optimistic, he later admitted the war was “the biggest damn mess” but couldn’t bring himself to stop. To withdraw would mean accepting a sure “loss,” a psychological defeat that outweighed rational strategy. Johnson’s commitment—fueled by pride and past investment—overrode any chance of reconsideration. His reasoning echoed that of future presidents repeating history under the same sway.

Breaking Free from the Swamp

Commitment keeps us digging deeper into mistake trenches. The authors argue that self-awareness and external perspectives can break the cycle. Asking, “If I were starting fresh today, would I choose this?” reframes the decision without the weight of sunk costs. You can also invite dissent—the “blocker” voices that challenge blind commitment. (Andy Grove at Intel famously used this method when shifting from memory chips to microprocessors; he asked a colleague, “If we were fired today, what would a new CEO do?”)

Key takeaway

Commitment becomes irrational when pride and investment trump logic. The more we equate quitting with failure, the more trapped we become. The antidote is detachment—learning to “let go of the past” and reassess with fresh eyes.

We often judge quality based on perceived value instead of evidence—a shortcut called value attribution. Whether it’s a violinist in jeans ignored in a subway station or a scientist dismissed because of where he works, our minds assign worth according to context, not reality. The Brafmans reveal how this bias makes us miss genuine value and chase illusions instead.

The Stradivarius in the Subway

In 2007, world-class violinist Joshua Bell played Bach in a Washington D.C. metro station. Dressed casually, he performed with his $3.5 million Stradivarius—but almost no one stopped to listen. When Bell performs in concert halls, tickets sell for hundreds of dollars. The same music, same talent, and same instrument evoked indifference when stripped of luxurious cues. Commuters saw “a street performer,” not an artist. The subway setting inverted value attribution: low context, low worth.

Science, Hot Dogs, and Hoaxes

From Eugene Dubois’s ignored discovery of Homo erectus to Nathan Handwerker’s five-cent “cheap” hot dogs, value attribution distorts truth. British scientists dismissed Dubois’s fossil as a gibbon because it came from “the hellhole of Java,” while they embraced the fraud of “Piltdown Man” found on their own soil. Coney Island visitors avoided Nathan’s perfectly good hot dogs because the price seemed suspiciously low—until he hired doctors to eat them publicly, restoring perceived value.

Modern Variants of the Same Illusion

Experiments with SoBe Adrenaline Rush beverages and discounted theater tickets showed how price changes our perception. Students who paid full price for the SoBe drink scored higher on IQ tests than those who paid less, and theatergoers with discounted season passes attended fewer shows. We don’t just judge worth—we live it. Our expectations shape results. As researcher Dan Ariely explains, “expectations change the reality we live in.”

Key takeaway

Value attribution blinds us by equating context with truth. To counter it, question first impressions—ask whether your perception comes from evidence or status cues. As Shakespeare was wrong to claim: a rose by another name doesn’t always smell as sweet.

Once we label something—a person, idea, or object—we stop seeing anything that contradicts that label. This mental shortcut, the diagnosis bias, makes us commit errors in medicine, hiring, and relationships. Even worse, those labeled begin to conform to their labels—what the authors call the chameleon effect.

From ERs to NBA Drafts

In one heartbreaking story, ER doctors repeatedly sent home a sick child because they had labeled her anxious mother a “frequent flyer.” The child died of an untreated condition—a tragedy born of diagnostic blindness. The same pattern appears in professional sports. Economists Barry Staw and Ha Hoang found that an NBA player’s draft order predicted how much playing time he received—even years later—regardless of performance. Labels overrode reality.

The Power of Words and First Impressions

In a classic MIT study, students rated the same substitute teacher dramatically differently depending on whether his bio said he was “warm” or “cold.” One word reshaped every perception. Similarly, in hiring interviews, Allen Huffcutt found that unstructured “first-date” interviews are terrible predictors of performance. Managers feel confident judging “fit,” yet what they truly measure are emotions and biases. Structured, fact-based interviews—what he calls the “Joe Friday approach”—are six times more accurate.

How Labels Change Us

Labels don’t just skew perception; they also alter identity. The Israeli army study on “command potential” found that soldiers randomly labeled as high-potential later outperformed peers purely because their superiors expected more of them. Others, labeled ordinary, lived down to expectations. Psychologists call this the Pygmalion (positive) and Golem (negative) effects—but the Brafmans’ “chameleon effect” captures the mutual dance: we become who others see.

Key takeaway

Labels and expectations have real power. To avoid diagnosing blindly, delay judgment, ask better questions, and diversify perspectives. And if you’re the one labeled, remember: you don’t have to dance to someone else’s music.

Even when logic says one choice is better, emotions about fairness often override reason. The Brafmans call this the sway of procedural justice—our deep need for fairness not just in outcomes, but in process. From game shows to courtrooms, this drive shapes behavior across cultures.

Why the French Audience Cheated

On France’s version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, a contestant named Henri asked the audience for help on an easy question: “What revolves around the Earth?” To punish his ignorance, 56% of the audience deliberately voted for the wrong answer—the Sun. They wanted justice, not correctness. Their decision mirrored experiments where people reject unfair offers even at personal cost. The desire to punish perceived unfairness outweighed rational benefit.

When Fairness Overrides Profit

Business studies show the same pattern. Car dealers rated manufacturers not by profit margins but by how respectfully they were treated. Felons judged the fairness of their trials less by length of sentence than by how much time lawyers spent listening to them. Even venture capitalists valued communication from entrepreneurs more than monetary returns. We equate fairness with being heard.

Culture and Fairness

Fairness isn’t universal. Russians mislead game show contestants because wealth evokes suspicion; Amazonian tribes like the Machiguenga accept unfair splits without complaint because sharing isn’t part of their norms. Americans, on the other hand, demand equality even at personal loss. Researcher Joseph Henrich found these cultural contrasts show that fairness is emotional, not rational—a social contract evolved to maintain order.

Key takeaway

Fairness sways us because justice feels moral, not mathematical. To communicate fairly, involve others, explain reasoning, and give people a voice—they’ll value process as much as outcome.

Can money kill motivation? According to the Brafmans, yes—and not metaphorically. Through studies from Swiss nuclear towns to Israeli GMAT students, they show that introducing payment for altruistic or intellectual tasks triggers the brain’s pleasure center, suppressing intrinsic motivation and even lowering performance.

When Money Decreases Willingness

In Switzerland, 50% of citizens agreed to host a nuclear waste dump near their homes—until offered $2,175 annually. Their acceptance rate dropped to 24%. Payment reframed the act from civic duty to risky business, extinguishing altruism. Likewise, Israeli students paid a few cents per GMAT answer performed worse than those who took the test unpaid. The prospect of reward shifted their motivation from curiosity to transaction.

Inside the Brain’s Tug of War

Neuroscientists at the NIH discovered two competing brain regions: the nucleus accumbens (pleasure center) and the posterior superior temporal sulcus (altruism center). When monetary rewards activate the former, the latter shuts down. We can’t simultaneously operate from self-interest and empathy. This explains why teachers at Michigan’s Community High School, motivated by salary bonuses for attendance, shifted focus from genuine inspiration to field trips and parties—their pleasure centers hijacked their purpose.

The Anticipation Factor

Economist Anton Souvorov modeled rewards as addictive stimuli, showing that the anticipation of payment excites the brain even more than receiving it. From corporate incentives to parenting, dangling rewards makes us chase highs instead of meaning. Edward Deci’s meta-analysis confirms that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation, especially when linked to performance expectations.

Key takeaway

Money motivates—but only up to a point. When rewards replace purpose, they crowd out meaning. If you want people (or yourself) to perform better, appeal to autonomy, curiosity, and contribution, not cash.

Groups often drift toward conformity because disagreement feels uncomfortable. Yet dissent—the courage to block and question—can save organizations and lives. In Sway, the authors show how dissent functions as a safeguard against collective irrationality, from Supreme Court deliberations to airplane cockpits.

How One Voice Makes a Difference

Justice Stephen Breyer explained that the Supreme Court’s conference system forces every justice to voice opinions in turn, guaranteeing exposure to dissent. This method prevents groupthink and improves rulings. Solomon Asch’s experiments confirmed this dynamic: when one person defies group pressure—even incompetently—others feel free to speak truth. In aviation, NASA psychologist Barbara Kanki and Captain Lex Brockington redesigned hierarchy through Crew Resource Management (CRM), empowering copilots to challenge captains. The result: fewer crashes and more collaboration.

The Roles We Play in Groups

Family therapist David Kantor found every group has four roles: initiator (Ferris Bueller), blocker (Cameron), supporter, and observer. We celebrate initiators for creativity but dismiss blockers as difficult. Yet blockers provide balance—they force accountability. Without dissent, presidents go to wars, companies pursue doomed projects, and planes risk disaster.

Structured Disagreement

Organizations that institutionalize dissent—through devil’s advocate roles or open feedback loops—are less likely to fall prey to irrational conformity. From Breyer’s seventy-seven-page dissent against segregation rulings to Southwest Airlines’ protocol for copilots to challenge captains by name (“Mike, check your altitude!”), Sway demonstrates that dissent doesn’t destroy groups; it strengthens them.

Key takeaway

Dissent protects against group irrationality. Design systems that encourage questions, value contrarians, and reward speaking up. The “blocker” might just be your best insurance against disaster.

The Brafmans end Sway with a metaphor: psychological forces are like riptides—you can’t outswim them, but you can learn to escape sideways. They propose practical antidotes for each irrational current—tools to regain perspective and reclaim rationality.

Long View Thinking

Financial adviser Jordan Walters compares loss aversion to a flat tire on a long trip: fix it, then keep going, rather than taking risky shortcuts. His approach—annual stock reviews with his children—teaches patience over panic. Seeing decisions through long-term lenses diffuses short-term emotional triggers.

Letting Go of Commitment

Andy Grove’s epiphany at Intel—imagining the perspective of an external CEO—shows how reframing helps break attachment. When sunk costs blind us, ask “Would I choose this today?” Detachment is the rational antidote to prideful persistence.

Mindful Awareness and Propositional Thinking

Psychologist Franz Epting’s “propositional thinking” teaches flexibility: treat judgments as hypotheses, not truths. When facing diagnosis or value attribution, pause, notice, and question—the act of awareness itself breaks the sway.

Fair Process and Voice

Researcher Jack Greenberg found that employees perceive evaluations as fair when they’re part of the process. Fairness flows from transparency, not perfection. Let others know how you decide, involve them early, and dissent gracefully.

The Real Devil’s Advocate

In ancient Vatican tradition, the devil’s advocate was assigned to argue against sainthood nominations. The same reasoning applies today: designate dissenters to challenge dominant views. Their “opposition” creates balance and helps groups navigate complexity.

Key takeaway

You can’t eliminate irrational forces, but you can learn to ride them intelligently. Awareness, dissent, fairness, and long-term perspective let you swim parallel to the current of human irrationality instead of drowning in it.