Cognitive Biases you do not want to fall victim to :)

[Moth_Monk]

1. Just-world hypothesis

Spoiler: Number 1

The just-world hypothesis (or just-world fallacy) is a cognitive bias referring to the common assumption that situations and situational outcomes are caused or guided by some universal force of justice, order, stability, or desert. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is people's tendency to attribute consequences to, or expect consequences as the result of, a cosmic power responsible for the righting of past wrongs, injustices, or imbalances. The premise of the fallacy popularly appears in English in the form of various figures of speech, which often imply a negative reprisal of justice, such as: "You got what was coming to you," "What goes around comes around," and "You reap what you sow."

2. Confirmation Bias

Spoiler: Number 2

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

3. Ad hom/Halo Effect

Spoiler: Number 3

Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.

4. Fundamental Attribution Error

Spoiler: Number 4

In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior?where situational factors are often taken into consideration. This discrepancy is called the actor?observer bias.
As a simple example, if Alice saw Bob trip over a rock and fall, Alice might consider Bob to be clumsy or careless (dispositional). If Alice tripped over the same rock herself, she would be more likely to blame the placement of the rock (situational).

I thought I'd throw these out there since I know that lots of people make these mistakes. Now, my good readers , you will have improved as human beings!!!

Captcha: creative vision

[footnote]Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias[/footnote]

 

[requisitename]

Okay.. what shall we discuss, then?

CAPTCHA says Cary Grant, so we'll go with that. I think my favorite of his movies is Arsenic and Old Lace, though to be honest, I haven't seen nearly all of them! There's just something about that one that I really like.. I can't put my finger on what it is, though.

 

[DoPo]

The Fallacy Files [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/] - I find it a better source for these things.

OT: none of them. Which is impossible. So what are we discussing, really?

 

[Melon Hunter]

The Fallacy Files [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/] - I find it a better source for these things.

OT: none of them. Which is impossible. So what are we discussing, really?

Given all the hot-tempered topics we've seen over the friend zone and the like recently, I guess it's a PSA about what to avoid using in a debate, as these all contribute to debate decaying into meaningless arguments. It is rather easy to fall into these fallacies, even if you know of them beforehand.

 

[Moth_Monk]

The Fallacy Files [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/] - I find it a better source for these things.

OT: none of them. Which is impossible. So what are we discussing, really?

Given all the hot-tempered topics we've seen over the friend zone and the like recently, I guess it's a PSA about what to avoid using in a debate, as these all contribute to debate decaying into meaningless arguments. It is rather easy to fall into these fallacies, even if you know of them beforehand.

This was my reasoning behind posting the OP

 

[aba1]

I dunno I think these are very interesting and if followed they make your ideas and opinions so much more valuable and truthful.

 

[Axyun]

Nothing new here. I see hundreds of threads like the OPs every day. Heck, this forum is constantly littered with them. Probably posted by old, grumpy people with no jobs and too much time on their hands. If I ever post a thread like this, I'd actually follow it up with something useful - to make people think. But no, we just get some kind of lecture here. Don't worry, OP, your holier-than-thou attitude will get the best of you.

 

[isometry]

The Fallacy Files [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/] - I find it a better source for these things.

OT: none of them. Which is impossible. So what are we discussing, really?

An impossibility claim, without proof. A universal generalization to all people at all times, without proof.

This is why I have no respect for psychology. At best it can make claims about tendencies of average people, it fails miserably when trying to apply itself universally.

 

[DoPo]

The Fallacy Files [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/] - I find it a better source for these things.

OT: none of them. Which is impossible. So what are we discussing, really?

An impossibility claim, without proof. A universal generalization to all people at all times, without proof.

This is why I have no respect for psychology. At best it can make claims about tendencies of average people, it fails miserably when trying to apply itself universally.

Wat.

To avoid low content, let me ask you - is that a joke or are you seriously making that claim? It failed on both accounts, just so you know.

 

[isometry]

The Fallacy Files [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/] - I find it a better source for these things.

OT: none of them. Which is impossible. So what are we discussing, really?

An impossibility claim, without proof. A universal generalization to all people at all times, without proof.

This is why I have no respect for psychology. At best it can make claims about tendencies of average people, it fails miserably when trying to apply itself universally.

Wat.

To avoid low content, let me ask you - is that a joke or are you seriously making that claim? It failed on both accounts, just so you know.

I'm seriously making the claim that "it's impossible to eliminate cognitive biases" is an abominable statement, and is one of the main reasons that the psychology worldview is a blight on civilization.

 

[DoPo]

The Fallacy Files [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/] - I find it a better source for these things.

OT: none of them. Which is impossible. So what are we discussing, really?

An impossibility claim, without proof. A universal generalization to all people at all times, without proof.

This is why I have no respect for psychology. At best it can make claims about tendencies of average people, it fails miserably when trying to apply itself universally.

Wat.

To avoid low content, let me ask you - is that a joke or are you seriously making that claim? It failed on both accounts, just so you know.

I'm seriously making the claim that "it's impossible to eliminate cognitive biases" is an abominable statement, and is one of the main reasons that the psychology worldview is a blight on civilization.

Then may I ask you where I made that claim because I am quite sure I did not have that in mind?

Also, care to elaborate how the entire world can turn its back on quite a lot of evolution (of all sorts) which wired some thinking patterns into our minds? It is not "impossible" but improbable, time and resource consuming immediately come to mind.

EDIT: also, what's with the psychology, why bring it up in the first place.

 

[isometry]

The Fallacy Files [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/] - I find it a better source for these things.

OT: none of them. Which is impossible. So what are we discussing, really?

An impossibility claim, without proof. A universal generalization to all people at all times, without proof.

This is why I have no respect for psychology. At best it can make claims about tendencies of average people, it fails miserably when trying to apply itself universally.

Wat.

To avoid low content, let me ask you - is that a joke or are you seriously making that claim? It failed on both accounts, just so you know.

I'm seriously making the claim that "it's impossible to eliminate cognitive biases" is an abominable statement, and is one of the main reasons that the psychology worldview is a blight on civilization.

Then may I ask you where I made that claim because I am quite sure I did not have that in mind?

Also, care to elaborate how the entire world can turn its back on quite a lot of evolution (of all sorts) which wired some thinking patterns into our minds? It is not "impossible" but improbable, time and resource consuming immediately come to mind.

EDIT: also, what's with the psychology, why bring it up in the first place.

I thought you made that claim when you said: "none of them, but that's impossible" in your first post of this thread, I thought that was meant as a response to the OP's question "cognitive biases you do not want to fall victim to?"

Whether the entire world corrects its cognitive biases is not relevant to the question of whether a single individual can correct his. Now that you admit that it is not impossible, but only improbable and difficult, we agree. In particular that means it is something we can work towards and improve, not that we must give up and accept flawed thinking forever.

As for why to bring up "psychology", cognitive biases are a concept from psychology. My problem is that research psychologists publish careful statements about percentages of sample populations experiencing cognitive biases in specific situations, and regular people casually generalize and extrapolate from that research to imagine that it applies to all people at all times. That's what I call the "psychology worldview", the overapplication of academic psychology in daily life.

 

[Amaury_games]

Hum, I assumed the title referred to chosing the one fallacy out of the above mentioned that I would hate doind the most (I might have constructed badly this sentence, but I can't think of a way to make it better - although it still doesn't feel right, but you get my point). In this case, the first sound a lot like applying faith as an argument, which is bad, but the others sound even worse. I would pick number 3 as my most hated fallacy out of the three remaining. It's so shameful to make assuptions about others based on characteristics that have nothing to do with what you expect from them! I heard many people voted in a past president of my country (who stole money from everybody's saving accounts), just because they found him handsome! When I was first told this, I wanted to smack these people across the face so badly... I really hate the politicians of my country, but I've got to admit that the people of my country really get the leaders they deserve.

 

[DoPo]

I thought you made that claim when you said: "none of them, but that's impossible" in your first post of this thread, I thought that was meant as a response to the OP's question "cognitive biases you do not want to fall victim to?"

Whether the entire world corrects its cognitive biases is not relevant to the question of whether a single individual can correct his.

I do not want to fall victim to none of them. However, I do fall victim. That can come from me or other people. Hence, it is not possible at the moment and I would have to wait until the entire world totally changes its way of thinking. But given that it is not possible (given the current state of everything) for the entire world to change within my lifetime. I still think that "impossible" was the right choice of words there.

As for why to bring up "psychology", cognitive biases are a concept from psychology. My problem is that research psychologists publish careful statements about percentages of sample populations experiencing cognitive biases in specific situations, and regular people casually generalize and extrapolate from that research to imagine that it applies to all people at all times. That's what I call the "psychology worldview", the overapplication of academic psychology in daily life.

I don't think pop psychology is the one you should listen to and then call out real psychology based on that. I am pretty sure real psychology only recognises those biases but does not claim that everybody, ever, all the time acts on them. In fact, I don't know anyone who makes such a claim. I'm not even sure why you called me out for that.

 

[Spectral Dragon]

Hmm... I'd like to mention this site [http://www.lesswrong.com/] too, if we're talking biases.

The worst is probably just-world fallacy, followed by the halo-effect which in worst case scenario leads to a super happy death spiral. I don't like any of them, and try not to fall victim to any of these. Not always that I succeed, but still. You have to try.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I am sure there are tons of people who like thinking they would never be so gullible, judgmental, etc. but they would be wrong. We all make these blunders on occasion. That guy who cut you off on the freeway who you flipped the bird and dubbed "a complete asshole"? Maybe he didn't see you in his mirror, or was in an emergency rush. I know I've driven poorly before because of distraction, emergencies, and other things but would never intentionally cut someone off.