Orthodox views prize intelligence and intellectual rigor highly in the modern realm of universities and tech industry jobs. One of the underlying assumptions of this value system is that smart people, by virtue of what they've learned, will formulate better decisions. Often this is true. Yet psychologists who study human decision making process have uncovered cognitive bias common to all people, regardless of intelligence, that can lead to poor decisions in experts and laymen alike.
薏仁米的功效与作用
Thankfully the bias can be avoided. Understanding how and in what situations they occur can give you an awareness of your own limitations and allow you to factor them into your decision-making.
One of the most common bias is what is known as the fundamental attribution error. Through this people attribute the failures of others to character flaws and their own to mere circumstance, subconsciously considering their own characters to be stainless. "Jenkins lost his job becau of his incompetence; I lost mine becau of the recession." It also leads us to attribute our own success to our qualifications, discounting luck, while eing others' success as the product of mere luck.
In other words, we typically demand more accountability from others than we do from ourlves. Not only does this lead to petty judgments about other people, it also leads to faulty risk asssment when you assume that certain bad things only happen to others. For example, you might assume, without evidence, that the price of your hou will go up even though 90 percent of them have dropped in price, becau you yourlf are more competent.
哥伦布竖鸡蛋
抗疫小报Confirmation bias is sometimes found together with fundamental attribution error. This one has two parts. First, we tend to gather and rely upon information that only confirms our existing views. Second, we avoid or veto things that refute our preexisting hypothes.
巡视整改工作方案For example, imagine that you suspect your computer has been hacked. Every time it stalls or has a little error, you assume that it was triggered by a hacker and that your suspicions are valid. This bias plays an especially big role in rivalries between two opposing views. Each side partitions their own beliefs in a logic-proof loop, and claims th
成都理工大学分数线eir opponent is failing to recognize valid points. Outwitting confirmation bias therefore requires exploring both sides of an argument with equal diligence.
Similar to confirmation bias is the overconfidence bias. In an ideal world, we could be correct 100 percent of the time we were 100 percent sure about something, correct 80 percent of the time we were 80 percent sure about something, and so on. In reality, people's confidence vastly exceeds the accuracy of tho judgments. This bias most frequently comes into play in areas where someone has no direct evidence and must make a guess - estimating how many people are in a crowded plaza, for example, or how likely it will rain. To make matters wor, even when people are aware of overconfidence bias, they will still tend to overstate the chances that they are correct. Confidence is no prophet and is best ud together with available evidence. When witness are called to testify in a court trial, the confidence in their testimony is measured along with and against the evidence at hand.
The availability bias is also related to errors in estimation, in that we tend to estimate wha
黑头面膜t outcome is more likely by how easily we can recount an example from memory. Since the retention and retrieval of memories is biad toward vivid, nsational, or emotionally charged examples, decisions bad on them can often lead to strange, inaccurate conclusions.
In action this bias might lead someone to cancel a trip to, for example, the Canary Islands becau of a report that the biggest plane crash in history happened there. Likewi some people might stop going out at night for fear of assault or rape.
Repelling the availability bias calls for an empirical approach to a particular decision, one not bad on the obscured reality of vivid memory. If there is a low incidence of disaster, like only one out of 100,000 plane landings results in a crash, it is safe to fly to the Canary Islands. If one out of one million people who go out is assaulted, it is safe to go out at night.
The sunk cost fallacy has a periodic application and was first identified by economists. A good example of how it works is the casino slot machine. Gamblers with a high threshold
for risk put money into a slot machine hoping for a big return, but with each pull of the lever they lo some money playing the odds. If they have been pulling the lever many times in a row without success, they might decide that they had better keep spending money at the machine, or they will have wasted everything they already put in.
The truth is that every pull of the lever has the same winning probability of nearly one in a trillion, regardless of how much money has been put in before - the previous plays were sunk costs.高声歌唱
In everyday life this can lead people to stay in damaging situations becau of how much they have already put in, stuck on the erroneous belief that the value of that time or energy they have invested will decay or disappear if they leave. The wist cour is to recognize the effects of the sunk cost fallacy and to leave a bad situation regardless of how much you have already invested.
