About
Dean Cooper is a leadership expert with over 20 years of NBA experience, building and leading high functioning, innovative and purpose-driven cultures.
@copyright.2024 All Rights Reserved.
Welcome, Curious People!
Rationality Quotient (RQ) vs. IQ
This week, I want to introduce and provide a broad overview of the concept of the Rationality Quotient (RQ)—and show how it compares to IQ (Intelligence Quotient).
The concept of RQ is still new to many people (significant publications in 2016). It was developed by cognitive scientists Keith Stanovich, Richard West, and Maggie Toplak, who believe that RQ is more flexible, more pliable, and can increase over time with awareness and intentional practice. IQ, however, primarily measures fixed cognitive abilities like memory and processing speed—traits that remain relatively stable throughout our lives.
Where IQ measures cognitive potential, RQ measures how well people “actually” think, particularly in real-world, real-time decisions.
There are two key components of rational thinking:
We’ve already touched on several core concepts in earlier “Nuggets” (check the blog archive!) that are central to RQ. A few include:
A person with strong RQ often demonstrates:
These are actions or responses that help someone adjust effectively to changing environments or challenges. They improve the likelihood of success, survival, or achieving goals.
The ability to make careful, thoughtful, and well-balanced choices—especially when the stakes are high. It blends logic, ethics, and foresight.
This is the skill of managing actions, impulses, and emotions in ways that stay aligned with one’s goals—without draining too much mental or emotional energy.
Organizing and ranking goals in a thoughtful, practical way—so time and resources are focused on what matters most.
Accurately matching your confidence in a belief or decision to the strength of the evidence. Not overestimating or underestimating what the facts justify.
The habit of pausing to examine your own thoughts, beliefs, and decisions. It’s thinking about your thinking.
Key Takeaways:
I sincerely hope this sparks your curiosity and challenges you to learn more about RQ—and why it matters for decision-making, leadership, and building high-functioning teams and cultures. We’ll explore much more in the weeks ahead!
Thank you for stopping by and being CURIOUS this week. Being curious is WHERE GROWTH HAPPENS!
Welcome, Curious People!
Rearview Mirror vs. Windshield: A Mindful Shift in Perspective
This week, I want to invite you into a brief moment of reflection—a mindset shift that could reshape how you think about your past, your present, and what’s ahead.
I first shared this concept during one of my Mindfulness Mondays episodes on Instagram (@hoopersworkshop), and it’s a theme worth revisiting:
Rearview Mirror vs. Windshield.
Let’s break it down.
The Rearview Mirror: Necessary, but Not a Destination
Think about how much time we spend mentally looking in the rearview mirror.
Sure, it’s important. We reflect. We analyze. We make sense of our experiences and decisions. Looking back helps us understand how we got here.
But here’s the danger: when reflection turns into rumination, we get stuck.
And when we’re in a season of struggle, that rearview mirror becomes a trap.
We begin looping on thoughts like:
This loop pulls us into victim mentality—and once we’re there, it’s hard to grow, move forward, or even see possibility.
The Windshield: The Path Forward
Now picture the windshield.
It’s clear. It’s wide. It’s what gives you vision.
It’s where your eyes belong if you want to move forward.
When we focus through the windshield, we begin to navigate life more intentionally.
We anticipate roadblocks. We spot detours earlier. We respond, not react.
Yes, there will be potholes, speed bumps, and unexpected obstacles. That’s life.
But when your eyes are forward, and you’re only glancing at the mirror behind you, you regain control. You get back on track faster.
A Simple Reminder
Even from a design standpoint, the rearview mirror is tiny compared to the windshield. That’s not an accident.
It’s a visual metaphor:
Spend a little time looking back—but give your energy and focus to what’s ahead.
Final Reflection
So, this week, ask yourself:
Let the mirror remind you.
Let the windshield guide you.
Thank you for stopping by and being CURIOUS this week. Being curious is WHERE GROWTH HAPPENS!
Welcome, Curious People!
Decision Hygiene
In this installment of Nuggets and Reflections, I’m going to introduce the concept of Decision Hygiene.
You’re likely saying to yourself, “I’ve seen these two words before, but never in conjunction with one another.”
Indeed, I would expect you to say exactly that — I did the same when I first came across this topic while listening to the great behavioral economist (widely regarded as the father of the field), Daniel Kahneman.
What Is Decision Hygiene?
Decision Hygiene refers to a set of practices that help people make better decisions by reducing noise and bias.
Both bias and noise can lead to poor decisions — and they often operate beneath the surface of our awareness.
It should be our pursuit and goal to make the best possible decisions in any given situation, based on the information we have — and yes, even the information we don’t have (cue a major concept from Annie Duke on probabilistic thinking in decision-making).
Elements of Good Decision Hygiene
Like any process we employ, practicing good decision hygiene doesn’t guarantee perfect outcomes every time. However, it greatly reduces the likelihood of poor decisions and increases the chances that the outcomes we desire will be achieved.
Thank you for stopping by and being CURIOUS this week. Being curious is WHERE GROWTH HAPPENS!
Welcome, Curious People!
This week, I want us to reflect on our “4 Abilities” — Availability, Dependability, Responsibility, and Accountability.
Each of these “abilities” can have a unique and profound impact on our performance, our team dynamics, and the culture of our organizations. In some cases, they also influence our personal growth. Each ability can also include “sub-abilities” beyond the standard definitions or common uses of the terms.
Let’s start with Availability.
The most obvious and commonly associated aspect of availability is the ability to physically show up. This is influenced by how well we care for our bodies, allowing us to perform at our best. However, availability also includes mental presence. I’m referring to the ability to be mentally and emotionally present when we are asked to lean into challenges, people’s stories, and issues that require our attention. This presence helps us recognize obstacles that might hinder maximum performance.
Next, let’s consider Dependability.
This ability is closely related to availability and shares some of the same traits. When we speak of dependability, we’re really talking about how trustworthy and reliable we are when others have expectations of us—whether in specific settings or when completing meaningful tasks. Demonstrating dependability builds trust and often opens the door to greater responsibility (which brings us to our next ability).
Responsibility can take on many layers and meanings depending on the situation.
I encourage you to reflect deeply on where responsibility shows up most clearly in your current context—and perhaps even in past experiences. For today, let’s focus on two fundamental questions:
Finally, let’s talk about Accountability—a foundational ability that may be the most critical of all. If we are unwilling or unable to hold ourselves—and others—accountable for actions and behaviors that impact our teams, organizations, and personal growth, the other abilities begin to lose their value. It all starts with a personal commitment to meet standards and expectations. When we consistently hold ourselves accountable and model healthy behaviors, we earn the credibility to hold others accountable as well.
Too often, leaders aim to “lead by position” rather than “lead by permission.” But leading by permission—earned through trust, integrity, and accountability—is far more powerful and impactful than simply holding a title.
I encourage you to take some time this week to reflect and conduct a personal and cultural inventory of your “4 Abilities.” Once you identify areas that may be lagging and commit to addressing them, you’ll likely experience meaningful and healthy change—in yourself and in your team.
Thank you for stopping by and being CURIOUS this week. Being curious is WHERE GROWTH HAPPENS!
Welcome, Curious People!
This is the third installment in a three-part series taking an introductory look at Personal Bias Awareness. Over the past two weeks, we’ve explored some of the most common cognitive biases that subtly (and at times, less subtly) influence our daily interactions and decision-making. As a quick review (and as covered in earlier posts), these include the narrative fallacy, confirmation bias, result bias, the availability heuristic, recency bias, and the framing effect. Each of these plays a role in shaping how we interpret information, form opinions, and respond to the world around us.
In this final piece of the trilogy, I’ll briefly introduce and discuss three additional cognitive biases: the sunk cost fallacy, cognitive dissonance, and anchoring bias. These three tend to be more distinct from one another and show less overlap compared to the biases explored in previous posts—particularly those covered in week two.
I encourage you to think deeply about the first bias we’re introducing this week: the sunk cost fallacy. This bias can often lead us down unproductive—or even harmful—paths, largely due to our reluctance to “quit.” We’ll take a closer look at this tendency, particularly how society often views quitting in a negative light. If you’re interested in exploring this concept further, I highly recommend the book Quit by Annie Duke—it’s a fascinating and worthwhile read.
Sunk Cost Fallacy
The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias where individuals continue investing in a project, decision, or relationship based on the amount of resources (time, money, effort) they’ve already spent — even when the future benefits don’t justify continued investment.
It’s the mistaken belief that past investments justify future ones, even when it would be more rational to cut losses and walk away.
Key Idea: Sunk costs are irrecoverable, so they should not factor into future decision-making.
Examples:
Movie Tickets
You pay $15 for a movie ticket, 30 minutes into the movie, you realize the movie is not for you, or just a bad movie. You stay anyway because “you paid for it,” even though leaving would save you time and frustration. (And you paid a ridiculous amount for that popcorn and soda!).
Personal Relationships
People stay in dysfunctional and toxic relationships because of the time have invested. They may do this even when they feel or even realize that the relationship is unhealthy. They are willing to quit because of the time invested, coupled with lack of certainty on what letting go may bring.
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort or tension a person feels when they hold two or more conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes — or when their behavior conflicts with their beliefs or values.
People are motivated to reduce this mental discomfort by changing their attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors — or by justifying or rationalizing them. (More on this justifying and rationalizing later).
Examples:
Smoking vs. Health Beliefs
Someone who smokes but also believes smoking is harmful experiences dissonance. To reduce it, they might:
Procrastination
You believe in being productive, but you binge Netflix instead of doing your work. Often, we create “more important things to do”, to avoid certain tasks.
Anchoring Bias
Anchoring bias is a cognitive bias where people rely too heavily on the first piece of information (the “anchor”) when making decisions — even if that information is irrelevant or arbitrary.
Once the anchor is set, people adjust from it, but usually not enough, which skews their decision-making.
Key Idea: First impressions or initial numbers heavily influence how people judge value, probability, or outcomes.
Examples:
Performance Review Anchoring
An employee had a rough start to the year but improved significantly over time.
Estimation Anchoring
2 Groups were asked same question with differing miles as the anchor.
“Is the Mississippi River longer or shorter than 500 miles?” (Group 1)
“Is the Mississippi River longer or shorter than 5,000 miles?” (Group 2)
Over the past three weeks, we’ve explored nine different personal biases.
I hope that the introduction to these biases—and their potential impact on your decision-making—has sparked your curiosity and encouraged you to take a deeper dive into their relevance, presence, and influence on both you and your team or organizational culture.
While we may never be able to completely eliminate these biases from our decision-making, simple awareness and the ability to recognize and manage their influence can have a significantly positive impact.
Thank you for stopping by and being CURIOUS this week. Being curious is WHERE GROWTH HAPPEN
Welcome, Curious People
In the first week, I introduced some of the most common biases that influence various aspects of our daily interactions, including the narrative fallacy, confirmation bias, and result bias. In the second installment of this series, we will explore the availability heuristic, recency bias, and the framing effect.
I have chosen to discuss these three biases together because they are closely related in how they occur, how they influence our thoughts, and how they ultimately shape our conclusions and opinions.
Availability Heuristic
The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut in which people rely on immediate examples that come to mind when evaluating a topic, concept, or decision. This bias occurs because our brains assume that if something can be easily recalled, it must be more common or more significant than it actually is.
We are greatly influenced by recent events (ones that. Our memory can easily recall), emotionally charged experiences, or media coverage. Note: the media is masterful in its understanding and use of this concept. We tend to overestimate the likelihood of events (especially outliers) that are more readily available in our minds.
Examples:
Health Risks
After hearing about a rare disease in the news or on social media, people might start to worry that they, too, are at risk—even if the actual chances of contracting the disease are extremely low.
Travel & Safety Fears
After seeing a shark attack on the news, a person might avoid swimming in the ocean, even though shark attacks are statistically rare compared to other beach-related dangers like drowning or jellyfish stings.
*If you would like to understand more about how and why we are influenced by information that is presented with statistics, read about the “denominator effect”.
We don’t have time to go down this path here, but it is a subject we may focus on in coming weeks.
Recency Bias
Recency bias occurs when people give greater importance to recent events compared to older ones when making decisions or forming judgments. This often leads individuals to overemphasize recent trends and downplay historical data, even when long-term patterns suggest otherwise.
Recency bias is particularly relevant in areas such as investing, decision-making, memory recall, and risk assessment, often causing people to react impulsively based on short-term fluctuations rather than long-term trends.
Examples:
Sports and Coaching Decisions
A basketball coach might choose a player for the final minutes of a game based on their last few performances, even if historical stats show that another player is more consistent over time.
Fans might believe a team is suddenly “the best” after winning a few games, ignoring a longer history of mixed results.
Media and Public Perception
After a major plane crash is reported in the news, people might suddenly fear flying, even though statistically, air travel remains the safest mode of transportation.
High-profile crime stories can make people feel crime is increasing, even if overall crime rates have been declining for years.
Framing Effect
The framing effect is a cognitive bias in which people’s decisions are influenced by how information is presented rather than the actual content of the information itself. This means that the same facts, when framed differently (positively or negatively), can lead to different decisions or judgments.
The framing effect is a key concept in behavioral economics and psychology. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky examine this bias extensively in their discussions around Prospect Theory. This work shows that people tend to avoid risks when information is presented positively but take risks when information is presented negatively.
We can greatly influence how people think about any given set of choices, or circumstances simply by the manner in which they are framed or presented.
Examples:
Medical Decisions & Healthcare
Positive Frame: “90% of patients survive this surgery.”
Negative Frame: “10% of patients die from this surgery.”
Even though both statements convey the same probability, patients are more likely to choose the surgery when presented with the positive survival rate rather than the death rate.
Job Performance & Employee Feedback
Positive Frame: “You completed 85% of your tasks successfully.”
Negative Frame: “You failed to complete 15% of your tasks.”
Employees respond better to positive reinforcement than negative criticism, even if both statements describe the same performance.
We will look at the “Framing Effect” on its own in the coming weeks. This is a very extensive and fascinating bias that deserves more time.
Thank you for stopping by and being CURIOUS this week. Being curious is WHERE GROWTH HAPPENS!
Welcome, Curious People!
In this first installment (or perhaps a series), I will explore the topic of personal biases. These biases often shape our actions, behaviors, and responses to many situations in all areas of our daily lives. In many cases, they also manifest in our workplace environment. If we are not mindful of these biases and fail to recognize their impact, they can have a devastating effect on our ability to build and sustain healthy relationships and workplace cultures.
Each of us is prone to biases at any given time. We may carry only some of them, and to varying degrees. Over the next couple of weeks, my goal is to raise awareness about these biases and offer a brief glimpse into their existence and significance. Ultimately, I hope to spark your curiosity enough to encourage further exploration and self-reflection.
While we may never eliminate personal biases from our thoughts, actions, or reactions to people and situations, simply being aware of them—both in ourselves and others—can help us curb their influence. This awareness can foster greater personal growth and contribute to a healthier, more inclusive environment.
In this first week, we will examine some of the most common biases that influence various aspects of our daily interactions, including the narrative fallacy, confirmation bias, and result bias. These biases can shape our perceptions, decisions, and behaviors in ways we may not always recognize.
I encourage you to reflect on these concepts, consider how they might appear in your own daily experiences, and explore their impact on your thought processes. By taking a closer look at where these biases exist, you can begin to develop strategies to recognize and manage them, leading to more objective decision-making and greater self-awareness.
Narrative Fallacy
This term describes our inherent drive to construct coherent stories that simplify and explain complex or incomplete information, even if doing so means overlooking or distorting the facts. The narrative fallacy explains how we naturally favor storytelling to make sense of the world around us.
Example:
Stock Market Movements:
After a stock market crash, analysts say, “The market dropped because investors panicked after a weak jobs report” In reality, market movements are influenced by numerous factors and attributing them to a single event oversimplifies the situation.
Confirmation Bias
The tendency to favor information that confirms preexisting beliefs while discounting contradictory evidence.
Examples:
Hiring Decisions: A manager who prefers a specific candidate focuses on their strengths and interprets ambiguous traits positively while downplaying or ignoring weaknesses found in their resume or interview.
Politics: A voter who supports a particular political party only watches news channels and reads articles that favor that party while dismissing opposing viewpoints as biased or untrue.
Result Bias
Result bias is a cognitive bias where a decision is judged primarily based on its outcome rather than on the quality of the decision-making process at the time it was made. In other words, a decision that leads to a good outcome might be seen as a good decision—even if the reasoning or process behind it was flawed—and vice versa.
Examples:
Hiring Decisions:
A company hires a candidate without thoroughly vetting them, and they turn out to be a great employee. Instead of recognizing the poor hiring process, the company assumes their approach was effective.
Coaching Decisions:
A football coach makes a risky play in the final seconds of a game. If the team wins, the coach is seen as a genius. If they lose, the same decision is criticized as irresponsible—even though the risk level was the same in both scenarios.
Thank you for stopping by and being CURIOUS this week. Being curious is WHERE GROWTH HAPPENS.
Welcome, Curious People
This week marks my first “Reflection” type post on this blog.
As mentioned in the welcome blog, I’ll be toggling back and forth between “Nuggets” and “Reflections.” Nuggets are (and will continue to be) more evidence-based in nature, while Reflections will center around general thoughts for us to consider.
I walk about six miles or so, four to five days per week. On these walks, I listen to books and podcasts meant to help me grow in thought, expand my depth of knowledge, consider alternative perspectives, and ultimately — just grow as an individual. You know, be curious.
One of my favorite podcasts is “Live Inspired,” hosted by John O’Leary.
A quick background on John: At just nine years old, John accidentally set himself on fire while playing with gasoline and matches in his family’s garage. He suffered burns over nearly his entire body and endured countless surgeries and skin grafts to survive. With incredible determination — and parents who willed him through the recovery — John is now an inspiring motivational speaker, leadership expert, and a beacon of hope to many. You can read more about his story in his books, On Fire and In Awe. Amazing reads!!!
On his podcast, “Live Inspired,” John features guests from all walks of life and a multitude of backgrounds. His conversations are heartfelt, deeply meaningful, and touch on a wide variety of topics. You should check it out!
At the end of each episode, John asks his guests a series of questions he calls the “Live Inspired Seven.” One of the questions is this:
“If you could sit on a park bench on a beautiful day and have a conversation with anyone — dead or alive — who would you choose?”
I don’t track the responses people give (though I probably should), but I’ve noticed that many guests choose historical figures or loved ones who are no longer with us. I’m not here to judge anyone’s choice — those conversations would no doubt be fascinating. For the record, I’d love to have conversations with those types of influential figures too. After all, I am very curious.
But it does make me wonder:
Shouldn’t we be having “park bench conversations” with those who are still here — the ones in our lives right now, who someday won’t be?
Maybe we can have those incredible, meaningful, life-changing conversations with people already in our circle. There’s so much we could ask and learn from those close to us — people we’ll dearly miss when they’re gone. I know I’ve already lost some (my parents and others), have others I treasure now, and will likely meet more still along the way.
I can’t help but think how much better off we’d all be if we had those conversations now. I believe both sides would walk away better for it. I’d even bet that the other person would grow — and feel just as grateful and impacted — as those of us who initiated the conversation.
I’m sure, as you’re reading this, someone (or several people) are already coming to mind.
So go ahead — reach out.
Ask someone in your life to have a “park bench conversation.”
We’ll all be better off because of it.
Thank you for stopping by and being CURIOUS this week. Being curious is WHERE GROWTH HAPPENS!
Dean Cooper is a leadership expert with over 20 years of NBA experience, building and leading high functioning, innovative and purpose-driven cultures.
@copyright.2024 All Rights Reserved.