#cognative bias

[robinwoodsfiction]

The Power of Shared Negative Experiences

How Collective Grievances Can Sour Memories and Harm Communities Negative experiences, whether personal or communal, have a profound impact on our emotional well-being. The process of sharing these experiences can be therapeutic, but when it evolves into a collective movement driven by negativity, it can lead to unintended consequences. Specifically, when one individual’s negative experience…

[douglaswelch]

Daniel Dennett Presents Seven Tools For Critical Thinking via Open Culture

Love him or hate him, many of our readers may know enough about Daniel C. Dennett to have formed some opinion of his work. While Dennett can be a soft-spoken, jovial presence, he doesn’t suffer fuzzy thinking or banal platitudes— what he calls “deepities”—lightly. Whether he’s explaining (or explaining away) consciousness, religion, or free will, Dennett’s materialist philosophy leaves little-to-no room for mystical speculation or sentimentalism. So it should come as no surprise that his latest book, Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking, is a hard-headed how-to for cutting through common cognitive biases and logical fallacies.

Read this entire article https://welchwrite.com/blog/2025/01/30/daniel-dennett-presents-seven-tools-for-critical-thinking-via-open-culture-shared/

[xiexiecaptain]

So there's a social psychology phenomenon called The Misattribution Fallacy or The Fundamental Attribution Error

This is where, and quote:

"observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing dispositional or personality factors.

In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to their personality (e.g., he is late because he's selfish) and underattribute them to the situation or context (e.g. he is late because he got stuck in traffic.)"

(Its worthwhile to note this bias is has been found in multiple studies to be more prevalent in cultures with higher value on individualism vs cultures with higher value in collectivism.)

This cognative bias ends up twining together with ableism/internalized ableism to create the perfect stew of unhelpful, non-constructive, blame/shame-based attitudes we end up seeing.

how come there are so many posts these days that are like "You have to grow as a person and get over [trait that has to do with a disability/mental illness]. You see, it's important to function in life. I have Disability/Mental Illness, and i successfully Improved Myself, so don't say you can't do it."

Now typically, the whole point of a disability or mental illness is that it is something that has not responded to a simple individual effort to Get Better with no further strategy, information, or catalyst except simply Wanting To Get Better.

But let's say we are in an imaginary world where individual effort and willpower alone are enough to solve any problem, the necessity of tools, knowledge, or interpersonal support be damned. Who are you to imagine you can help someone's personal journey happen faster by making a snippy post? Have you never experienced being stubborn and resistant to advice because you were not ready to see that it was good advice? It is useless to tell someone who feels that their problem is unsolvable, that they need to simply solve their problem. And it is worse than useless to defend yourself from accusation of being callous by saying that you solved your problem by simply trying to solve it, so everyone should stop feeling that their problem is unsolvable.

[wisteria-lodge]

Do you think its possible for a Gryffindor Primary to kind of Burn due to becoming aware of their own learned biases, and building a Ravenclaw Primary model to deal with that?

You’re talking to a Gryffindor/Lion primary who sort of unironically wants to get “remember that you might be wrong” tattooed on their arm. 

(currently I’m liking the Howard Ashman lyric ~ “bittersweet and strange/finding you can change/learning you were wrong.” Or maybe just like... “norbury”)

I think about my biases a lot. Like even just for this, I have a google doc where I keep track of my posts and character sortings just to make sure I’m not  preferencing one primary or secondary over another. I’m a big diary keeper, because the idea that your brain automatically builds bias into memory is sort of existentially horrifying to me. Because I know I’m biased. I’m human.

I wouldn’t describe this feeling as Burned though. It still is all about instinct and gut reactions and interiority. If I ignore it when things just feel wrong, it’s like I have betrayed myself. But that just makes it more important for me to interrogate why I feel things. I also like to check in with other people in an “are you reading the situation the same way I am?” sort of way.

So it’s not that I model Ravenclaw/Bird. It’s more like... a lot of the patterns of moral problem-solving I see Birds using are coded as “right.” Because I have actually modeled Bird. (Most Burnt Lions have). And I felt stressed, unsatisfied, lost, in the wind. I felt like I was giving people way too much power over me, which felt tremendously unsafe. My Lion allows me to experiment with different ways of framing the world. 

[essays4you]

Explain one cognitive bias making use of one study. (9 marks)

Peak-end rule says that people judge an experience based mostly on how they felt at its peak, for example, its most intense point, and at its end. As opposed to a person judging an experience based on the whole average of the experience, taking into account everything that happened. It is, however, not the case that other information before and between the peak and end of the experience is forgotten, but rather it is not used in reaching a decision or judgement on the experience. This process occurs whether or not the experience is positive or not. We see an example of this with movies as well. We are more likely to recommend a movie that has a slow start but an amazing ending than a movie that has an amazing start but a bad ending. This heuristic theory helps people to make a conclusion on an experience easily and can have a profound effect on how we view an experience even if it was all round a positive experience, we can view it negatively because it didn’t have a peak. This is important as it can be applied to real life in things such as movies, to make sure that there is a peak and a good end will ensure that the movie is a success.

Kahneman did an experiment to test the peak-end rule. He did this by asking participants to hold their hand in a bowl of freezing cold water until they were asked to remove them. Researchers used two conditions: the first was 60 seconds of immersion in water at 14 degrees Celsius. After the time was up they were told to take their hand out the water. The second condition lasted for 90 seconds, with the first 60 seconds being the exact same as the first condition but after that time for the last 30 seconds, the researcher poured slightly warmer water into the bowl, raising the overall temperature by about 1 degree. After they have completed the two conditions participants were told they were to undertake one more trial which was to be a repeat of either condition 1 or 2. The participants were asked which they would rather repeat, and results showed that 80% chose the second condition. This supports the peak-end rule as participants chose the second option even though the first would've been the smarter choice as both conditions would have the same level of pain for the same amount of time, but after that time, condition 1 gets to finish and condition 2 gets a slight decrease in pain for an extra 30 seconds.

All this shows how impactful the rule is and how it can mislead us, the experiment showed clearly how a peak in an event can shift our opinions of what we think about an experience.

[lightningbugqueen]

[ooooo-mcyt]

I'd say that Scar is definitely the least reliable narrator in both seasons of Lastlife thus far. Nobody is entirely trustworthy, of course, however Scar presents a unique level of dissonance from reality in a lot of cases.

A lot of characters misrepresent events simply because they don't have necessary information. They hear about events second hand or participate in events without understanding the context driving other relevant characters. Other times a reasonable level of personal bias can judge the way character's interpret the world around them, favouring their friends over their enemies, rationalizing attempts to chase their own gains, etc. But nobody completely ignores blatantly presented information like Scar does.

Scar will be given info in the most basic and straightforward way possible and he will literally ignore or reword this incredibly straightforward information for the sake of his narrative. And if he's willing to literally look someone dead in the eye and pretend they just said the exact opposite of what they actually said? Smaller things that aren't explicitly stated are ignored hard. Any passive aggression or subtlety or...literally anything that's not explicit explanations that are impossible to misconstrue....will often literally just not be noted at all. And, again, even explicit explanations that are impossible to misconstrue are also just completely ignored or reconstructed sometimes if Scar doesn't feel like dealing with the implications of what he's hearing. His ability to act as an unreliable narrator far outweighs anyone else's in my opinion and that's....incredibly interesting.

Because even beyond the cool effect of Scar's perspectives interpreting things with an unprecedented lack of factuality a lot of the time...there are a few possible implications this unreliability could have on Scar from a meta character analysis perspective. As in, he's either Incredibly oblivious, self centered, or borderline manipulative. All of which are fascinating to consider. It's possible that Scar doesn't realize the cognative dissonance he presents sometimes. That he really just doesn't pick up on subtleties and can be slow to the uptake even when presented with information outright. However....this doesn't exactly sit right with me. Scar isn't dumb. He may act a bit ditsy but he's a lot more clever than people give him credit for and I don't for a second believe he's just arbitrarily stupid enough to accidentally completely and miserably misinterpret even the most straightforward of information arbitrarily. Which leaves the option that he's self centered and the option that he's manipulative. Both of which I think are possible. Scar's clever, but he also suffers from hubris related issues a lot of the time. He gets caught up in bravado, picks fights he can't win, overestimates his position, etc. Scar isn't dumb enough to be completely oblivious to some of the things he's misinterpreted, however I can believe he's got enough misplaced hubris to counteract his cleverness. Blatantly available information just completely flying over his head is hard to believe, however the ego can be a powerful thing and it's not hard for people with a particularly strong one to talk themselves into a more advantageous position in a way that overwhelms their intellect. The magnitude of his self centered and over confident tendencies is very possible as a reason for Scar's unreliability. However it's also possible moments in which he's a particularly dishonest narrator are more manipulative tendencies shining through. That his tendency to twist around and reinterpret situations are one facet of a general barely-hidden tendency to be very clever and very dishonest and rather manipulative generally. Which...is also likely in my opinion. As I said, Scar IS smarter than he lets on and he's known for his scams. He can be incredible deceitful when he wants to be and really whether his unique level of unreliability is spurred on by his opportunistic dishonesty or his unfortunate fatal flaw of hubris...is up for debate. It could be argued for either, and both have interesting implications for his character and competence.

[a-poc-alypse]

This has honestly helped me figure out a lot of my own confused and conflicted thoughts on this and while I'm still conflicted and definitely slightly confused I'm not rushing to correct this by dismissing one idea or the other like I was earlier? I still think my opinion on this has room to evolve but god holding ideas that don't agree with each other in my head is a thing I'm doing now oh god the cognative dissonance is this what being an adult is I don't like it much

Sorry for rambling its just your blog has been a damn journey today for me

Ilu

Yeah this shits difficult but it’s also good to practice this type of thinking right now on stuff that while not inconsequential is definitely and arguably not as dire as it can be, in other situations. Like it’s shitty and hard and honestly human brains being able to do this stuff even with a lot of trouble is truly and utterly fascinating. It’s been a journey for me too! Like I don’t ever want to dismiss someone and also disagreeing even when it’s tough while not dismissing is Tough. 

It’s in human nature to just throught out ideas after we decided on something and confirmation bias and its many deadly cousins is really easy to fall into.  But I try to operate from a level of kindness and empathy and actively attempting to see others and treat others in ways where I’m still thinking about Humans on the other side of the screen.  And it’s sweet that you love me/the blog! I have a huge ammount of fondness for the blog too even when it’s difficult, and I have a fondness for it’s follower and honestly  people that don’t even follow. 

[untitled-by]

Youd be surprised about how often this literal mentality comes up. Theres a whole article out there just like this where the author goes on and on about how how people cant "bark orders" f'ex because people cant actually bark.

Psychologically speaking its a cognative bias called "functional fixedness" where something, in this case words, can only work in one way. Absolutely fascinating stuff. We all have our own biases, the trick is knowing which are limiting us and over coming them... not using them to put down others.

5 things your character can't do while speaking

Choke. Just think about it, seriously. Think about what choking is and imagine speaking while it’s happening. That would fuckin’ hurt, man.

Hiss. Look, it’s just not possible, okay? No matter how “evil” you want your character to seem.

Snarl. Animals snarls. The Beast from Beauty and the Beast snarls. The Hulk snarls. You know who doesn’t snarl? PEOPLE WHEN THEY’RE SPEAKING.

Shriek. Come on, 99% of the time, “shriek” is not the word you want.Let’s face it: if you put an exclamation point at the end of the sentence, your reader gets the picture. Don’t bring to mind banshees and screaming toddlers.

Sneer. I’m not even going to bother explaining this one. “SNEER” ISN’T EVEN A SOUND.

[rollingndoughsocial]

People can only hold one perspective in mind at a time. And which is that? Their own.

It's disappointing to be a Gemini mind with all these ideas/information/states of being, then have to speak on only one. Feels like betrayal. Hatred for how it comes out as complete nonsense/bullshit. Since can't accurately portray "me" anyway.......

How advanced is she who can pinpoint, understand, not take offense to, and realize the other person is speaking from their perspective, from their solutions to their problems, from their joyful or dissatisfied perspective!??

What do I do with it?.. I could learn about how their life is going for them. Get their opinions, gain new perspective for myself. They gain from truly being heard. It's perfect if I'm died out, that happens anyway! Role play- the business from the clients point of view/experience.

"To understand someone, we should not imagine their point of view but make the effort to “get” their perspective. “True insight into the minds of others is not likely to come from honing your powers of intuition,” Epley wrote, “but rather by learning to stop guessing about what’s on the mind of another person and learning to listen instead.”"

There’s only one way to truly understand another person’s mind

REUTERS/HENRY NICHOLIS

Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes won’t improve the accuracy of your insights

By Ephrat Livni

Senior reporter, law & politics, DC.

Published July 3, 2018This article is more than 2 years old.

When we imagine the inner lives of others, we don’t necessarily gain real insight into other people’s minds.

Instead of imagining ourselves in another person’s position, we need to actually get their perspective, according to a recent study (pdf) in the Journal of Personality and Psychology. Researchers from the University of Chicago and Northeastern University in the US and Ben Gurion University in Israel conducted 25 different experiments with strangers, friends, couples, and spouses to assess the accuracy of insights onto other’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and mental states.

Their conclusion, as psychologist Tal Eyal tells Quartz: ”We assume that another person thinks or feels about things as we do, when in fact they often do not. So we often use our own perspective to understand other people, but our perspective is often very different from the other person’s perspective.” This “egocentric bias” leads to inaccurate predictions about other people’s feelings and preferences. When we imagine how a friend feels after getting fired, or how they’ll react to an off-color joke or political position, we’re really just thinking of how we would feel in their situation, according to the study.

In 15 computer-based experiments, each with a minimum of 30 participants, the psychologists asked subjects to guess people’s emotions based on an image, their posture, or a facial expression, for example. Some subjects were instructed to “consult their own feelings,” while others were given no instructions, and some were told to “think hard” or mimic the expressions to better understand. People told to rely on their own feelings as a guide most often provided inaccurate responses. They were unable to guess the correct emotion being displayed.

The second set of experiments asked subjects to make predictions about the feelings of strangers, friends, and partners. (Strangers interacted briefly to get to know one another before hazarding guesses about the preferences of they had just person they met.) The researchers wanted to see if people who had some meaningful information about each other—like spouses—could make accurate judgments about the other’s reactions to jokes, opinions, videos, and more. It turned out that neither spouses nor strangers nor friends tended to make accurate judgments when “taking another’s perspective.”

Imagining another person’s perspective doesn’t actually improve our ability to judge how another person thinks or feels.

“Our experiments found no evidence that the cognitive effort of imagining oneself in another person’s shoes, studied so widely in the psychological literature, increases a person’s ability to accurately understand another’s mind,” the researchers write. “If anything, perspective taking decreased accuracy overall while occasionally increasing confidence in judgment.” Basically, imagining another person’s perspective may give us the impression that we’re making more accurate judgments. But it doesn’t actually improve our ability to judge how another person thinks or feels.

The good news, however, is that researchers found a simple, concrete way we can all confidently and correctly improve the accuracy of our insights into others’ lives. When people are given a chance to talk to the other person about their opinions before making predictions about them—Eyal calls this “perspective getting” as opposed to perspective taking—they are much more accurate in predicting how others might feel than those instructed to take another’s perspective or given no instructions.

Test subjects; study: 1. try putting themselves in another’s shoes, 2. talk directly with test partners about their positions on a given topic. The final experiment confirmed that getting another person’s perspective directly, through conversation, increased the accuracy of subjects’ predictions, while simply “taking” another’s perspective did not. This was true for partners, friends, and strangers alike.

“Increasing interpersonal accuracy seems to require gaining new information rather than utilizing existing knowledge about another person,” the study concludes. “Understanding the mind of another person,” as the researchers put it, is only possible when we actually probe them about what they think, rather than assuming we already know.

The psychologists believe their study has applications in legal mediation, diplomacy, psychology, and our everyday lives. Whether we’re negotiating at a conference table, fighting with a spouse, or debating the political motivations of voters, we simply can’t rely on intuition for insight, according to Eyal. Only listening will do the trick.

“Perspective getting allows gaining new information rather than utilizing existing, sometimes biased, information about another person,” Eyal explains to Quartz. “In order to understand what your spouse prefers—don’t try to guess, ask.”

[duhitsroevision]

[PROBLEM ANSWER] Read the article attached as a pdf below these instructions. It's about how cogn

[PROBLEM ANSWER] Read the article attached as a pdf below these instructions. It’s about how cogn

Read the article attached as a pdf below these instructions. It’s about how cognitive biases are relevant to the issue of climate change. Write answers to both of the following two questions: 1. Choose two biases from the cognitive bias poster that are NOT mentioned in the article and explain how each of the two biases are relevant to the issue of climate change. 2. Think of another important…

[gxldnights]

[PROBLEM ANSWER] Read the article attached as a pdf below these instructions. It's about how cogn

[PROBLEM ANSWER] Read the article attached as a pdf below these instructions. It’s about how cogn

Read the article attached as a pdf below these instructions. It’s about how cognitive biases are relevant to the issue of climate change. Write answers to both of the following two questions: 1. Choose two biases from the cognitive bias poster that are NOT mentioned in the article and explain how each of the two biases are relevant to the issue of climate change. 2. Think of another important…

[blwbisht]

Cognitive bias Codex 🧠 . . . . 🌼🌻🦋🍁🧘‍♂️🍁🦋🌻🌼 . . . . . . . . . . #brainfood #brain #brainhealth #brainpower #infographic #cognativebias #cognative https://www.instagram.com/p/B_uxqcmg0Lm/?igshid=u22cgasl95yo

[theswedishchefblog-blog]

I'm no psychologist. But here's a short layman analysis of Donald J. Trump

So Trump and the GOP finally got their huge, partisan tax cut, which not only is disliked by much of the American people, they also see right through the GOP's lies about it helping everyday Americans as its primary purpose. They seem to realize that the exact opposite is true, and that it almost certainly also will kick someone they know off healthcare. The most logical and sensible thing to do then, from the extremely cynical position of Donnie and the GOPers, is to keep silent and move forward as fast as possible to avoid even more political fallout. But no, moving swift and silently to avoid trouble is impossible when Trump himself is nuclear. Not in the physical sense, but the toxic. The Kim Jong-un of American politics.

He's so narcissistic that he just couldn't stop himself from boasting about his repeal of Obama's legacy and praise himself, even though it was the worst thing he could do at the time. There he was, high as a kite on dopamine and adrenaline after the legislative victory, open minded, short sighted and happy. Then he starts slamming his, by narcissism over-confident cognative bias, which comes coctailed with his Dunning-Kruger effect, all over the place. He was basically, from the deepest darkness of his inner child, yelling "Look everyone, I'm not as worthless as my father said I was!". He absolutely had to let the world know what he just had accomplished. He'd finally taken that black man Obama down, and at the same time ensured both a short term relief from his feelings of worthlessness, and the demise of himself and his own party. A party still inexplicably supportive of Trump and his treasonous behaviour. As a sidenote, it's possible that early dementia is making all this even worse, and I guess time will tell.

This behaviour from him is nothing new. This is Trump in a nutshell. He's been putting himself before what is strategically best for his party and himself many times by now and his boasting here is just another example. That's narcissism-induced self-destructive behaviour right there, which pretty much explains much of his erratic behaviour and weird lose-lose decisions.

This is also what makes him a bad politician. Contrary to some commentators who say Trump is a political genius, I resent the notion that he's a good politician. He has not assumed power by political arguments, but by a personality cult crafted with his sociopathic bullying, pathological lying and treason. He may be effective with getting what he wants by using his own special brand of loathsome and creepy power, in Trump's case the kind of power only great wealth and white supremacy can offer, but then again the very same could be said of a sexual predator.

Which Trump coincidentally, allegedly, and probably, is.