Rory Sutherland

Personally, to me, it's a bonus.

To most people, it's negative.

Go and look for those things where you can arbitrage what's possible.

That would be my attitude.

Now, similarly, if you've got a problem to solve, don't purely define the problem in psychology-free terminology.

Just as in America, you have a temperature and you have a feels-like temperature, which is, by the way, a very, very intelligent thing because...

What makes us feel hot is not just the ambient temperature.

It's a combination of temperature, humidity, breeze.

And I think there's one other factor.

When they do the fields-like temperature, there's something like temperature so many feet above the ground that they factor in.

Now, when I'm going outside, I'm not going to do chemical experiments.

I don't need to know what the ambient temperature is.

I need to know, will I feel hot?

And in the same way, I think there's something really important here, which is that do not define an objective which is designed to serve human beings without considering psychological factors, because you might be able to solve your problem very, very cheaply and efficiently by changing the

And provided people are looking at both with a reasonable amount of imagination, I'm not angry with it.

I'm only angry with accountants and lawyers and economists, not because they do what they do, but because they have too much power doing.

And they've achieved a kind of monopoly over decision making, which I don't think they have a reasonable claim to.

Once or twice a year.

Oh, we must meet up then.

That would be fantastic.