Frightening Reality

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Frightening Reality Janusz Lipowski Frightening Reality Who is He? His General Traits He is an unparalleled, grotesque and treacherous buffoon, a goon and a thug, a pathological narcissist egomaniac, manipulator, cheat, slanderer, crook, misogynist, xenophobe, chauvinist and a brute ignoramus, a contemptible avarice-driven, greedy and pathetic figure devoid of any self-criticism and any responsibility for his words and actions. He is a chronic liar, and perversely self-centered person with an erratic and obsessive temper. He is a worryingly delusional man, with bombast and tempestuous personality, volatile temperament, and vindictive nature. He is the most unhinged (mentally unbalanced, deranged) figure, a cruel, vengeful bigot, and a shameless, uninhibited galoot. His personality is galactically idiosyncratic, and he is extremely bellicose, bigoted bully. He is a man high on energy but low on sanity, decency, discretion, and humility. He is ill-mannered, boorish braggart, given to gauche behaviour, boastful, and thin-skinned person, desperately trying to save face under all circumstances. He is an unsophisticated loudmouth, a vulgar grifter and serial philanderer. He is temperamentally incapable of keeping any position of responsibility, and his achievements is the swirl of fiascos. There is no end to the man’s vileness. He is unable to vent his spleen in private. He is constantly compelled to preemptively reassert his invulnerability, his power and greatness. A confluence of many of his worst qualities and impulses: his brittle ego, his impulsive cruelty, his disrespect for consent, his misogyny and his relentless war on the critics. It is a defense mechanism designed to protect him against the painful reality of his belief in his own inferiority, and a deep-seated sense of inadequacy. He seems to need perpetual outside approval to stabilize his sense of self, so he is perpetually desperate for approval, telling heroic fabulist tales about himself. He shows dangerous, pathological disconnection from reality. He is a man divorced from reality, a man perpetually surprised because reality does not comport with his fantasies. He is a man for whom competency is of far less value than sycophancy. For the well-educated and rational people, he is the vast chasm of ignorance, and a complete and utter nincompoop. He leads a life dedicated to the worship of mammon. He chafes at any attempts to control his more rash impulses. He is an erratic vulgarian and a reckless and incompetent man, uniquely impulsive and chronically irrational, whose rotten decisions and actions frequently drive him into a ditch. He has a taste for provocation, and freakishly bizarre and outlandish statements. He is a bunkum artist and a transparent bluffer, unburdened by any commitment to well-established facts. He has not achieved some accurate sense of himself, some internal criteria to measure his own merits and demerits. His Intelligence and Knowledge He is suffering from mental impairment and is mentally subnormal. He is sadly characterized by the underdeveloped space between his ears. He is a man unencumbered with knowledge. and highly deluded about his knowledge. The knowledge illusion is a common form of human fallibility, but he takes it to an exceptional level. He is a man ignorant of his own ignorance. He is the all-time record-holder of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the phenomenon in which the incompetent person is too incompetent to understand his own incompetence. Some people consider him as the combination of a clever mind and a deficient knowledge, which makes his actions incredibly dangerous. His inability to focus his attention on details makes it hard for him to learn and master facts. In his pronouncements, he is seemingly incapable of putting together a coherent sentence with a subject, a verb, and an object. The question is: is he a genial dunce (a slow-witted or stupid person) or a sinister genius? His Malignant Narcissism He displays classic traits of dangerous mental illness: malignant narcissism, which is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression, and sadism (Campbells’ Psychiatric Dictionary). Narcissism impairs his ability to see reality, and to accept rational persuasion based on verified facts. He is a person, who is suffering from an inflated sense of his own importance, a deep need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. He is a man with mammoth ego, and an egregious lack of self-control. Many of his statements and remarks are a despicable display of buffoonery and self-aggrandizement. His ultraconfidence is a cover-up for his fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism. He shows serious symptoms of mental instability, which include grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. His words and behaviour suggest that he is suffering from a profound inability to empathize. The exaggerated degree of his grandiosity is a measure of the depth of his dread of being inadequate. He possesses a fragile ego vulnerable to any threat of revealing his imperfections and the associated humiliation (known as a “narcissistic injury”). He surrounds himself with people who admire and applaud him, and pander to his narcissistic and sociopathic ways. He soaks in adulation from his fans and supporters. As a narcissist, he needs a constant stream of attention and admiration, the narcissistic supply. His need to maintain the self-image is so great, that he bends reality to fulfill whatever fantasy about power, wealth, beauty, etc. he maintains. His Troubling Relationship with the Truth He has little concern for truth and sees no need for rational persuasion. He distorts reality to suit his psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them. He is a man who has a tenuous relationship with the truth and a strategy of devaluating objective facts, who stretches the truth, and spreads mistruths, exaggerations or outright lies and falsehoods. He is a person with no shame, and unembarrassable when being caught in a lie. He is impervious to embarrassment, no matter how blatant are his falsehoods. He lacks the cranial capacity to comprehend all the important consequences of his statements. He makes spurious, evidence-free, and easily disprovable claims. His falsehoods are attempts to build a world in which he can feel good for an instant and comfortably deceive himself. He shows contempt for facts that tarnish his pride. His Opponents He is scapegoating and banishing groups of people who are seen by him as threats, and makes scurrilous and false allegations about his opponents, and publicly berates them. He is full of hateful vitriol against his opponents, and is degrading, ridiculing, and demeaning rivals and critics. He can tolerate no criticism of any kind, adheres to no obvious standards of conduct, and has outright rejected conventions of ethics and transparency. He is characterized by the fusillade of angry and venomous statements, and the angry jeremiads. He goes on angry tirades against people who enrage him by daring to suggest anything negative about him. He loves confrontation, and always needs to define himself in relation to an enemy, and then to brand, mock, belittle and undermine his opponents. He is always ready to raise hostility levels, undermine organizations in which he is involved, and to dehumanize the people with whom he associates. He has mastered the skill of acting cordial toward people he would rather strangle. ----------------------------------- Rational people hope, that in a short time he will fail, and that he will fail spectacularly, that he will go down in flames, and he will be history. ----------------------------------- Narcissistic personality disorder A mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. Behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism. Narcissistic personality is characterized by a lack of capacity for empathy, no compassion, and an aptitude and capacity to deceive. The American Psychiatry Association has a nine-point checklist of traits for narcissism. If someone displays just five of the traits, he or she has Narcissistic Personality Disorder: He or she has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements). He or she is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. He or she believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions). He or she requires excessive admiration. He or she has an unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations. He or she is interpersonally exploitative (takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends). He or she lacks empathy; he or she is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. He or she is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her. He or she shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes. Malignant narcissism A psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression, and sadism. The Dunning-Kruger effect The phenomenon in which the incompetent person is too incompetent to understand his own incompetence. It is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, by mistakenly assessing their ability as greater than their actual capability. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability people to recognize their ineptitude, without which they cannot accurately evaluate their actual competence. Copyright © 2005-2019, www.januszlipowski.com .
Recommended publications
  • Dunning–Kruger Effect - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect Dunning–Kruger effect From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2] Contents 1 Proposal 2 Supporting studies 3 Awards 4 Historical references 5 See also 6 References Proposal The phenomenon was first tested in a series of experiments published in 1999 by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of the Department of Psychology, Cornell University.[2][3] They noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis. Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will: 1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill; 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others; 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy; 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill. Dunning has since drawn an analogy ("the anosognosia of everyday life")[1][4] with a condition in which a person who suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic impairments such as blindness or paralysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Infographic I.10
    The Digital Health Revolution: Leaving No One Behind The global AI in healthcare market is growing fast, with an expected increase from $4.9 billion in 2020 to $45.2 billion by 2026. There are new solutions introduced every day that address all areas: from clinical care and diagnosis, to remote patient monitoring to EHR support, and beyond. But, AI is still relatively new to the industry, and it can be difficult to determine which solutions can actually make a difference in care delivery and business operations. 59 Jan 2021 % of Americans believe returning Jan-June 2019 to pre-coronavirus life poses a risk to health and well being. 11 41 % % ...expect it will take at least 6 The pandemic has greatly increased the 65 months before things get number of US adults reporting depression % back to normal (updated April and/or anxiety.5 2021).4 Up to of consumers now interested in telehealth going forward. $250B 76 57% of providers view telehealth more of current US healthcare spend % favorably than they did before COVID-19.7 could potentially be virtualized.6 The dramatic increase in of Medicare primary care visits the conducted through 90% $3.5T telehealth has shown longevity, with rates in annual U.S. health expenditures are for people with chronic and mental health conditions. since April 2020 0.1 43.5 leveling off % % Most of these can be prevented by simple around 30%.8 lifestyle changes and regular health screenings9 Feb. 2020 Apr. 2020 OCCAM’S RAZOR • CONJUNCTION FALLACY • DELMORE EFFECT • LAW OF TRIVIALITY • COGNITIVE FLUENCY • BELIEF BIAS • INFORMATION BIAS Digital health ecosystems are transforming• AMBIGUITY BIAS • STATUS medicineQUO BIAS • SOCIAL COMPARISONfrom BIASa rea• DECOYctive EFFECT • REACTANCEdiscipline, • REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY • SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION • BACKFIRE EFFECT • ENDOWMENT EFFECT • PROCESSING DIFFICULTY EFFECT • PSEUDOCERTAINTY EFFECT • DISPOSITION becoming precise, preventive,EFFECT • ZERO-RISK personalized, BIAS • UNIT BIAS • IKEA EFFECT and • LOSS AVERSION participatory.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Comparisons of Subjective Well-Being
    Is the grass always greener on the other side? Social comparisons of subjective well-being THOMAS GOETZ1, CHRISTOPH EHRET2, SIMONEJULLIEN1, & NATHAN C. HALL3 I University 0/ Munich, Germany, 2University 0/ Regensburg, Germany, and 3University o/California, Irvine, USA Abstract This study investigates subjective well being (SWB) among residents of Munich (n 380) and Venice (n 545) with respect to their individual SWB and their judgments of SWB for residents of their own city and those living in the other city. Our results indicate that egocentrism rather than striving for self enhancement guided people's judgments of SWB. For people with low individual SWB, a below average effect was found, whereas for people with high individual SWB, a better than average effect emerged. Also in line with the egocentrism approach, judgments of individual SWB were positively related to the judgments of SWB for residents of their own city, but unrelated to SWB of those living in the other city. Implications for future research are discussed. Keywords: Subjective well being, satisfaction with life, social compan'sons Introduction abilities of other groups (outgroups; Abrams & Hogg, 1988). This phenomenon is called the ingroup Many studies have shown that most people believe bias (Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992) and is a central they are better than average (see Alicke & Govorun, component of Social Identity Theory developed 2005; Armor & Taylor, 1998; Krueger, 1998; Taylor by Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986; see Rubin & Brown, 1988, 1994, for reviews). This effect has & Hewstone, 1998, for a review on research on the been found in various domains: with respect to ingroup bias).
    [Show full text]
  • Dunning–Kruger Effect – Why Once a Fool, Always a Fool
    Dunning–Kruger Effect – Why Once a Fool, Always a Fool David Lacko Psychologický ústav FFMU, Brno [email protected] The majority of people believe that they are better-than-average. In psychology, this phenomenon is called the illusory superiority. A specific form of illusory superiority is Dunning–Kruger’s effect which states that people overestimate their abilities based on their real abilities. The rule is that the less competent a person is, the more they overestimate themselves. And, on the other hand, able people have a tendency to underestimate themselves slightly. A considerable part of this phenomenon is also the fact that the less able people do not change their attitudes even after being confronted with the reality. The majority of people believe that they are better-than-average. Some sources (Boyd, 2014) mention that as much as 93 % of population consider themselves better than average, even though it is logical, that it is statistically impossible.In psychology, this phenomenon is called theillusory superiority, or theAbove Average Effect / Better than Average Effect. Out of interest, I will give you a few examples.The majority of people think that they are more intelligent and more attractive than the majority of others (Whittlestone, 2012), and on the scale from 1 to 10, where 10 is the highest better-than-average, they ascribe themselves number 7 (Ghose, 2013). 88 % of people think that they drive better-than-average (Svenson, 1981); even the majority of elderly people rank themselves among better-than-average drivers (Marottoli and Richardson, 1998). If you suppose that this is only the case in more stupid people, you are wrong.94% of professors assume that they are better-than-average in comparison to their colleagues (Cross, 1977).
    [Show full text]
  • John Collins, President, Forensic Foundations Group
    On Bias in Forensic Science National Commission on Forensic Science – May 12, 2014 56-year-old Vatsala Thakkar was a doctor in India but took a job as a convenience store cashier to help pay family expenses. She was stabbed to death outside her store trying to thwart a theft in November 2008. Bloody Footwear Impression Bloody Tire Impression What was the threat? 1. We failed to ask ourselves if this was a footwear impression. 2. The appearance of the impression combined with the investigator’s interpretation created prejudice. The accuracy of our analysis became threatened by our prejudice. Types of Cognitive Bias Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases | Accessed on April 14, 2014 Anchoring or focalism Hindsight bias Pseudocertainty effect Illusory superiority Levels-of-processing effect Attentional bias Hostile media effect Reactance Ingroup bias List-length effect Availability heuristic Hot-hand fallacy Reactive devaluation Just-world phenomenon Misinformation effect Availability cascade Hyperbolic discounting Recency illusion Moral luck Modality effect Backfire effect Identifiable victim effect Restraint bias Naive cynicism Mood-congruent memory bias Bandwagon effect Illusion of control Rhyme as reason effect Naïve realism Next-in-line effect Base rate fallacy or base rate neglect Illusion of validity Risk compensation / Peltzman effect Outgroup homogeneity bias Part-list cueing effect Belief bias Illusory correlation Selective perception Projection bias Peak-end rule Bias blind spot Impact bias Semmelweis
    [Show full text]
  • Narcissists¬タル Negative Perception of Their Counterpart¬タルs
    Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 196–201 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Narcissists’ negative perception of their counterpart’s competence and benevolence and their own reduced trust in a negotiation context ⇑ Dejun Tony Kong Jepson School of Leadership Studies and Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173, USA article info abstract Article history: Despite its important role in interpersonal interactions, narcissism has rarely been examined in the con- Received 10 March 2014 text of negotiations in which individuals cooperate and compete with their counterpart. As negotiations Received in revised form 10 October 2014 occur frequently in daily life, empirical findings of the role of narcissism in negotiation settings can Accepted 11 October 2014 enhance the understanding of the functions of narcissism in common situations in which self- and Available online 11 November 2014 other-interests are in conflict. By analyzing 35 negotiation dyads’ within-dyad differences using multi- level analysis, I found that negotiators’ narcissism was negatively related to their perception of their Keywords: counterpart’s competence but was not significantly related to their individual economic gain (objective Narcissism negotiation performance), suggesting narcissists’ inflated agentic self or deflated perception of their Trust Competence counterpart’s competence. Additionally, narcissism was negatively related to trust,
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing What You Want to See: Priors for One's Own Actions Represent Exaggerated Expectations of Success
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE published: 27 June 2014 BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00232 Seeing what you want to see: priors for one’s own actions represent exaggerated expectations of success Noham Wolpe 1,2*, Daniel M. Wolpert 3† and James B. Rowe 1,2 † 1 Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 2 Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK 3 Computational and Biological Learning Laboratory, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Edited by: People perceive the consequences of their own actions differently to how they perceive Angela Roberts, University of other sensory events. A large body of psychology research has shown that people also Cambridge, UK consistently overrate their own performance relative to others, yet little is known about Reviewed by: how these “illusions of superiority” are normally maintained. Here we examined the visual James W. Moore, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK perception of the sensory consequences of self-generated and observed goal-directed Atsushi Sato, University of Toyama, actions. Across a series of visuomotor tasks, we found that the perception of the Japan sensory consequences of one’s own actions is more biased toward success relative *Correspondence: to the perception of observed actions. Using Bayesian models, we show that this bias Noham Wolpe, Department of could be explained by priors that represent exaggerated predictions of success. The Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Herchel Smith Building, degree of exaggeration of priors was unaffected by learning, but was correlated with Cambridge CB2 0SZ, UK individual differences in trait optimism. In contrast, when observing these actions, priors e-mail: [email protected] represented more accurate predictions of the actual performance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Optimism Bias, Planning Fallacy, Sunk Cost Bias and Groupthink in Project Delivery and Organisational Decision Making
    Behavioural Insights Team A review of optimism bias, planning fallacy, sunk cost bias and groupthink in project delivery and organisational decision making Accompanying An Exploration of Behavioural Biases in Project Delivery at the Department for Transport Client: Department for Transport Date: July 2017 1 © Behavioural Insights Ltd Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 How we make decisions and judgements ........................................................................................ 3 Optimism bias and the planning fallacy .............................................................................................. 5 How prevalent is the planning fallacy? ............................................................................................ 5 Causes of optimism bias and the planning fallacy ........................................................................... 6 Self-serving biases..................................................................................................................... 6 Illusion of control ....................................................................................................................... 7 Confirmation bias ...................................................................................................................... 8 Perception of risk ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive/Neuroscience Neurophysiological
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.26.888511; this version posted December 28, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Proposed Journal section: Cognitive/Neuroscience Neurophysiological Correlates of the Dunning-Kruger Effect Reveal Contributions of Episodic Memory to Metacognitive Judgments of Illusory Superiority Alana Muller1,2, Lindsey Sirianni1, & Richard J. Addante1 1California State University – San Bernardino, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407 2University of Arizona, 1423 E University Blvd, Bldg. 67, Rm 223, Tucson, AZ 85719 Corresponding Author: Richard J. Addante, PhD California State University – San Bernardino Department of Psychology 5500 University Parkway San Bernardino, CA 92407 [email protected] Running title: Physiological Correlates of Dunning-Kruger Effect Total number of words: manuscript (11, 804 words); the Abstract (250 words) Keywords: Metacognition, EEG, ERP, recollection, familiarity bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.26.888511; this version posted December 28, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Abstract. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is a metacognitive phenomenon of illusory superiority in which individuals who perform poorly on a task believe they performed well, yet individuals who performed very well believe they under-performed.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exploration of Spiritual Superiority: the Paradox of Self‐Enhancement
    | DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2721 | Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands - cal effect of boosting superiority feelings. It can thus operate like other self-enhance- Radboud University, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 ment tools and contribute to a contingent self-worth that depends on one's spiritual HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected] accomplishments. In three studies (N = 533, N = 2,223, N = 965), a brief measure of spiritual superiority showed good internal consistency and discriminant validity. As Anouk Visser, Behavior Change Group, predicted, it was distinctly related to spiritual contingency of self-worth, illustrat- Nijmegen, The Netherlands ing that the self-enhancement function of spirituality is similar to other contingency domains. It was correlated with self-esteem and, more strongly, with communal nar- were consistently higher among energetically trained participants than mindfulness trainees and were associated with supernatural overconfidence and self-ascribed spiritual guidance. Our results illustrate that the self-enhancement motive is power- ful and deeply ingrained so that it can hijack methods intended to transcend the ego and, instead, adopt them to its own service. contingent self-worth, mindfulness, narcissism, self-enhancement, spirituality | They may become ambitious in climbing the spiritual ladder, onto the next level, in much the same way as in academics, sports, or work. Ego is able to convert anything to its own use, even And they may feel superior to others who lack the spiritual
    [Show full text]
  • Illusion of Control 1 Illusion of Control
    Illusion of control 1 Illusion of control The illusion of control is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to control events, for instance to feel that they control outcomes that they demonstrably have no influence over.[1] The effect was named by psychologist Ellen Langer and has been replicated in many different contexts.[2] It is thought to influence gambling behavior and belief in the paranormal.[3] Along with illusory superiority and optimism bias, the illusion of control is one of the positive illusions. The illusion is more common in familiar situations, and in situations where the person knows the desired outcome.[4] Feedback that emphasizes success rather than failure can increase the effect, while feedback that emphasizes failure can decrease or reverse the effect.[5] The illusion is weaker for depressed individuals and is stronger when individuals have an emotional need to control the outcome.[4] The illusion is strengthened by stressful and competitive situations, including financial trading.[6] Though people are likely to overestimate their control when the situations are heavily chance-determined, they also tend to underestimate their control when they actually have it, which runs contrary to some theories of the illusion and its adaptiveness.[7] The illusion might arise because people lack direct introspective insight into whether they are in control of events. This has been called the introspection illusion. Instead they may judge their degree of control by a process that is often unreliable. As a result, they see themselves as responsible for events when there is little or no causal link.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Biases in Fitness to Practise Decision-Making
    ADVICE ON BIASES IN FITNESS TO PRACTISE DECISION-MAKING IN ACCEPTED OUTCOME VERSUS PANEL MODELS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AUTHORITY Prepared by: LESLIE CUTHBERT Date: 31 March 2021 Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 2 Background .................................................................................................. 2 Purpose of the advice.................................................................................... 3 Summary of conclusions ................................................................................ 4 Documents considered .................................................................................. 4 Technical terms and explanations ................................................................... 5 Disclaimer .................................................................................................... 5 II. How biases might affect the quality of decision-making in the AO model, as compared to the panel model .............................................................................. 6 Understanding cognitive biases in fitness to practise decision-making ............... 6 Individual Decision Maker (e.g. a Case Examiner) in AO model ......................... 8 Multiple Case Examiners .............................................................................. 17 Group Decision Maker in a Panel model of 3 or more members ....................... 22 III. Assessment of the impact of these biases,
    [Show full text]