<> Human<> Biases

<> This deck details the full set of biases, arranged according to the problems we face and the strategies our minds use to make meaning.<> This content is taken directly from Buster Benson and used with his kind permission. THE 4 PROBLEMS WE FACE

Too Much Not Enough Information Memory

Not Enough Not Enough Time Meaning NOT ENOUGH MEANING Patterns

We fnd stories and patterns even in sparse data.

Since we only get a tiny sliver of the world’s information, and also flter out almost everything else, we never have the luxury of having the full story. This is how our brain reconstructs the world to feel complete inside our heads. NOT ENOUGH MEANING

Some of the specifc biases related to patterns include...

Confabulation Masked man fallacy Clustering illusion Recency illusion Insensitivity to sample Gambler’s fallacy size Hot-hand fallacy Neglect of probability Illusory correlation Anecdotal fallacy, Pareidolia Illusion of validity Anthropomorphism NOT ENOUGH MEANING Generalities

We fll in characteristics from stereotypes, generalities, and prior histories whenever there are new specifc instances or gaps in information. When we have partial information about a specifc thing that belongs to a group of things we are pretty familiar with, our brain has no problem flling in the gaps with best guesses or what other trusted sources provide. Conveniently, we then forget which parts were real and which were flled in NOT ENOUGH MEANING

Some of the specifc biases related to generalities include...

Group attribution error Just-world hypothesis Ultimate attribution Argument from fallacy error Authority bias Stereotyping, Automation bias Essentialism Bandwagon efect Functional fxedness Placebo efect Moral credential efect NOT ENOUGH MEANING Favour the familiar

We imagine things and people we’re familiar with or fond of as better than things and people we aren’t familiar with or fond of.

Similar to the above but the flled-in bits generally also include built in assumptions about the quality and value of the thing we’re looking at. NOT ENOUGH MEANING

Some of the specifc biases related to favour the familiar include...

Halo efect Well-traveled road In-group bias efect Out-group Not invented here homogeneity bias Reactive devaluation Cross-race efect Positivity efect Cheerleader efect NOT ENOUGH MEANING Easier Problems

We simplify probabilities and numbers to make them easier to think about.

Our subconscious mind is terrible at math and generally gets all kinds of things wrong about the likelihood of something happening if any data is missing NOT ENOUGH MEANING

Some of the specifc biases related to easier problems include...

Mental accounting Survivorship bias Normalcy bias Zero sum bias Appeal to probability Denomination efect fallacy Magic number 7+-2 Base rate fallacy Swimmer’s body Murphy’s law illusion Hofstadter’s law Money illusion Subadditivity efect Conservatism NOT ENOUGH MEANING

Mindreading

We think we know what others are thinking

In some cases this means that we assume that they know what we know, in other cases we assume they’re thinking about us as much as we are thinking about ourselves. It’s basically just a case of us modeling their own mind afer our own (or in some cases afer a much less complicated mind than our own). <>NOT ENOUGH MEANING

Some of the specifc biases <>related to mindreading include...

<> Curse of knowledge Illusion of asymmetric Illusion of insight transparency Extrinsic incentive Spotlight efect error Streetlight efect <> Illusion of external agency NOT ENOUGH MEANING Protect Existsing Beliefs ***

We project our current mindset and assumptions onto the past and future.

Magnifed also by the fact that we’re not very good at imagining how quickly or slowly things will happen or change over time. <>NOT ENOUGH MEANING

Some of the specifc biases related to protecting existing beliefs<> include...

<> Hindsight bias Pessimism bias Outcome bias Planning fallacy Moral luck Time-saving bias Declinism Pro-innovation bias <>Telescoping efect Projection bias Rosy retrospection Restraint bias Impact bias Self-consistency bias NOT ENOUGH TIME Over Confdence

In order to act, we need to be confdent in our ability to make an impact and to feel like what we do is important.

In reality, most of this confdence can be classifed as overconfdence, but without it we might not act at all. <>NOT ENOUGH TIME

Some of the specifc biases related to over confdence include...<>

<> Overconfdence efect Lake Wobegone efect Egocentric bias Self-serving bias Optimism bias Actor-observer bias Social desirability bias Fundamental attribution error <>Third-person efect Forer efect Defensive attribution hypothesis Barnum efect Trait ascription bias Illusion of control Efort justifcation False consensus efect Risk compensation Dunning-Kruger efect Peltzman efect Hard-easy efect Armchair fallacy Illusory superiority NOT ENOUGH TIME Nearest Thing is Best

In order to stay focused, we favor the immediate, relatable thing in front of us over the delayed and distant.

We value stuf more in the present than in the future, and relate more to stories of specifc individuals than anonymous individuals or groups. <>NOT ENOUGH TIME

Some of the specifc biases related to nearest thing is best include...<>

<> Hyperbolic discounting Identifable victim Appeal to novelty efect

<> NOT ENOUGH TIME Stick With It

In order to get anything done, we’re motivated to complete things that we’ve already invested time and energy in.

The behavioral economist’s version of Newton’s frst law of motion: an object in motion stays in motion. This helps us fnish things, even if we come across more and more reasons to give up. <>NOT ENOUGH TIME

Some of the specifc biases related to sticking with it include...<>

<> Sunk cost fallacy Generation efect Irrational escalation Zero-risk bias Escalation of Disposition efect commitment Unit bias Loss aversion, IKEA Pseudocertainty efect <>efect Endowment efect Processing difculty efect Backfre efect NOT ENOUGH TIME Keep Options Open

We favor options that appear simple or that have more complete information over more complex, ambiguous options.

We’d rather do the quick, simple thing than the important complicated thing, even if the important complicated thing is ultimately a better use of time and energy. <>NOT ENOUGH TIME

Some of the specifc biases related to keeping options open include...<>

<> Ambiguity bias Delmore efect Information bias Conjunction fallacy Belief bias Occam’s razor Rhyme as reason efect Less-is-better efect <>Bike-shedding efect Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Law of Triviality hypothesis NOT ENOUGH TIME Maintain the Status Quo

In order to avoid mistakes, we’re motivated to preserve our status in a group and to avoid irreversible decisions.

If we must choose, we tend to choose the option that is perceived as the least risky or that preserves the status quo. Better the devil you know than the devil you do not. <>NOT ENOUGH TIME

Some of the specifc biases related to maintaining the status<> quo include...

<> System justifcation Law of the instrument Reactance Law of the hammer Reverse psychology Maslow’s hammer Decoy efect Golden hammer <>Social comparison bias Chesterton’s fence Status quo bias Hippo problem Abilene paradox TOO MUCH INFORMATION Change

We notice when things are new or diferent.

We will generally tend to weigh the signifcance of the new value by the direction the change happened (positive or negative) more than re-evaluating the new value as if it had been presented alone. Also applies to when we compare two similar things. <>TOO MUCH INFORMATION

Some of the specifc biases <>related to changes include...

<> Anchoring Framing efect Contrast efect Weber–Fechner law Focusing efect Distinction bias

<> TOO MUCH INFORMATION Bizarreness

Bizarre, funny and visually- striking expereinces stand out more than non-bizarre or unfunny ones.

Our brains tend to boost the importance of things that are unusual or surprising. Alternatively, we tend to skip over information that we think is ordinary or expected. <>TOO MUCH INFORMATION

Some of the specifc biases <>related to bizarreness include...

<> Bizarreness efect Negativity bias Humor efect Publication bias Von Restorf efect Omission bias

<> TOO MUCH INFORMATION Repetition

We notice things that are already primed in memory or repeated ofen.

This is the simple rule that our brains are more likely to notice things that are related to stuf that’s recently been loaded in memory. <>TOO MUCH INFORMATION

Some of the specifc biases <>related to repetition include...

<> Availability heuristic Mood-congruent Attentional bias memory bias Illusory truth efect Frequency Mere exposure efect Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon Context efect <> Empathy gap Cue-dependent forgetting TOO MUCH INFORMATION Confrm Existsing Beliefs

We are drawn to details that confrm our own existing beliefs.

This is a big one. As is the corollary: we tend to ignore details that contradicts our own beliefs. <>TOO MUCH INFORMATION

Some of the specifc biases related to confrm existing beliefs<> include...

<> Confrmation bias Observer efect Congruence bias Expectation bias Post-purchase Ostrich efect rationalization Subjective validation Choice-supportive bias <> Continued infuence Selective perception efect Observer-expectancy Semmelweis refex efect Bucket error Experimenter’s bias Law of narrative gravity NOT ENOUGH MEMORY Seek Takeaways

We edit and reinforce some memories afer the fact.

During that process, memories can become stronger, however various details can also get accidentally swapped. We sometimes accidentally inject a detail into the memory that wasn’t there before. <>NOT ENOUGH MEMORY

Some of the specifc biases related to seeking takeaways` include...<>

<> Misattribution of False memory memory Suggestibility Source confusion Spacing efect Cryptomnesia <> NOT ENOUGH MEMORY Edit down memories

We reduce events and lists to their key elements.

It’s difcult to reduce events and lists to generalities, so instead we pick out a few items to represent the whole. <>NOT ENOUGH MEMORY

Some of the specifc biases related to editing our memories down<> include...

<> Peak–end rule Modality efect Leveling and Memory inhibition sharpening Part-list cueing efect Misinformation efect Primacy efect Duration neglect <> Recency efect Serial recall efect Serial position efect List-length efect Sufx efect NOT ENOUGH MEMORY Generalize

We discard specifcs to form generalities.

We do this out of necessity, but the impact of implicit associations, stereotypes, and prejudice results in some of the most glaringly bad consequences from our full set of cognitive biases. <>NOT ENOUGH MEMORY

Some of the specifc biases <>related to generaizing include...

<> Implicit associations Prejudice Implicit stereotypes Fading afect bias Stereotypical bias

<> NOT ENOUGH MEMORY Diferent Storage

We store memories diferently based on how they were experienced.

Our brains will only encode information that it deems important at the time, but this decision can be afected by other circumstances (what else is happening, how is the information presenting itself, can we easily fnd the information again if we need to, etc) that have little to do with the information’s value. <>NOT ENOUGH MEMORY

Some of the specifc biases related to diferent storage include...<>

<> Picture superiority Next-in-line efect efect Tip of the tongue Levels of processing phenomenon efect Google efect Testing efect Self-relevance efect <>Absent-mindedness