Cognitive Biases - A Visual Guide (Explains a great deal in a small amount of time.)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gold Guy on May 30, 2010 at 2:59pm

It is likely that we cannot completely eliminate our biases and probably would be worse off if we did. Most of these biases are information processing heuristics that served our ancestors well, and work well for us most of the time.

It could be that eliminating all self-severing biases would leave one thoroughly depressed and unable to function. High functioning individuals tend to be deluded, at least in the sense of having a positive self-bias. If you accept the premise that we cannot perceive reality to complete accuracy, then the task might be to learn which delusions are beneficial and which are harmful. You might refute the existence of gods, but be willing to live with a slightly inaccurate perception of your own intelligence :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam in WV on May 30, 2010 at 3:23pm

Aye! Aye! Our biases help us to formulate our distinctive personality traits. Life would be awfully dull if we were all seemingly clones of Mr. Spock. :P

I linked the link very much, though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on May 30, 2010 at 9:16pm

True - they help. But imagine if you were aware of your biases and acted to minimize they're distortion of your perception, I guarantee you would remain a very unique individual - probably more so. And, I also think that if you understood what illusory biases someone you work with or are committed to (say a spouse) you might find some more slack to hand them as well as be able to more effectively draw their attention to a more functional way of looking at some things that would not only overcome certain repetitive and unproductive conflict, but result in a deeper and more effective collaboration.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on May 30, 2010 at 6:57pm

I highly recommend the book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me). I'm reading through it now, and I agree completely with one person's review:

"This book is amazing because as you read it you go through three distinct stages of understanding. Stage 1: 'Wow, I know quite a few people who are making the mistakes described in this book.' Stage 2: 'Wow, EVERY single person I know is making the mistakes described in this book.' Stage 3: 'Wow, I myself have been making the mistakes described in this book, and I didn’t even realize it.'"

Nothing better for the skeptically-minded person than a healthy serving of Humble Pie. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on May 30, 2010 at 9:12pm

Speak for yourself! ;^)

I totally agree.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle on May 31, 2010 at 10:41am

I liked this book. It did, however, take me some time to get into it because, at first, it seemed that it was impossible to overcome ever, which I do not believe to be true. Then he came in with some examples to give me hope. In the end the book was great and helpful and also one I would highly recommend to anyone who can open themselves up enough to self criticism to enjoy it. (after the initial pain)
Is it irony that those who are deepest in 'cognitive dissonance' are least likely to accept it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on May 31, 2010 at 4:15pm

I think that's one of the biases/mistakes: Dunning Kruger

Overestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable
qualities, relative to other people. Also known as Superiority bias
(also known as "Lake Wobegon effect", "better-than-average effect",
"superiority bias", or Dunning-Kruger effect)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gold Guy on May 31, 2010 at 10:17pm

Is it irony that those who are deepest in 'cognitive dissonance' are least likely to accept it?

I don't understand that use of the term 'cognitive dissonance.' Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort or 'psychic pain' that people experience when they hold beliefs or values that are logically inconsistent. I don't know what you mean by 'deepest in.' Do you mean they have the most conflicting beliefs? One does not accept cognitive dissonance, one experiences it. A person with inconsistent beliefs can use denial to reduce dissonance. Maybe that is what you mean. Thus a young earth xtian can believe that humans lived with dinosaurs without a constant headache. They just have to deny science. They have no cognitive dissonance, but their denial shows their ignorance. To lose the denial mechanism would result in severe cognitive dissonance. That explains why they are so resistant to logic and evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on May 31, 2010 at 10:52pm

Interesting, I always understood the term to be independent of denial - such that a person would, for instance, never believe in fairies or even other people's god's because of the null hypothesis while easily believing in their own. Often, it's not quite denial even - just a total lack of thinking something through. It does suggest discomfort - and the method of retreat from it would be some kind of denial or defensiveness. But that discomfort could and is often masked on the surface - such that someone who would go to a faith healer to watch others get 'healed' would take their kid to the ER if they were in immediate peril.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle on May 31, 2010 at 11:16pm

Thank you Howard for helping make my slip up sound more clear and sensible. That is more or less where I was going and it was meant to be a direct reference to the book mentioned by The Nerd Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gold Guy on June 1, 2010 at 9:06am

It is independent of denial. Denial is one mechanism to reduce dissonance, there are others. Denial would work by removing one of the inconsistent beliefs, thus masking the conflict. The important point is that an external observer does not determine what is inconsistent in another's beliefs. You would need access to their entire belief system to do that. It is yet another bias that we see ourselves as consistent and other people as being inconsistent. As a result labeling them with the term "cognitive dissonance." Because we do not have access to the structure of the beliefs of others, the only way to reliably know cognitive dissonance exists is to see evidence of anxiety or discomfort.

OTOH, I now understand what Michelle was saying. By "least likely to accept it" she meant benefit from reading the book "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)." Totally agree. A person is motivated to avoid examining their beliefs in proportion to the extent there are substantial inconsistencies in those beliefs. It follows from the need to avoid anxiety and discomfort.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on June 1, 2010 at 9:24am

Interesting. I hadn't looked at it that way. It's like watching that character (usually in a coming of age film) who is pursuing the pretty bitch with no chance of success and, even if he gets it, no chance of it lasting. Meanwhile, the whole time, there is the less overtly attractive but authentic girl who is there all the time and clearly adores him. It's easy to be a fly on the wall and see the 'big picture' and yell at the screen - you idiot - she's right there. Don't you see her.

Nevertheless, there are times, like in my example of the choice of science over faith when its your kid that's sick, that empirically demonstrates the dissonance on some level - even if it is masked. In fact, most of these biases are like that - we apply them to others even while never considering them for ourselves.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page