The bland definition of cognitive bias: A cognitive bias refers to a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgement, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion —Wikipedia but the more illuminating conceptualization: If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. —Bertrand Russell Here is the list of cognitive biases What is your pick ?
I like "decoy effect". Decoy Effect: Preferences for either option A or B change in favor of option B when option C is presented, which is similar to option B but in no way better. Let's draw parallels to something that is close to our hearts and howls. Monica is married to Vishal. One day Monica posts in "Dear Agony Aunt" column Problem : He is $&*. He is also *&%. Few more expletives. Option A: He is $&* -> Leave him. Option B: He is also *&% -> Reconcile with him. Respondents bring in another external situation let's call it Situation/Option C that does not exist in OP's life Option C: Someone with $%^&, leave him. (translates to: If your husband is abusive and cheating only then leave him as lot of women put up with $%^&) Now OP will compare situations that trigger Option A and Option C and feel that Option A is very aggressive and settle with Option B which was initially unfavourable. This is a flavour of Decoy Effect that members may relate to. Where is the cognitive bias? In introducing Option C which was not applicable in Monica's life as Vishal is not abusive and cheating so she should not be comparing or confusing someone else's (Decoy) problem with hers. She must reason out her options from her life situations and eliminate this gratuitous decoy. Nb: I don't own these cognitive theories or biases. Don't shoot the messenger.
That list is as exhaustive as a list of all little leaguers receiving 'a best player' trophy lest Mamma decide not to re-enroll Munna in the next season. Minns: pretty much thought any flexing of the noodle by moi would qualify for one of the biases listed. : ) So, I shall start with listing one bias that I can proclaim to have overcome! The Post-purchase rationalization - The tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was good value. I have mostly dropped such thought process and candidly admit to any bad purchases. And magnanimously offer it to others as a moment of learning. : ) I went through the 'Decision making and belief' biases in that list so far. The Social biases seem more interesting.
I like "Bias blind spot" where an individual overlooks one's own biases and thinks that he or she is more objective than others. We all fall into this trap where we feel we are less prejudiced than others.
I am duplicating a post from Pensée here, pruning away chatty notes, at my own discretion because I think this post contextually belongs here with other talk (or lack thereof) on cognitive biases. If anyone is planning to read books on cognitive biases, I would advise (1) Research the broad topic. Then research on focused topics, for example, behavioural economics (BE) . Pull up few articles on the core BE concept. Once you have a broad understanding of BE, then check the best books in the market. (2) For BE, the below four books invariably cut into every reviewer's list. (a) Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely (b) Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow by Daniel Kahneman (c) Outliers by Malcom Gladwell [read his New Yorker articles] (d) Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt Pull up excerpts or original research papers on these works, e.g, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Trevsky Try to understand highlighted concepts: "base-rate fallacy", "anchoring", "availability" in the above paper. Then download the books and read. Read bad books, read good books, compare and contrast them. Such technique helped me immensely to explore books on cognitive biases and social theories.
I just finished reading Peter Singer's Applied Ethics. Few books should be prescribed as textbooks in schools. I am not going to bore you folks with my review of the book but here's another equally fascinating practical take on moral philosophy. I am grouping this under cognitive biases to take into account overlap of these interdisciplinary clusters. You might have heard of "trolley problem" or you might have seen some variation of it as FB share or whatsApp forward. The simplistic representation of the problem: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice? There are two variants of the problem (1) Philippa Foot is the lady who devised the original "side track" quandary. (2) Judith Jarvis Thomson came up with "fat man" twist (what if instead of diverting the train you need to push a fat man to stop the train and save five lives). There are other advanced tweaks on how to save five people or if at all those people are worth to save. How do you solve such ethical dilemmas? Refer illustrative reading: here I would recommend Peter Singer, Thomas Nagel (not his Mind and Cosmos but his other works) and Philippa Foot for introduction to practical ethics. Next time you come across such forwards don't brush them of as fanciful treats but try to dig deeper into the provenance of these makings.
Would be interesting to have a thread along these lines. I suspect most "normal" folks would let all five people die. Inaction --> less guilt. Actively choosing to let someone die means increased culpability even if it is for the greater good. A thread on problems in applied ethics. We could write a book on how to kill a forum in 10 threads!
