How to Ethically Use Behavioural Science in B2B Sales with Hayk Hakobyan

Mike (00:29.347)
Thanks ever so much for joining us on Higgle, the BTB Sells for Podcast.

Hayk (00:33.28)
My pleasure. Pleasure being here.

Mike (00:34.905)
So I'm looking forward to this. And we met you through, I met you through Helm, didn't I?

Hayk (00:40.04)
Yes, I think so. Yeah, we connected through Helm. It's one of the very nice... Yes, yes, I do know Henry. him on a couple of occasions as well.

Mike (00:41.891)
Yeah, yeah, And you know Henry, don't you, as well?

Mike (00:48.942)
Yeah. So for the benefit of the listeners, just describe who are you, what do you do and something unusual about yourself.

Hayk (00:59.33)
Okay, so I'm Haik. I'm the CEO and co-founder of Insight Genie. This is initially a fintech, but basically now it's a customer intelligence technology that is being used by financial organizations across Asia and more and more in Europe and globally to onboard and serve customers, banked, unbanked, all kinds of customers. And it pulled out recently into recruitment industry because the same kind of

behavioral building blocks are being used there. So it's basically a behavioral profile of a person in simple terms. And we provide that to the bank, to an insurance company, to a recruitment company, and they are assessing them, whatever that they have to do afterwards, after that assessment is up to them. But our piece is figure out what's the meaningful kind of a way of quantifying person's behavior, person's character and personality.

Mike (01:52.461)
Okay, very good. And something unusual about yourself.

Hayk (01:53.88)
That's kind of... Well, I mean, I used to train in breakdance a couple of years ago in Nepal. I think when I say Nepal, I'm breakdance. Yeah, I was there for about six months of which four months I was training and I was already quite old. The unusual part of it is when I started my training, everyone else was like between 10 to 20. And I was like in my 30s and everyone was like, who is this guy?

Mike (02:02.924)
Really?

Mike (02:17.711)
Brilliant!

Hayk (02:20.406)
And even till now sometimes I don't come straight as I know how to dance, et cetera. I'm not a big expert, but I can do all the basic stuff. yeah, it's quite unusual sometimes as an icebreaker. Sometimes you say, I can breakdance in a party. Yeah. Yeah, you won't see. But yeah, so I like to dance and I know a little bit how to dance.

Mike (02:33.305)
Exactly. Well, we shan't demonstrate that right now because obviously our listeners won't be able to see.

Mike (02:46.735)
Very good. Okay, let's get into the questions. So we're gonna talk about how to use behavioral science ethically in B2B cell situations. So just kind of first of all, just explain to people kind of what is behavioral science?

Hayk (02:56.024)
Mm-hmm.

Hayk (03:01.538)
So behavioral science, you like, Mike, it's an umbrella for a number of different disciplines. For example, sociology, cognitive or evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, anthropology. These are all together. Let's call them collectively behavioral sciences. They are called so because they are researching or providing some sort of insights on different parts of the person's behaviors, personality, character. And kind of collective term is behavioral sciences. are different from natural sciences, which are a more.

mathematical or quantified in that sense. So we, by the way, the company I run is also specialized in behavioral sciences. We just kind of technologize the behavioral sciences into a specific product and that's kind of what we offer to the various industries, finance, AGR, et cetera. Again, in simple terms, behavioral science is basically one of the sciences that describes a specific aspect or a type of a person's behavior.

For example, neurosciences are looking at specific cognitive aspects of the person, and they are looking at how that translates to some types of behavior. Typical things like behavioral economics looks at economics, but from more behavioral perspective, how people behave in their day-to-day kind of economical activities, et cetera. And basically, our pitch sometimes when they say, why do you use behavioral sciences in assessing people, I say,

Mike (04:28.527)
Hmm.

Hayk (04:28.834)
you're assessing human beings, need human sciences, right? Not just mathematical sciences. It's as simple as that. So we use human sciences to assess humans and we then package those into a score or into a profile. And that's being used by everything from recruitment to credit card company that tries to onboard a credit card customer. Because at the end of it, it all comes down to figuring out what's the potential type of a person this person is, whether he or she will repay or not, or whether he or she will, say,

do well in a job, right? It's all again about the person's character, person's behavior, we're in the business of kind of evaluating that and providing some sort of a prediction for future.

Mike (05:12.375)
Okay, and so for the listeners, yeah, it makes sense. for the listeners, how scientific is this? So being a bit of a rationalist, I'm thinking, hmm, doesn't sound, it doesn't sound like it was scientifically work over 1000s of different participants. So what's the kind of science behind this kind of behavioral science?

Hayk (05:12.856)
Does that make sense?

Hayk (05:32.6)
What's the science behind it? This is a very, important question. let me give you the context and the contrast. The context is, if you take, for example, physics or mathematics, it's very mathematized, quantified. There are specific systems that have been proven to work, some of them, for hundreds of years. In behavioral sciences, this is relatively, relatively new. I think some the earliest ones go back to end of 19th century, so 1800-somethings. But in terms of science as such,

There is a body of knowledge and information that shows that, for example, specific people, people behaving this or that or that way, given this or that condition. But in terms of mathematics, first, I think the big comment is first thing, mathematics wise, economics, behavioral economics specifically is probably the most, maybe the closest to being natural science in that sense, because it has a relatively rigid mathematical apparatus, like the one, the likes of which you'll find in physics, mathematics, et cetera.

But in other ways, is, but also I think important to notice that if know mathematics, mathematics in the US is mathematics in Africa, right? In behavioral sciences, many of those are not as universal. Firstly, because a lot of the body of knowledge is still being investigated and because human systems are a lot more complex, know, human behavior is, lot of people think they understand that that's a trade, it's a lot more complex and it's not as easily verifiable as the sciences have been.

relatively recently kind of, if you like, systematized into something called behavioral science or behavioral economics, right? The first Nobel Prize in behavioral economics was only in 2017. And the work on what now we call behavioral economics only started in 1980s, et cetera, by two biologists, right? Almos Tversky and Daniel Kinnerman. So a lot of the sciences, and this is a very good example. mean, a lot of the behavioral sciences started maybe properly being called science and properly being

even looking like a science in some way at the end of 20th century. And that's the reason firstly, there wasn't enough time. Secondly, there wasn't so much of an instrument of mathematical or other kind of more systematic quantifiable frameworks in them. And in that sense, I think there's a big difference of someone, for example, behavioral science academically, so you can study psychology, Mike, for example, and you will still have very little idea how to apply it in a business or in

Hayk (07:57.9)
whatever context design, right? Mathematics is not like that, right? You study mathematics, you have an equation, you will have that equation solved at the university, as well as in your job if you have to. But in behavioral sciences, there's two completely different things. There are a lot of people you find to have degrees in behavioral science, whichever it is, sociology or types of psychology or even neuroscience. But it's very difficult for them to, they have to learn how to apply that. And this is very counterintuitive.

Mike (07:58.221)
Yeah, yeah.

Hayk (08:27.704)
And because of the lack of, if you like, mathematical apparatus, rigid mathematical, proven mathematical apparatus in most of the BFL sciences, it's also very fluid. So it's subject to interpretation by different cultures, different contexts. Context in many, many cases is more important than the actual kind of a theory that you know. So there's a of things. First, there isn't the kind of frameworks that natural sciences have. Two, a lot of it is very new.

And three, human behaviors are highly complex. Unlike, you would think physics is complex. Physics is complicated, but it's not complex. In behaviors, you have emerging behaviors. For example, you might be as a person acting in one way, in a group in a very different way, in specific context, and yet another way for exactly the same thing. So there is complexity and emergence that does not exist.

Mike (09:08.9)
Yes.

Hayk (09:26.292)
in natural sciences like that because you can quantify it all the way to the absurd level, small level. So it's because of the confluence of this. Yeah. Go ahead.

Mike (09:33.155)
So out of interest, how predictive is this? Because in science, things are relatively predictive based upon empirical evidence or on mathematics. In behavioral science, are characteristics predictable across population groups?

Hayk (09:41.111)
Yes, yes.

Hayk (09:53.336)
So there are specific characteristics that are. So I'm going to speak with lot of disclaimers here and there because this is all still work in progress. But so there are specific characteristics. For example, are able to, I mean, let me give a simple example. If you try and assess personality, which is, let's say, a 101 of behavioral sciences, right? Personality assessment has been around since 1970s in more or less technological form. You have what you call Big Five or et cetera.

Mike (10:00.043)
yeah, yeah, of course.

Hayk (10:21.688)
people being assessed on how open they are or how conscientious. These things have existed for a while. A lot of those have very limited accuracy, unfortunately, but they are very logical and appealing. For example, if you answer 10 questions in very specific way, an HR person is going to think you're a very open or very conscientious person. Whether that is correct or not, even if you think of yourself as one, has nothing to do with the reality.

Personality tests have existed and are still continuing to be pretty mainstream, especially in recruitment companies or recruitment departments, because that's the easiest and the most logical, whether that's Myers-Briggs or Big Five, as the two probably the most known ones. But Mike, think I have to say this is that, unfortunately, due to the absence of feedback loops, feedback loop means you recruit someone using Big Five or Myers-Briggs.

Mike (10:53.613)
Yes, definitely.

Hayk (11:14.1)
Six months or one year down the road and along the way, ideally, you check whether your predicted behaviors and personality characteristics of this person are actually manifesting themselves or showing in terms of results. This does not exist. As the point, people don't get fired because six months down the road, someone figured out that they're not as conscientious or not eight out of 10 conscientious, right? People don't get fired as there is no feedback. Look, on the same appealing logic on get entirely, not entirely, but quite wrong system.

Mike (11:25.263)
Mm.

Hayk (11:44.163)
persists in existence simply because it's appealing. We need to have some way of telling ourselves we assess this employee and this is it. But unfortunately, it's not accurate and it's static. It doesn't consider context, et cetera. you see, so now coming to the bigger question of how predictive they are, the proper sciences like behavioral economics, which as I said, probably is the best example of a more quantified of the sciences, behavioral sciences.

Mike (11:56.942)
Yeah, yeah.

Hayk (12:13.182)
It is relatively accurate. Again, I cannot compare it with physics or mathematics. It's not going to stand a chance. Or even the proper standard economic theory, it won't stand a chance. if I compare it to, for example, evolutionary biology, like psychology, et cetera, it is probably more accurate because a lot of the discoveries in evolutionary psychology are still work in progress. So it's, again, a confluence of the fact that firstly, the

Mike (12:19.684)
Yeah, yeah.

Hayk (12:39.02)
kind of systems that natural sciences or the mathematics have to not necessarily exist. Even in biology would think natural science, biology is being normally mocked as the smaller brother of natural sciences because they don't have the development mathematical apparatus. But other behavioral sciences are, I mean, it's at the level where you kind of have guidelines versus big theories. Like for example, there is such a thing as loss aversion in psychology, right? Everyone knows that loss aversion is a cognitive phenomenon. Everyone even knows that there is

A lot of experiments and research shows that people are on average two to three times more adverse to loss versus gain. Same amount of loss. It could be $10 or $100. regardless of how much you have in your bank, by the way, it's completely irrelevant. You just feel two times more bad or good compared to. So there is this kind of guidelines, but if you're saying, okay, you said this two times, I'm saying one and a half time, no one can kind of.

Mike (13:16.921)
Correct. Yep.

Hayk (13:36.024)
nail you down for that because this is not your mathematics in that sense, right? Loza version, there is all kinds of things in the Almanac effect and stuff. maybe the best way to think of behavioral sciences is there are more guidelines and you have to prove in a specific context or validate whether that guideline is correct. Normally it is, but to which extent it is correct. think that boils down to that, if you like. Does that, I'm giving you a kind of more comprehensive answer, but it might be so.

Mike (14:00.631)
Yeah, so.

Yeah!

Hayk (14:05.65)
moving pieces, but it is accurate to a level where you can take the results and go with it. But it has to be validated in a context and for specific use cases, for example, if organization thinks of applying them. And then only then you can say, at least I have this working for me. Whereas for mathematics, you could just say, of course it does. You don't have to validate or consider context. Here you have to.

because there's continuously new things coming in, new evidence, especially in neurosciences, there's new things being discovered every day, parts of the brain that, for example, like the recent, I'll say this and we move to the next one if you don't mind, it's very interesting. People think that emotions, like you said, you're a very logical person, but what a recent research, I think a year and a half or two years ago, showed that parts of the emotional parts of the brain, so there's a couple of parts of the brain without going into detail. If you turn off or

Mike (14:31.683)
So that brings us on.

Mike (14:43.353)
Yeah, yeah.

Hayk (15:00.994)
damage parts which are responsible for emotions, even simple decision making of a person does not work. So under it, there is their sicknesses and conditions where emotional part of your brain is off. Simple decision making like do I drink one cup of water or two? Like even daily small decisions are very hard for people who do not have their emotional centers working properly. Do you Emotions play a huge role.

Now go and tell this to someone who is a hardcore scientist who thinks he or she is very logical. They're not saying you're just making stuff up, but except it's true.

Mike (15:31.8)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, interesting.

Hayk (15:37.144)
So in neurosciences, lot of new stuff is coming in, so it's kind of still in flux. In more traditional, let's call this behavioral sciences like psychology or sociology, there are some frameworks. But I think of them more as said, like semi-framework or kind of more guideline to be validated. Because again, there is no rigid mathematical apparatus to prevent things like that. Makes sense?

Mike (15:58.617)
So if you now look at, yeah, yeah. So if you now look at that from a kind of sales perspective, so how does behavioral science kind of play out at the prospecting stage for a salesperson? How can they ethically use that in a sales situation?

Hayk (16:18.456)
So I'll start by quoting one of my favorite books on the subject. The book is called Selling is Human by Daniel, is it Daniel Pink, I think. The premise of the book is very simple. He's a psychologist, by the way. He's not a sales guy, not even a business guy. He wrote the book saying there is this misconception that sales is a used car salesman kind of stereotype. It's a very business thing. It's not. It's a human thing. So all humans...

Mike (16:28.934)
yes, yeah yeah.

Hayk (16:46.37)
Just like also if you extend that to animal world, are selling or buying some things in certain way or another, right? Selling your time, selling your idea, selling the concept and activity. Obviously all of that outside of business context, but in business specific, when you're doing sales, it's extension of what you do every day, right? Every activity you have in one way or another, it's some sort of a sales activity. So how to use ethically.

Firstly, understanding behavioral science, think is critical to be an efficient salesperson simply because you are dealing with an organization, but in fact, you're dealing with a human being or human beings. So your understanding of how human beings think in that organization with whom you are working with, I think is pretty critical to be a successful salesperson, right? Of course, you can argue a lot of salespeople have no idea. And that's correct. But as salespeople

Mike (17:33.007)
Mm.

Hayk (17:40.364)
become more and more experienced or as they fail and fail and sometimes even succeed, they develop some sort of a gut feel that gives them what in other words would be a glimpse or some sort of an actual validated way of doing sales. So it's because of that experience. They don't know that, for example, loss aversion is a thing necessarily, but they know that if they formulate their offering form of a loss, if you don't buy this item now, it's going to get 20 % more expensive and you're going to lose that

discount that you have now versus saying, if you buy now, you gain 20%. Right. So formulating something in form of a loss is very nature for a lot of salespeople, right? Deadlines, et cetera. But what they don't know is loss aversion is a whole framework in psychology. If they knew, they would deliberately apply and get consistently better results rather than kind of more randomly. So that example just is illustrative in a sense that if you know how people work,

Mike (18:31.78)
Yeah.

Hayk (18:38.082)
then it's easier for you to number one, understand how they think, number two, understand what they really want. These are the two things that you have to do using behavioral sciences. Understand how they think about certain things. Again, an example, let's say you're selling a software product to a big company like Google and you're selling to their procurement person. This is the procurement person you're selling this to. It doesn't matter if it's Google or anyone else. Google might want your product, but...

Mike (18:57.273)
Yep.

Hayk (19:05.036)
you have to consider first and foremost the procurement person's personal agenda because that's a person you're selling to. He or she may or may not be aligned with what Google wants or he or she may not even tell you, might even lie to you and you won't even know it. So how do you understand really what the person's kind of personal wants and needs are and how he or she thinks? These are the two things that you have to do. Behavioral science is really good at this. Again, if you know how to use it, assuming.

You can ask specific questions, use specific type of words and kind of try to read between the lines. Of course, you can ask straightforward questions as well, which is normal, but it really helps you become more efficient in one, understanding who this person is and what, if you like, in some ways is the agenda or the priorities of a person. And two, what is the person actually looking for versus what he or she says he's looking for, right? This is two different things.

And then once you know that, you also, the third thing will be to formulate your own offering in a way that caters to that person. If you say to the procurement person, going with the same example, I have this amazing product, et cetera, but it's really expensive. Procurement people are known for looking for cheap things. That's their job, to minimize the cost. If you give them the most innovative, amazing thing that will be great for Google, however it is expensive than their current offerings, he is never going to let it pass, right? He's going to gatekeep it.

and you are never going to go anywhere else. But if you know that there is a way of formulating your package in a way that's going to look cheap to him, and yet kind of still check the box of being innovative, et cetera, or you say, here's the entry point, you know, then eventually we'll keep this for free, or you can use it in this way for a limited amount of time, then you have a better chance. Again, but you have to, again, understand how the person thinks before you even offer your offer, right? And you have to understand what the problem or the priority is. So that's how I think

Mike (20:52.281)
Yeah, yeah,

Hayk (20:56.404)
ethically, and you're right, I think the keyword is ethically, because this could definitely be misused. And it could easily be misused, right? You can always go basically misquoting, for example, in a very specific way your competitors or saying things that are patently not even true. You can exaggerate your own product just to make sure it passes whatever things that the person is looking for.

Mike (21:02.113)
It could. Definitely.

Hayk (21:22.26)
And it's not necessarily a lie. I mean, there is many, many ways it could be misused, but the ethical way of using it, as I said, first, I understand where the person comes from, what's the priority of the person. Secondly, what he or she really wants. then third is package your own solution or offering in a way that appeals to this person. Person first, company second. That's super important because if you put company first, people who you talk to have different agenda from their companies, even in startups, right?

Mike (21:49.419)
Exactly. So, Hike, how do you start with the... So I talk about this quite a lot with salespeople when we're talking about negotiation skills training, is that you've got to find out what their agenda is, what the motivations are. In very simple terms, you have demands versus interests, and the skill of any salesperson is to understand the interests, the motivations behind their demands. So kind of...

Hayk (21:51.116)
So that's how and again. Yeah, cool.

Hayk (21:58.658)
Yeah. Yes.

Hayk (22:05.708)
Great.

Mike (22:18.995)
In behavioral science terms, how do you go about finding out what's really on their mind as a human being?

Hayk (22:26.648)
So I think there's a couple of levels. And again, I think some references that you and I would discuss among others will be never split the difference from Chris was, but one way you have to start by trying to establish some sort of a trust level. When you establish trust, people open up, right? You establish trust if you have some something in common or a little bit of an icebreaker again, different, different examples. But basically my suggestion with the exception of certain cultures where you have to be straight to the point like Scandinavians, et cetera, or some German.

Mike (22:34.82)
Yeah

Hayk (22:56.418)
parts, it's easier to light weight to just kind of get the trust going or ease the person into some sort of a comfort, especially if it's the first or introductory call and ask more questions about them. Don't go. And this is again intuitive for salesperson to sometimes just go and say, I have this solution. It's so unique. It's going to solve your problem. The better way to do this, you have to establish trust by finding something common.

or asking open-ended questions that will show the other person that you are interested in what they have. Ask about themselves, ask about their company, try and understand like, okay, what are you looking for? How did you come across us? What's the problem you're trying to solve? What's the pain point? When you show the other side that you're basically really interested in helping, of course the sales part is there, but what they hear is that you're interested to help. That kind of establishes that initial trust level.

And it opens them up. They start telling you stuff they wouldn't otherwise tell a salesperson because the stereotype is still strong, right? Salesperson wants to sell you. Or if you ask questions like this, they show that you have some real interest. Trust is there. They start opening up. They might not tell you everything immediately, but as you continue asking relevant and follow up questions, they will open up and open up. And one thing I do, for example, very common at the qualification stage is I basically use what's in psychology called Anchor.

right? So, or extreme anchor in some cases. So anchor is being used very concrete example for listeners. Usually when you are asking, you're talking about the problem and eventually present the solution, then your question as a salesperson is, so what's the timeline for this? Right? When do you want this solution to your problem? And of course, if it's first or second call, you don't necessarily get an answer. Yes, it is January 12th next year, I have to launch it. You get something like

Mike (24:21.774)
Right.

Hayk (24:50.2)
Well, we're still figuring out that it's not really clear, et cetera, et cetera. So one thing I use and very applied is I put an anchor. I do the anchor. So I'm saying in this scenario or in this example, would say, is it fair to say that you are planning to launch by end of January next year? When you put an anchor like this, and usually you can put in a very close anchor, like we are, what, October, I can say next week.

Or I can say in six months, right? Further. When you put an extreme anchor like this, either case, the person subconsciously is prompted to give you, correct you if you like, right? So I do this and I get non, like today actually, I had a call and I said, what's the timeline? They said, it's actually first month of next year. Lead exactly with the process that I said. They said, initially, yeah, we're still thinking, we're observing, getting some beads, et cetera. I is it end of this year or maybe?

Mike (25:28.952)
Exactly

Hayk (25:47.412)
middle of next year? They said, no, no, it's by January next year. What they didn't realize is that 30 seconds ago, they just didn't tell me that. You can do the same thing. You can do the same same technique, Mike, for like volumes. For example, you're selling something that has volumes, you're again estimating trying to see what's the predicted volume of usage of your system or your technology or whatever it is.

Mike (25:56.227)
That's right, exactly.

Hayk (26:11.0)
Usually when you ask, what are we talking about? What's the current or projected volumes of whatever you have that I'm trying to solve for you? Usually, you to get a vague response, right? I don't know, 10,000 credit checks in our case. I don't get that. I get like, well, it's still a startup or you get, well, it's a big volume and it depends for the product. I'm like, I just don't understand the scale. Is it fair to say you have 100,000 or so that scale per month?

immediately an answer. No, no, it's more like 10,000. Okay, thank you very much. I now have a volume scale. You don't have to get very specific because it's irrelevant, but anchors are very, very good at sales because you very quickly get a quantifiable response versus the vague response which every salesperson, especially B2B struggles because B2B by definition is long sales cycle and time is the killer, right? So people struggle.

Mike (26:46.019)
Exactly.

Hayk (27:05.248)
The constant complaint, I don't know what's the timeline. It's been one year we're trying to close the deal. Here is the way. Use anchors and every time you speak to a person or communicate over email, put an anchor, say, it fair to you more? Is it based on our discussions? You said it's next January. Is it still the case? And of course, sweetener, you can say if it's beyond that or it's after that, then our offer can get more expensive, blah, blah, using loss aversion, if it's even true, right?

Mike, can you hear me? Does that make sense?

Mike (27:35.407)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, you dropped out for a second. So to the producers, at about 26 and 1 1⁄2 minutes, the sound dropped out, which was just an internet problem. So pick it up again when I count us in. So Hike, what I'll do now is we'll probably go to the close and just summarize three big points for any salesperson. So I count us in, and then perhaps give us a summary. So we're now at about 28 minutes. So three, two,

One, hi, it's brilliant. Just talk to us now, always on these podcasts. I've learned loads. I always do. I think anchoring is really important. I talk about that a lot in negotiation skills training. And in fact, I was writing about it today. But just give us your kind of summary. What would be your kind of top three tips for sales professionals using behavioral science ethically?

Hayk (28:20.696)
Ha

Hayk (28:30.092)
Yeah, so top three tips will be firstly, understand the top 10 or 20 cognitive biases or the cognitive kind of effects, if you like, if you want to call them biases that every human being has. For example, representation bias, confirmation bias, loss aversion. Just go through this, spend one hour doing it. These are the main things that it's a simple 80-20. These are the main things that everyone exhibits and you want to know this.

The reason you need to go through this because a lot of this is non-intuitive, non-logical stuff. You cannot logically think that someone is more prone to loss rather than gain. So firstly, learn those. Secondly, practice on your family or friends, trusted people. Try and practice finding out information or trying to get them to do something that you wouldn't otherwise get. For example, the easiest that I even trained my wife doing that.

It's just finding out the information exactly as I was just describing to you. say, try and find out some information for me that you wouldn't otherwise don't go publicizing you're using it, but ask me questions, ask you in a time when I don't expect and see what I tell you, because I'm not going to obviously always expect you. And she did a couple of times and I saw her then practicing her own, colleagues. So practice basically using those things. And, and remember, I think the important thing in sales is one understands.

What's the priority and what kind of person this person is? Secondly, what the person really, really wants, like you said, demands versus interests, right? What is the person really looking for? If you know those two things, then the third thing will be, then you'll know how to package it. But again, if you don't know any of the cognitive biases, at least, it's very hard for you to do this systematically. So learn the biases, practice, and then apply basically in a friendly environment. And then you can start applying eventually in a business, I would say this.

Just go with top 20, I think that's more than sufficient to become a lot more efficient as a salesperson. Does that make sense?

Mike (30:29.743)
It's been brilliant, absolutely. And in fact, is there a good reference point for someone to look at the top 20 biases? Where would they go to go and find out?

Hayk (30:39.58)
I will send you, I'll send you, I don't know of, I mean, there's lists. I'll send you maybe some lists, but there is number, there is Habits Weekly, for example, newsletter, I recommend people to sign up. This is behavioral science based, every week they send, think end of the week they send basically some news and articles, developments. Habits Weekly, you can Google. What do I follow? I mean, I'm a big fan of everything that's Daniel Kinneman. He unfortunately passed away recently.

Mike (31:06.137)
Right.

Hayk (31:09.208)
And then of course, the person who got the B. E. Economics Nobel Prize, right? And what's his name? Richard, I forgot his name, sorry. But basically, again, I'll send you this reference later. So a things. mean, these are people who are very credible, scientists who did this, right? And as much as there isn't so much of mathematics in science, but this is as close probably as it might get, right, in terms of being a science. So human science, I think that's what it is. So normal for human science.

Mike (31:21.219)
No, no, it's fun.

Perfect.

Hayk (31:39.032)
Yeah, just go with just educating yourself because a lot of new stuff happens all the time and you'll need to be kind of aware. Makes sense. Perfect. Amazing. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you very much. you can find out I haven't really been updating my blog. didn't have the time, but start with the blog, think, HikeHA. So H-A-Y-K-H-A.com. That's my blog.

Mike (31:39.896)
Exactly.

Mike (31:46.925)
Yeah, Haik, it's been amazing. Thank you ever so much indeed. Where can people find out more about you? So where can people find out more about you?

Hayk (32:09.004)
Wanting to update it, haven't updated so much. Or you can just follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. think that's probably where I spend the most time posting contents. Thank you very much, Mike. Great. Thank you very much for having me. Thank you very much. Take care. Bye bye.

Mike (32:18.179)
Perfect. Hike, it's been a real pleasure. Thank you ever so much. Thank you.

Mike (32:25.966)
So let me just stop recording.