Skip to main content

Some Cognitive Biases

Image result for sunk costs

There are lots of cognitive biases in the world. Here are four -- from a list I discovered in some random web surfing. But re-written in my own style. 

Group Think. Also known as "communal reinforcement." Members of your echo chamber may constantly reassure one another that X is the case So of course you are certain, living in that echo chamber, that X is the case. 

I believe I once in this blog told a pertinent anecdote about the Japanese decision to expand the war in 1941. All of Hirohito's advisors were of the opinion that this was the right and necessary thing to do. From the Aleutians to Hawaii to Hong Kong to the Philippines -- go on the offensive throughout the Pacific. Hirohito himself had his doubts, but in the end even he, quasi-god or not, thought it necessary to stifle them and accept the hive mind's view.

Availability Cascade. In science this is also called a research bubble. There has been some intriguing work done in special field X. Suddenly, people in adjoining specialties are talking about X What people are talking about seems more interesting, draws further work and papers, good bad or still-to-be-checked. This draws more talk, and of course what people are talking even more about is even more interesting....

Defending a Sunk Cost. Or, "post-purchase rationalization." I've already expended money/time on X. So it can't be the case that X is wrong, pointless, misguided, etc. I'll come up with reasons in support of X or to reject contrary evidence, no matter how "evident." 

Wishful Thinking. Or, "motivated reasoning." Or "giving one's self a pep talk." Or "believing one's own hype." 

"Fortunately, I don't have to avoid this, or the other biases, because I am a hyper-rational creature above all of this."

Wait no. That last one isn't an example! It happens to be true.  

Comments

  1. Christopher, is the availability cascade really a cognitive bias, as opposed to what we might call an "interest bias"? Your description of it does not suggest that the people who study X see it differently because of their interest in it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is a cognitive bias, that begins with a heuristic. Our minds work through various shortcuts, one of which is that our judgments are based on the most recent information. Insofar as our judgments lead to actions that strike other people as (recent) information, and their actions do likewise, this creates a feedback loop, or cascade.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak