Cognitive Biases

INTRO

A few posts ago I referenced cognitive biases. I have been very interested in this area of study lately, and I can't get enough of it. Specifically, I am interested in how cognitive biases influence how we all see the world.

One of the most important life lesson I ever had was from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. That book showed me that we have control of our enlightenment and the elasticity of our growth depends upon our willingness to confront our biases and be willing to change.

I understand paradigms to be the maps with which we view the world. That map changes all the time as our experiences within the world change. Our biases function as limitations to that map of the world. A bias against a particular idea creates resistance against any lesson or experience that may lead to a new or adjusted "life map" that would tolerate that idea. Thus, the map retains that limitation and remains narrow.

Every single person has biases of various forms. My goal for diving into this subject is twofold: 1) I want to learn about bias in an effort to overcome as many biases as possible to create as open and diverse a "life paradigm" as I can; and 2) I want to use natural biases within characters to create a story (eventually book?) that makes the reader truly and deeply understand the paradigm of each character.

BASIC IDEA

Cognitive biases are deviations of judgment that lead to rationalization, and may or may not be illogical. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling of holding two contradictory ideas, and it leads to rationalization. In short, we are confronted with an inconsistency, which makes us uncomfortable, and we rationalize to create harmony. Our biases can sometimes blind us to the irrationality of a justification. At least that's my understanding.

The pattern I notice in my daily life has left me with the impression that cognitive biases drive much of our interactions with each other. The story I hear usually proceeds as follows: Person X is evil, manipulative, a liar, and is attempting to get away with unspeakable wrongs.

My experience is that, although no intentional lies are being told, those harsh judgments are almost never correct. Why? One bias or another creates a block to perception (the life map isn't moving as to that topic). The classic case is in the area of inheritance. Siblings are quick to accuse each other of robbing parents blind or not caring for that parent's well-being. Almost always, the answer is that both parties misjudged the intentions of the other. Why? Cognitive biases seem to explain most scenarios.

Most cognitive biases are more subtle and simply guide our perception of everyday interactions. And, not all biases are things to necessarily eliminate.

SPECIFIC BIASES

The specific cognitive biases that jumped out at me most are the following:

Anchoring: Disproportionate weight given to the first piece of information received. ("Bob missed one opportunity to help mom, and no amount of generosity or kindness can make up for it.")

Outcome Bias: The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of by the soundness of the decision at the time it was made.

Semmelweis Reflex: The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm. (Politics, anyone?)

Irrational escalation: The tendency to make irrational decision based upon rational decisions of the past (even if inapplicable) or to justify actions already taken.

Confirmation bias: Tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms preconceptions. (Again... politics).

Bandwagon Effect: The tendency to allow group consensus to influence personal decisions.

I am sure every single one of these sounds familiar to anyone reading this. That's because we all have biases.

FRANKLIN

The difference (and this I take from Franklin) is how we deal with biases. Some cement those biases into place and never move them, question them or second-guess. For anyone willing to take hold of those biases, however, those biases can be mitigated. (Mitigated, not eliminated).

Franklin distinguished between biases and pillars of morality, and I want to be clear that attempts to mitigate biases does not mean anyone should alter morals necessarily. Morality questions should always be examined, but pillars such as honesty and integrity are parts of our life map that remain unmoved during "paradigm updates."

Often, biases are most visible from outside when a person is faced with defending a possible mistake. All of that person's cognitive function will focus on justification for the sake of defense. It's natural and inevitable. We will leave out the bad and emphasize the good. It happens. It just does.

In my story, I plan to create a character who who used a specific logic to success many times in the past. That same decision-process will then be utilized to failure at a crucial moment. The subsequent rationalization will ignore the inapplicability of the logic that led to past success.

NOBEL-WORTHY EXAMPLE

Perhaps the most blatant surrender to bias comes in politics. Take, for example, the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama. Tell me if any of these arguments sound familiar:

1) This award is bogus because he hasn't done anything to deserve it! Euros are liberal and they prop up other liberals like Al Gore.

2) This is just sour-grapes by the far-right and a baseless slap at the President. It was well deserved and to argue otherwise is just politics.

3) He just got it for not being George W. Bush. (not as partisan, but seems to me to be equally biased... possibly toward scepticism. This option is also just funny.)

Number one shows an inability to give credit and seems to freely and loosely embrace a convenient world-wide conspiracy when much more rational and believable arguments can be made. It also shows no willingness to ever be happy for any success of the Obama administration. Number two dismisses the legitimate questions NOT raised by number one. Number two conveniently leaves out the genuine confusion many people felt at the outcome... especially since Mr. Obama is currently making a decision regarding troop levels. Number three, as explained earlier, makes me laugh because I have a deep-seeded bias against W and take pleasure in occasionally indulging in it. I have a bias, sue me.

In all seriousness, politics provide such stark examples because it is an exercise in outrage and exaggeration. My bias would be to defend President Obama, but when I force myself to even it out (as best I can), I came up with this mitigated version of my bias:

This award did seem out of the blue. I think it is a very good thing that the world considers our leader to be a force for peace, whether earned or not. I think this could prove to be a booster to the "cult of Obama" argument. I do think President Obama has changed our tone to the world in favor of cooperation. I also do not think he has accomplished anything specific that led to an actual cessation of violence or a measurable increase in peace.

I was tempted to say that both sides failed to consider that the other side's beliefs are genuinely felt. However, upon consideration of biases, they may just be stubbornly held.

IN THE END

As I stated in my 2007 post, "Examined Life," efforts to improve matter. But, I now think equal effort should be made to understand each other. That's what I've been trying to do lately. That, and to write a good story.