In the book “Freakonomics” by Levitt & Dubner, a fascinating example is raised: strategies in a penalty shootout.
Not because I’m particularly interested in football, but because it says something much deeper about how we make decisions.
The statistics, based on thousands of penalty kicks, show that the most effective strategy is to shoot the ball straight down the middle of the goal.
The chance of scoring? 95%.
Shooting towards one of the corners gives “only” an 85% chance.
Yet, only 2% of all penalty kicks are shot in the middle.
Why?
Because if the goalkeeper stays put in the middle of the goal, you look like an idiot.
But if you aim for a corner? Well, then it was at least a “good try” if the goalkeeper saves it.
It struck me how often the same logic applies in life outside the football pitch.
How often do we discard the smartest, most effective decision, just because there is a risk that we might look… well, stupid?
It’s not about cowardice. It’s about incentives.
Classical economics is based on the assumption that we all act as rational beings driven solely by maximizing objective results.
But in the real world, we are social animals who are more preoccupied with how we are perceived by others.
I myself have stood there, figuratively speaking, with the ball on the penalty spot, and chosen against the middle.
So the question is:
👉 Which “shots down the middle” do we avoid in our own decisions, just because we worry about how it will be perceived by others?
