Illusion Of Control

In controlling the illusion of experimentation, participants are usually asked to what extent they think their actions have effectively controlled the results. Since the underlying cause in our experiment was the external events of half of the participants, we replaced the standard formula of controllability with the more general phrase “efficiency”. It turns out that this task is sensitive to the effects of the illusion of causality, whether it is when the underlying cause is an external event (for example, Matute et al., 2011) or the behavior of the participant (Blanco et al., 2011). , 2011). In a series of experiments, Langer (1975) observed that, for example, when the task included skill cues, his subjects behaved as if they were controlling random events. [Sources: 7, 11]

Alan Langer was the first to prove the control of illusions, and she explained her findings through confusion and random situations. He suggested that people make control judgments based on “skill attributes.” Ellen Langers’ research shows that when skill cues appear, people are more likely to behave as if they can control in random situations. In a series of experiments, Lange first proved the universality of the illusion of control, and secondly, people are more likely to behave as if they can exercise control in random situations where there are “signs of grasp.” [Sources: 6, 8]

Lange showed that people often act as if random events are under personal control. Lange showed that people often view accidental positive results as positive manipulations. Ellen Langer (1975) was one of the first scientific researchers who pointed out that humans have a positive illusion that they can influence situations through fictional skill clues in random gambling. The most influential to this popular doctrine is Ellen Langer’s (1975) conflicting conclusions about unrealistic hallucinations. [Sources: 8, 11]

The illusion of control is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to manage events, for example, to feel that they are in control of outcomes over which they have no obvious influence. The illusion of control is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to manage events, for example, when someone experiences a sense of control over outcomes that is not clearly affected. The illusion can arise from the fact that people do not have a direct idea of ​​whether they are in control of events. [Sources: 5, 6]

However, when you ask people about their control over random events (this is a typical experimental setup in this document), you can only draw a mistake in one direction: believing that they have more control than they actually do. Time and time again, research has shown that despite wisdom, knowledge, and wisdom, people often believe that they can control events in their lives, even if such control is impossible. Another example was discovered by Alan Langer of Harvard University in 1975. He believed that the prevailing “illusion of control” caused most people to overestimate their ability to control events, even those in which they had no influence. The illusion of control leads to insensitivity to feedback, inhibits learning, and tends to take more objective risks (because the illusion of control reduces subjective risk). [Sources: 0, 3, 8, 12]

Psychologist Daniel Wegner argues that the illusion of control over external events underlies the belief in psychokinesis, the purported paranormal ability to move objects directly using the mind. In lab games, people often report that they control randomly generated results. From a motivational perspective, the illusion of control is expected to be stronger when participants judge the consequences of their own behavior (active participants) than when they judge the consequences of the behavior of others (constrained participants). [Sources: 6, 7, 12]

Delusion is weaker in people who are depressed, and stronger when people have an emotional need to control the outcome. When it comes to accurately assessing control, depressed people have a much better understanding of reality. This stems from a psychological effect known as the illusion of control, a person’s tendency to overestimate their personal ability to control and manage events. They feel that they are being challenged, they feel that the sense of control over its outcome is not working and clearly does not affect their way of thinking. [Sources: 3, 5, 9]

But in their day-to-day life, where they affect many outcomes, underestimating control can be a big mistake. It is important to remember that control in our lives is often illusory. After you have taken all the possible actions in your sphere of influence and control, you must learn to recognize and accept what you cannot control. [Sources: 3, 10, 12]

When people lose control and can only go wrong in one direction, this will of course be discovered. The opposite of the illusion of control is learned helplessness, which describes that if people were previously in a situation where they could not change certain things, they would begin to feel that they could not control their lives. This allows them to give up more quickly when facing obstacles. [Sources: 2, 12]

In 1988, Taylor and Brown believed that positive illusions, including control illusions, are adaptive because they motivate people to persist in completing tasks, otherwise they might refuse. However, Bandura (1989) is fundamentally interested in the usefulness of optimistic assumptions about control and performance in controlled, non-hallucid situations, and he also suggests that in situations where hallucinations may have costly or disastrous consequences , A realistic vision is needed. The survival and well-being of mankind. Lefkult later believed that the sense of control, the illusion of the possibility of making a personal choice, played a clear and positive role in sustaining life. [Sources: 5, 6, 11]

The illusion of control was formally identified by Ellen Langer in 1975 in her article, The Illusion of Control, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The illusion of control is the tendency of people to believe that they can control, or at least influence, outcomes that the researchers believe they have no influence on. It is a mentally constructed psychological illusion that is an overrated tendency for people to think they have the ability to manipulate certain events as if they had paranormal and mystical powers. [Sources: 8, 9, 10]

For example, someone feels they can influence and control certain outcomes that have little or no effect on them. People will obviously give up control if they think the other person has more knowledge or skills in areas such as medicine, where real skills and knowledge are involved. I believe these people are more likely to rely on the illusion of control to reinforce their hope that retention will provide the kind of security they crave. Ironically, there can be more “control” in a flexible position than in a position characterized by a tendency to keep everything within a well-defined comfort zone. [Sources: 3, 6, 9]

Over the years, many studies have shown that we perceive things differently depending on whether we feel like we are in control of them. This illusion arises in cases where something is clearly random, for example, in a lottery, and in situations where we clearly do not influence the result, for example, in sports matches. This type of illusion works as an effect because we are completely convinced that we have the ability to manipulate completely random events, and they are in fact beyond our control. [Sources: 2, 9]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://kathrynwelds.com/2013/01/13/useful-fiction-optimism-bias-of-positive-illusions/

[1]: https://bestmentalmodels.com/2018/09/25/illusion-of-control/

[2]: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/illusion-of-control/

[3]: https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-illusion-of-control

[4]: https://artsandculture.google.com/entity/illusion-of-control/m02nzt4?hl=en

[5]: https://nlpnotes.com/2014/04/06/illusion-of-control/

[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control

[7]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013923/

[8]: https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Illusion_of_control

[9]: https://discover.hubpages.com/education/A-Phenomenon-called-the-illusion-of-control

[10]: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/the-illusion-of-control-you-are-your-worst-enemy

[11]: http://positivepsychology.org.uk/positive-illusions/

[12]: https://www.jasoncollins.blog/the-illusion-of-the-illusion-of-control/

The Barnum Effect

Moreover, these statements are very popular because most of the time what they say applies to most. These statements are vague and clear to everyone in their wording, but somehow they seem specific when people read them. Descriptions usually consist of vague statements that may be true for anyone, but are judged to be reasonably accurate by the participants. It is not uncommon for a person to hear or read a description of a disease and then worry that they have the disease; this is due to the tendency of most people to give personal meaning to broad information. [Sources: 4, 12]

In psychology, this is an example of the Forer effect (also known as the Barnum effect), which indicates a tendency for people to think of descriptions of their personality as accurate, even if the descriptions are so vague that they apply to many people. The Barnum effect in psychology, also known as the Forer effect, is when a person believes that personality descriptions apply specifically to him, for example, by reading his horoscope in the newspaper and realizing that it is surprisingly accurate. The Barnum effect, also called the Forer effect in psychology, is a phenomenon that occurs when people believe that personality descriptions apply to them (more than to other people), despite the fact that the description is actually full of information that applicable to all. In simple terms, the Barnum effect refers to our tendency to think that the information provided about our personality concerns us, regardless of its generalization. [Sources: 4, 6, 9, 11]

The Barnum Effect explains our tendency to believe in generalized descriptions of personality and accept them as accurate descriptions of ourselves. The Barnum effect, also known as the Forer effect, refers to vague and generally positive descriptions of personality that are general in nature, but which most people find very accurate for them. His name is commonly associated with the famous showman P. T. Barnum, best known for promoting famous hoaxes and the founder of the Barnum and Bailey Circus. The Barnum Effect stems from a phrase often attributed (perhaps erroneously) to showman P. T. Barnum that a “goof” is born every minute. [Sources: 1, 4, 10, 11]

The Barnum effect is based on the logical fallacy of appealing to vanity and authority, and uses people’s willingness to personalize flattery while believing that they come from a trusted source. In advertising, effects are often used to induce people to believe that products, services, or advertising campaigns are designed specifically for selected specific groups of people. Use this effect when writing horoscopes or fortune telling to make people feel that these predictions are made specifically for them. The Barnum effect in psychology means that people are easily deceived when reading descriptions of themselves. [Sources: 0, 5, 7]

By personality, we mean that people are different and unique. According to Forer, people are not distinguished by the existence of personal qualities, but by their relative size. The second statement describes the same characteristics, but more specifically describes the extent of its existence. [Sources: 5, 12]

It is important to understand that this effect is only valid if the statement is positive or complementary. In addition, if people think that the person conducting the assessment is a senior professional, they are more likely to accept a negative assessment of themselves. It turns out that positive reviews of them often mislead people, although the same applies to anyone else. [Sources: 3, 10]

The Barnum effect is deeply rooted in people’s propensity for flattery and the tendency to believe in seemingly authoritative sources, which means that if the statements are right, people will accept general statements and believe that they have a direct impact on them. Therefore, we can say that astrologers, fortune tellers, and wizards are good at understanding human psychology and applying the principles of the Barnum effect to their interpretations. The idea that psychics and psychics can prove the personality of the subject seems so accurate that it must be the origin of the supernatural phenomenon, but in fact it consists of general statements about the Barnum effect and can be applied to most people. [Sources: 1, 4, 8]

The conclusion drawn from this argument is that just because something seems valid and applies to your life and personality does not mean it is accurate or reliable. When you read or hear something that is strange to you, practice making the Barnum Effect checklist and let your friends know that they probably shouldn’t make important life decisions based on their sign. It is also a good idea to question the credibility of the sources you use. [Sources: 7, 9]

Derren, for example, is one of the few illusionists who focus on educating the general public about some of the techniques used to deceive them, such as the Barnum effect. They all use the Barnum Effect to convince people that the statements they make are personal to them. This suggests that horoscopes objectively do not correspond to the people they are supposed to describe, but in the event that horoscopes are labeled with zodiac signs, the Barnum effect works, when people perceive a horoscope for their own zodiac sign as corresponding to them – even though in fact it is such a bad coincidence that they could not have found it if it had not been marked with a zodiac sign. Psychologists believe this works because of a combination of the Forer effect and confirmatory biases within people. [Sources: 1, 7, 10]

Before exploring the Forer effect in detail, I understood this cognitive distortion technique, but I did not appreciate how long it has been used and how it has adapted over the years. In the next article we will look at what this effect is and why it is so effective. You may or may not have heard of the Barnum Effect, but most likely you have been a victim of it at some point in your life. The basic mechanism has been used by healers, psychics, astrologers and merchants for thousands of years. [Sources: 6, 10]

The same demonstration of Barnum has been replicated in elementary psychology students for over 50 years (Forer, 1949) and for some reason never made it into the public consciousness due to the systematic distortion of psychology in the popular media. He also works with HR managers who need to be aware of this effect during training (Stagner, 1958). This is in our Kalata textbook and should be described in all other introductory psychology books. The term was adopted after a psychologist expressed frustration with other psychologists who generally spoke of their patients7. Paul Mil saw this as negligence, especially in his practice and in relation to his patients. [Sources: 2, 5]

The Barnum effect is a cognitive bias, discovered by psychologist Bertram Forer in 1948 when he experimented with the error-proneness of personal verification. In 1948, Forer conducted a personality test on a group of students, and then based on their results to show them a detailed analysis of their personalities allegedly. Forer then asked his students to rate these statements on a scale of 0 (very low accuracy) to 5 (extremely good accuracy) based on their suitability for them. Well, the students rated the accuracy of their personal statements on average 4.3 points (out of 5 points). [Sources: 4, 7, 9]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Barnum-effect-Forer-effect

[1]: https://scienceterms.net/psychology/barnum-effect/

[2]: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/barnum-effect/

[3]: https://dbpedia.org/page/Barnum_effect

[4]: https://neurofied.com/barnum-effect-the-reason-why-we-believe-our-horoscopes/

[5]: https://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/barnum_demo.htm

[6]: https://michaelgearon.medium.com/cognitive-biases-the-barnum-effect-b051e7b8e029

[7]: https://nesslabs.com/barnum-effect

[8]: https://www.abtasty.com/blog/barnum-effect/

[9]: https://www.explorepsychology.com/barnum-effect/

[10]: https://interestingengineering.com/the-power-of-compliments-uncovering-the-barnum-effect

[11]: https://www.britannica.com/science/Barnum-Effect

[12]: https://study.com/learn/lesson/barnum-effect-psychology-examples.html

Semmelweis Reflex , Semmelweis Effect

There he was able to fully implement his hand washing policy in a small maternity hospital and then at the University of Pest, where he became a professor of obstetrics. The story goes that in the 19th century, Semmelweis realized that the infant mortality rate in the hospital where he worked was plummeting if his fellow doctors frequently washed their hands with chlorine-based hand sanitizer. Semmelweis realized that this difference was due to the doctors’ habit of performing autopsies and examining women in maternity hospitals without hand disinfection, a practice that caused the infection. [Sources: 6, 13, 14]

Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that doctors infect patients with what he called “cadaveric particles” and immediately demanded that all medical personnel wash their hands with a solution of chlorinated lime before treating patients and giving birth. Despite the fact that Semmelweis published his findings, which showed that hand washing reduced deaths from birth fever to less than 1%, his observations were rejected by the medical community. This was partly due to the fact that he could not provide a scientific explanation for his observations (more on this in a moment), but also because doctors were offended by the simple suggestion to wash their hands. Other doctors believed that a gentleman’s hand could not transmit disease. [Sources: 0, 4, 8]

As is often the case with people who, for good reasons, try to change existing beliefs, Semmelweis’s life ended badly. Semmelweis was fired from the hospital, harassed by the medical community, and eventually suffered a nervous breakdown and died in an orphanage. His theory largely challenged the long-standing practice and beliefs of the medical community regarding such fever and, despite compelling evidence presented by Semmelweis, was ridiculed and rejected in the medical community. [Sources: 0, 7, 8]

The question arises as to why the medical community did not accept, or at least did not consider, the sterilization claims submitted by Semmelweis. Perhaps even more worrisome, 150 years after the publication of Semmelweis ‘treatise, we continue to encounter Semmelweis’ modern thinking on the use of hand hygiene in health care. Hand washing during the coronavirus pandemic seems like a universal habit. [Sources: 5, 7, 10]

Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian doctor named after a real person, discovered in 1847 that when the doctor disinfected his hands before moving, the death toll caused by the so-called childbirth fever (bacterial infection of the female reproductive tract after childbirth or abortion) was drastic. decline. From one person to another. It is named after the 19th century Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis, who was one of the first scientists to prove the link between hospital hygiene and infection, long before Louis Pasteur popularized the theory of microorganisms. [Sources: 0, 1]

Semmelweis worked in two clinics in the same hospital in Vienna, where mortality rates for women in childbirth differed sharply. Semmelweis spent years trying to tell the difference between the two, which would explain why Clinic 1 was much more deadly than Clinic 2. [Sources: 1]

Semmelweis hypothesized that medical personnel and, in particular, doctors passed the disease from one patient to another. Although the microbial theory of the disease had not yet been established, he argued that doctors who immediately went from autopsy to examining pregnant women at the First Obstetric Clinic of the hospital somehow transmitted the infection to those women who were dying at an alarming rate compared to poorer patients. Second clinics cared for by midwives, not doctors. In 1846, three years after Holmes’s publication, Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who is an icon in the community of health epidemiologists, independently reached a similar conclusion from his careful assessment of the increase in maternal mortality in the maternity ward compared to that in the obstetric ward. his hospital. Since Semmelweis could not explain the underlying mechanism, skeptical doctors looked for other reasons. [Sources: 5, 14]

The new Semmelweis theory did not fit the prevailing theory and therefore many physicians ignored it. Modern critics have suggested cleaner ways of testing the phenomena described by Semmelweis. Despite overwhelming evidence – the method stopped the ongoing infection of pregnant women – Semmelweis was unable to convince his peers of the effectiveness of his simple solution. [Sources: 1, 6, 10]

Some doctors rejected his idea on the grounds that a gentleman’s hands could not transmit disease. Despite compelling empirical evidence, most of the medical world rejected his theory for incorrect medical and non-medical reasons. However, despite overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of his intervention, his ideas were met with skepticism – and even ridicule – by the modern medical community, including many of the leading medical experts of the time. The reaction to his discoveries has been so significant that 150 years later, we now refer to circumstances where factual knowledge is recklessly and systematically rejected because evidence contradicts existing culture or contradicts existing paradigms such as “Semmelweis thinking.” [Sources: 5, 6, 8]

The story of Semmelweis inspired a concept called the Semmelweis effect-the reflexive rejection of evidence or new knowledge that violates established norms, beliefs, and paradigms. Semmelweiss reflection is a metaphor for the instinct and reflex tendency to reject new evidence or knowledge because it contradicts existing and established beliefs or norms. The reflex or Semmelweis effect refers to the tendency to automatically reject new information or knowledge because it conflicts with current thoughts or beliefs. The Semmelweis effect is a reflexive tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it conflicts with established beliefs, norms, or paradigms. [Sources: 0, 6, 8, 11]

The Semmelweis reflex means that people instinctively avoid, reject, and play down any new evidence or knowledge that goes against their established beliefs, practices, or values. Thus, the Semmelweis reflex is a reflex-type reaction by which people reject new information if it contradicts established norms or paradigms. It is a form of persistence bias, in which people will stick to their beliefs despite the fact that new information directly contradicts them. [Sources: 1, 12]

This effect is called the Semmelweis reflex, which Thomas Szasz has described as the “invincible social force of false truths” – a phenomenon so dangerous that it has claimed many lives throughout history. The two-sided nature of this reflex is revealed when its importance is emphasized in prematurely accepted medical failures. Careful and careful study design, scientific rigor, and critical self-examination of the manuscript can help avoid falling prey to this reflex. This tendency is elegantly described by the concept of the Semmelweiss reflex, the instinctive rejection of new and unwanted ideas. [Sources: 3, 4, 12]

This is diametrically opposed to the Semmelweiss reflex, which means that we accept new ideas and facts too quickly when they are compatible with our thinking. If they contradict each other, as in the original case of Semmelweis, we reject them too easily. This instinctive tendency to reject new evidence because it contradicts established beliefs is called the “Semmelweis reflex”, which makes us easily reject complex new ideas. We can learn to avoid the Semmelweis reflex by not sticking to our beliefs or losing our bias when new evidence emerges. [Sources: 4, 12]

Awareness can increase the likelihood of the Semmelweis reflex occurring before it occurs, but like all psychological phenomena, there are a number of other confusing and competing variables that interact when making decisions. In scenarios where evidence of alternative explanations for observed phenomena emerges, the aforementioned biases may cause an automatic tendency to reject new knowledge. [Sources: 10]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://nutritionbycarrie.com/2020/07/weight-bias-healthcare-2.html

[1]: https://www.ideatovalue.com/curi/nickskillicorn/2021/08/the-semmelweis-reflex-bias-and-why-people-continue-to-believe-things-which-are-proved-wrong/

[2]: https://riskacademy.blog/53-cognitive-biases-in-risk-management-semmelweis-reflex-alex-sidorenko/

[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31837492/

[4]: https://nesslabs.com/semmelweis-reflex

[5]: https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/contemporary-semmelweis-reflex-history-imperfect-educator

[6]: https://rethinkingdisability.net/lessons-for-the-coronavirus-pandemic-on-the-cruciality-of-peripheral-knowledge-handwashing-and-the-semmelweis-reflex/

[7]: https://iqsresearch.com/the-semmelweis-reflex-lifting-the-curtain-of-normalcy/

[8]: https://www.renesonneveld.com/post/the-semmelweis-reflex-in-corporate-life-and-politics

[9]: https://www.encyclo.co.uk/meaning-of-Semmelweis_reflex

[10]: http://theurbanengine.com/blog//the-semmelweis-reflex

[11]: https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Semmelweis+Reflex+%28Semmelweis+Effect%29

[12]: https://qvik.com/news/ease-of-rejecting-difficult-new-ideas-semmelweiss-reflex-explained/

[13]: https://whogottheassist.com/psychology-corner-the-semmelweis-reflex/

[14]: https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/34/1/beware-the-semmelweis-reflex

Selective Perception

Favoritism within a group, also known as bias within a group, bias within a group, bias within a group, or preference within a group, is a pattern of preference among group members over members of an outgroup. [Sources: 3]

In many different contexts, people act more prosocial towards members of their own group than towards members of their group. For this reason, beliefs about reciprocity are influenced by both group membership and interdependence, so that people have higher expectations of reciprocity from their group members, and this leads to intragroup favoritism (Locksley et al., 1980). If within-group favoritism arises from social preferences based on depersonalization in which the in-group is included, the individuals who most strongly identify with their group should also be those who act more prosocially towards the members of the in-group. Moreover, the social identity perspective suggests that intragroup bias should be stronger among people who identify more strongly with their nation as a social group. [Sources: 7, 8]

There are several theories that explain why prejudice appears in a group, but the most important one is called the social identity theory. However, over the years, research on group bias has shown that group membership affects our perceptions on a very basic level, even if people are divided into different groups based on completely meaningless criteria. [Sources: 10]

The classic study showing the strength of this bias was conducted by psychologists Michael Billig and Henry Tiffel. Consistent with this view, participants who tended to set themselves up against others more through social comparisons exhibited a stronger affirmative bias: they might feel more challenged by the idea that the other group might be right about politics. These results contradict other researchers’ findings that intragroup bias stems from simple group membership. [Sources: 8, 10]

Instead of automatically arising wherever a group is formed, it may be that group favoritism only arises when people expect their good deeds to be rewarded by members of their group. The strength of this influence can, of course, vary greatly, and it may or may not be that a real negative perspective manifests itself in relation to those who are not part of the group. The similarity bias reflects the human tendency to focus on ourselves and give preference to those who are like us. Group bias is, in fact, the way that managers can show favoritism in their judgments. [Sources: 5, 10]

Particularly positive reviews are received by those who were lucky enough to get into “their” executive circle, and those who are not included in this circle – no. For example, a teacher may have a favorite student because he is opposed to favoritism in the group. Selective perception can refer to any number of cognitive biases in psychology related to how expectations affect perception. [Sources: 0, 5]

Human judgment and decision making is distorted by a range of cognitive, perceptual, and motivational biases, and people tend to be unaware of their own bias, although they tend to easily recognize (and even overestimate) the effect of bias in human judgment from part of their prejudices. other. People exhibit this bias when they selectively collect or recall information, or when they interpret it in a distorted way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and deeply rooted beliefs. [Sources: 0, 2]

Misinterpretation This type of bias explains that people interpret evidence against their existing beliefs, usually evaluating corroborating evidence differently than evidence that refutes their prejudice. To minimize this dissonance, people adjust to confirmation bias by avoiding information that contradicts their beliefs and looking for evidence to support their beliefs. Home messages. Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to give preference to information that corroborates their existing beliefs or assumptions. In other words, selective perception is a form of bias because we interpret information according to our existing values ​​and beliefs. [Sources: 0, 2]

Although we should strive to be as fair as possible in our judgments, in fact we all have biases that affect our judgments. Managers are of course no exception. Many common misunderstandings affect their evaluation of employees. The most common ones are stereotype, selective perception, confirmation bias, first impression bias, novelty bias, minor bias, intra-group bias, and similarity bias. [Sources: 5]

While a particular stereotype about a social group may not fit an individual person, people tend to remember stereotyped information better than any evidence to the contrary (Fyock & Stangor, 1994). Hence, the stereotype is automatically activated in the presence of the stereotypical group member and can influence the thinking and behavior of the perceiver. However, people whose personal beliefs reject bias and discrimination may try to deliberately suppress the influence of the stereotype in their thoughts and behavior. [Sources: 2, 4]

Therefore, if implicit stereotypes indicate a potentially uncontrollable cognitive bias, the question arises of how to account for its results when making decisions, especially for a person who is sincerely striving for an unbiased judgment. Confirmation bias also affects professional diversity, as preconceived notions about different social groups can discriminate (albeit unconsciously) and influence the recruitment process (Agarwal, 2018). Another disturbing finding is that intra-group prejudice and associated prejudice are manifested in people from an early age. [Sources: 2, 4, 10]

This study found that although both women and men had more favorable outlooks than women, prejudice in the female group was 4.5 times stronger [25] than in men, and only women (not men) showed a cognitive balance between intragroup prejudice, identity and self-esteem, showing that men lack a mechanism that reinforces automatic gender preference. In another series of studies conducted in the 1980s by Jennifer Crocker and colleagues using the minimal group paradigm, people with high self-esteem who experienced self-esteem threats showed greater bias within the group compared to people with low self-esteem. who have suffered from threats to their self-esteem. On the other hand, researchers may have used inappropriate self-esteem measures to test the link between self-esteem and intragroup bias (global personal self-esteem, not specific social self-esteem). [Sources: 3]

Like self-serving bias, group attribution can have a self-improvement function, making people feel better by creating favorable explanations for their in-group behavior. Group service bias, sometimes called late attribution error, describes the tendency to make internal attributions on our successes within the group and external attributions on their failures, and to do the opposite attribution model on our external groups (Taylor & Doria, 1981). We are also often biased towards group services when we make more favorable attributions about our internal groups than about our external groups. [Sources: 1]

But prejudice within the group is not only friendly to our group; it can also be harmful to our outside group. If the prejudice of the service group can explain most of the cross-cultural differences in attribution, then in this case, when the author is an American, the Chinese should be more likely to accuse members of outside groups for internal attribution, while Americans There should be more external and less impact on members. Your internal group. Looking at the results of previous empirical research on social identity views that support intra-group bias in selective news reporting, it is clear that low-level groups in particular exhibit this bias (Appiah et al., 2013; Knobloch-Westerwick & Hastall, 2010)-perhaps The other countries represented do not appear to be a sufficiently relevant comparison group for American participants, or to them do not represent a higher-status group that can initiate internal groups, as in these previous studies. [Sources: 1, 8, 10]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://theintactone.com/2018/12/16/cb-u2-topic-9-selective-perception-common-perceptions-of-colours/

[1]: https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/biases-in-attribution/

[2]: https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

[4]: https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201786

[5]: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-principlesmanagement/chapter/common-management-biases/

[6]: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bias

[7]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327620/

[8]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093650217719596

[9]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1

[10]: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/in-group-bias/

Observer-Expectancy Effect

“The observer expectation effect (also called the experimenter expectation effect, expectation bias, observer effect, or experimenter effect) is a form of reactivity in which the researcher’s cognitive bias causes them to subconsciously influence the participants in the experiment. Observer – The expectation effect (also called the experimenter expectation effect, systematic expectation, observer effect, or experimenter effect) is a form of reactivity in which the researcher’s cognitive bias causes them to unconsciously influence the participants in the experiment. the participant about the nature of the study, as well as about the confirmatory bias, when the researcher collects and interprets data in such a way as to confirm his hypothesis and ignore information that contradicts it. [Sources: 2, 3, 11]

In an experiment, the observer expectation effect is manifested in the fact that the researcher (the person conducting the experiment) unconsciously influences the participants in the experiment or misinterprets the results in order to agree with the result that the researcher originally hoped to see. The observer expectation effect in science is a cognitive error that occurs when a researcher expects a certain outcome and then unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets the data to find it. In the so-called observer expectation effect, the experimenter can subtly communicate his expectations about the research outcome to the participants, causing them to change their behavior to match those expectations. [Sources: 1, 5, 11]

Outside of the experimental setting, the observer expectation effect can occur whenever a person’s preconceived notions about a given situation influence his behavior in relation to that situation. “An example of the observer expectation effect is shown in musical disguise, where latent verbal messages are said to be heard when the recording is played backwards. Such observer distortion effects are almost universal in interpreting expected human data and when there are imperfect cultural and methodological norms that promote or enforce objectivity … [Sources: 2, 5, 11]

This can lead the experimenter to draw the wrong conclusions about the test in favor of his hypothesis, regardless of the data or results. Observer bias (also called experimenter bias or search bias) is the tendency to see what we expect to see or what we want to see. Research investigating these issues shows that while there are individual differences that mitigate the impact on expectations, such as self-esteem, gender, and cognitive rigidity, situational factors emerge, such as the relative strength of who is perceiving and targeting, and how long they have been known. … be more important predictors of the impact on expectations. For example, the knowledge that experimenters’ expectations can inadvertently influence their results has led to significant improvements in the way researchers design and conduct experiments in psychology and other fields such as medicine. [Sources: 8, 9, 12]

For example, the researchers compared the performance of two groups that were given the same task (scored portraits and rated the success of each person on a scale of -10 to 10), but with different expectations from the experimenter. Subsequent studies have shown that the effect in such experiments is due to subtle differences in how experimenters treat animals. Rosenthal showed that experimenters can sometimes get their results in part because their expectations prompted them to relate in part to their experimental participants, inducing the intended behavior. The influence on expectation (halo, illusory correlation, suggestion) can influence the categorization of the diagnostic criterion through (1) information obtained before the interview; (2) information previously disclosed or in connection with a categorization decision during the interview; or (3) through theoretical expectations. [Sources: 2, 10, 12, 13]

The expectation effect occurs when one perceiver’s misconception about another person, a goal, causes the perceiver to act in such a way as to induce the expected behavior of the target. If the latter is consistent, for example, the expected effects are in the expected direction, but if they do not coincide, clinicians’ judgments are biased in the opposite direction of the information provided (Lange et al., 1991). Recent research has also shown that, for example, labeling or influence on expectations can affect the general attitude of doctors towards the client, as well as the nature of the approach to treatment recommendations, even if the source of the assumption is not prestigious (Lange, Beurs, Hanewald and Koppelaar, 1991 ). Your actions may show each group your expectations of how well they should perform, and the treatment group may respond by increasing their stress on exercise tests, while the control group may become frustrated and less committed than usual to exercise tests. load. [Sources: 5, 12, 13]

Suggestion effects are related phenomena that can occur in a clinical diagnosis where a previously encountered or suspected label (e.g., diagnosis) affects perception and diagnosis, and possibly the attitude and behavior of clinicians towards a patient. The longer people know each other, the less likely it is that earnings are formed or are influenced by erroneous expectations. Typically, in psychological research, the characteristics of demand are subtle clues from the experimenter that can give the participants an idea of ​​the subject of the research. Of course, demand characteristics cannot be completely ruled out, but their impact can be minimized. [Sources: 3, 12, 13]

Some people want to hear the hidden message when flipping the song, and then hear the message, but to others, it sounds nothing more than a random sound. [Sources: 0]

A well-known example of observer bias is the work of Cyril Burt, a psychologist known for his work on IQ genetics. SPOPE theme Because they want to participate and be overwhelmed by the aura of scientific inquiry, research participants can do whatever they need to do. In other words, they approach the table with conscious or unconscious bias. [Sources: 6, 8]

The exchange of information is not necessarily persuasive, because the facts must be explained in a certain way before they can be used to persuade another person to reach a certain conclusion. Persuasion is his verbal communication category, unlike any other category. [Sources: 2]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Observer-expectancy_effect

[1]: https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Experimenter_effect

[2]: https://wunschlaw.com/2018/01/21/verbal-persuasion-observer-expectancy-effect/

[3]: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/observer-expectancy-effect/

[4]: https://www.scribbr.com/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-observer-expectancy-effect/

[5]: https://academy4sc.org/video/observer-expectancy-effect-from-the-outside-looking-in/

[6]: https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyc-of-research-design/n142.xml

[7]: https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Observer-Expectancy+Effect

[8]: https://www.statisticshowto.com/observer-bias/

[9]: https://www.brooksbell.com/resource/blog/clickipedia-observer-expectancy-effect/

[10]: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095805141

[11]: https://wiki2.org/en/Observer-expectancy_effect

[12]: http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/social-cognition/expectancy-effect/

[13]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/expectancy-effect

Congruence Bias

In other words, Congruence Bias is a test to confirm your hypothesis (direct test), not an attempt to disprove your original hypothesis by exploring possible alternatives (indirect test). Having fallen prey to congruence bias, you may have shortened your testing period and failed to reach the full potential of your packaging by not finding workarounds. The tendency to test hypotheses solely by direct testing rather than testing possible alternative hypotheses. As you can imagine, innovation and entrepreneurship are not immune to such prejudices. [Sources: 1, 2]

The tendency to do (or believe) something because many other people do (or believe) the same thing. A distorted belief that the characteristics of an individual group member reflect the group as a whole, or a tendency to assume that the results of group decisions reflect the preferences of the group members, even if there is information that clearly suggests otherwise. The tendency to seek, interpret, focus, and memorize information in a way that confirms your biases. [Sources: 1]

It argues that whether people are perceived to be scientifically minded depends on their views on scientific research. The tendency to not reconsider one’s beliefs enough when presenting new evidence. The tendency to rely too heavily on a trait or piece of information, or “anchor”, when making decisions (usually the first piece of information received on this issue). We are prone to over 100 cognitive biases that can subconsciously shape our perceptions, beliefs and decisions. [Sources: 0, 1]

 

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23087302

[1]: https://medium.com/steveglaveski/36-cognitive-biases-that-inhibit-innovation-18a9178625fd

[2]: https://www.adcocksolutions.com/post/what-is-congruence-bias

[3]: http://www.msrblog.com/science/psychology/congruence-bias.html

[4]: http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/CongruenceBias

[5]: http://www.jean-dipak.com/foo/bias/information-overload/details-confirm-beliefs/congruence-bias/

Effort Justification

Dissonance can affect the way people act, think, and make decisions. Dissonance usually occurs when people are encouraged or forced to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their beliefs and views. When conflicts arise between cognitions (thoughts, beliefs, opinions), people take action to reduce dissonance and discomfort. [Sources: 7, 10]

Changing the perception of conflict is one of the most effective ways to deal with disharmony, but it is also one of the most difficult, especially in the case of deep-rooted values ​​and beliefs such as religion or political tendencies. Cognitive dissonance can make people feel uncomfortable and uncomfortable, especially if the mismatch between their beliefs and behaviors is related to the core of their self-awareness. More personal, highly valued beliefs, such as beliefs about yourself, tend to cause more disharmony. [Sources: 10]

There are several ways people can reduce dissonance when making decisions (Festinger, 1964). This method of reducing disharmony may be the most effective, but it is also the most difficult to implement. It involves changing a person’s behavior to make it consistent with their other beliefs. [Sources: 1, 6]

Reconciling differences between conflicting beliefs or between actions and beliefs is a form of personal growth. In our efforts to reduce dissonance, we distort our choices to make them look better, we begin to appreciate what we have suffered in order to achieve, and we change our attitudes to match our behavior. [Sources: 0, 1]

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance states that when we experience conflict in our behavior, attitudes, or beliefs that runs counter to our positive self-perception, we experience psychological distress (dissonance). According to the theory, a mismatch between attitude and behavior causes an unpleasant emotional state called cognitive dissonance, and people try to reduce this undesirable state by changing their attitude. Thus, students change their attitudes to reduce the cognitive inconsistency between their attitude (I don’t like the idea of ​​higher tuition fees) and behavior (I wrote a supporting essay). [Sources: 5, 8]

Examples include “explaining things” or rejecting new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs. By invoking memories of the past as a source of potential adverse effects, the theory of cognitive dissonance can provide a theoretical basis for behavioral change efforts to improve physical and mental health. [Sources: 1, 4]

The concept of dissonance was once highly controversial, but its support through five decades of research has made it one of the most widely accepted concepts in social psychology. Psychologist Leon Festinger (1957) defined cognitive dissonance as psychological discomfort resulting from the persistence of two or more inconsistent attitudes, behaviors, or cognitions (thoughts, beliefs, or opinions). More than 60 years ago, Leon Festinger made the humble proposal that people with two or more psychologically incompatible cognitions experience a state of psychological stress called cognitive dissonance. In The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Leon Festinger, the psychologist who first described the phenomenon, gave an example of how a person can cope with health-related dissonance by discussing people who continue to smoke even if they know it is bad. for their health. [Sources: 0, 4, 8, 10]

Festinger suggested that people feel uncomfortable when they have conflicting beliefs or when their actions are contrary to their beliefs. Festinger used the term “cognitive” to precede dissonance, arguing that all kinds of thoughts, behavior, and perceptions are represented in people’s thinking through their cognitive representations. Leon Festinger was the first to propose the theory of cognitive dissonance, focusing on how people try to achieve inner consistency. Subsequent research has documented that only conflicting cognitions that threaten a positive self-image cause dissonance (Greenwald & Ronis, 1978). [Sources: 1, 4, 8, 10]

Further research has shown that not only is dissonance psychologically uncomfortable, it can also induce physiological arousal (Croyle & Cooper, 1983) and activate areas of the brain important for emotion and cognitive functioning (van Veen, Krug, Schooler & Carter, 2009). Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (1957) suggests that we have an inner urge to keep all our relationships and behaviors in harmony and to avoid disharmony (or dissonance). Festinger’s theory suggests that a mismatch between beliefs or behavior causes uncomfortable psychological stress (Comrade Aronsons Reconsidering the idea of ​​dissonance as a mismatch between a person’s self-esteem and cognition of one’s behavior makes it likely that dissonance is nothing more than a mistake. [Sources: 2, 6, 8]

There are also individual differences in whether people act according to theoretical predictions. Many people seem to be able to deal with obvious dissonances without experiencing the pressure of theoretical predictions. Critics of this theory believe that it depends on a complex social background (which can lead to disharmony), but studies have shown that it has the same effect on children (with less understanding and therefore less susceptible to social background) and even pigeons. [Sources: 3, 6]

In their study, the degree of cognitive dissonance was quantified on a trial basis during the second assessment item, as indicated by the mismatch between participants’ preferences for each item and their past (selected or rejected) selection behavior. Left DLPFC activity was higher when participants wrote a countertitle essay without sufficient justification, compared to the condition when sufficient justification was provided (and thus the cognitive dissonance was much less) (Harmon-Jones, Gerdjikov, et al., 2008) … Since it was impossible to change the fact that they had already passed the test, the best way to reduce dissonance is to develop a more supportive attitude towards the group. [Sources: 5, 7]

Those who were in a state of “low confusion” experienced much less dissonance because they did not have to put in so much effort or endure so much discomfort to join the group. Hence, they did not need to change their perception of the group. [Sources: 7]

Their behavior confirmed the predictions of his theory of cognitive dissonance, the premise of which was that people needed to maintain consistency between thoughts, feelings and behavior. His research in social psychology focused on how people resolve conflict (group dynamics), ambiguity (social confrontation), and inconsistency (cognitive dissonance) – all manifestations of a desire for uniformity. The criticism proved to be useful not only because it attracted attention to the theory of cognitive dissonance, but also mainly because it led to numerous studies by a new group of dissonance researchers, which eventually confirmed many of Festinger’s unorthodox predictions. Cognitive dissonance was first explored by Leon Festinger through the joint observation of a cult that believed the earth would be destroyed by flooding and what happened to its members, especially those who truly dedicated themselves to someone who gave up their homes and jobs for the sake of to work for worship when there was no flood. [Sources: 2, 4, 6]

Em Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studied whether forcing people to complete a boring task could create cognitive dissonance due to forced submission. One of the earliest and most classic examples of justification for effort is the study by Aronson and Mills. This monetary incentive was intended to prevent cognitive dissonance by providing the participant with an external justification for behavior that was inconsistent with their beliefs (by saying that the task was enjoyable when it was not). [Sources: 3, 5, 6]

 

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/social-psychology-theories/cognitive-dissonance-theory/

[1]: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738

[2]: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leon-Festinger/Cognitive-dissonance

[3]: https://psynso.com/effort-justification/

[4]: https://www.rips-irsp.com/articles/10.5334/irsp.277/

[5]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/cognitive-dissonance-theory

[6]: https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

[7]: https://www.alleydog.com/cognitive-dissonance-theory.php

[8]: https://opened.cuny.edu/courseware/module/78/student/?task=2

[9]: https://thedailyomnivore.net/2012/02/28/effort-justification/

[10]: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-dissonance-2795012

Normalcy Bias

Normalcy Bias or Normal Bias, is a cognitive bias that causes people to disbelieve or minimize threat warnings. Optimism biased (or optimistic bias) is a cognitive bias that makes you believe that someone is less likely to experience an adverse event. Scammers thrive on this bias by dressing up and convincing people of their sincerity. [Sources: 5, 6]

Therefore, avoid normal prejudice, be proactive and be aware of this so that you can use the best opportunities and options to develop your career in animal health or veterinary medicine. Then decide if you need to do something to have a healthier and more balanced view of emergencies and disasters. I will provide you with three important tips, which are more related to your emotional and mental health. [Sources: 1, 3]

America, I will explain this as concisely and clearly as possible. On the other hand, we have an undefined state that has never existed, and the U.S. government says it is impossible under the Constitution. On the one hand, we have states, which are normal states in the former territories such as Arizona and Kentucky. On the other hand, we have one of the craziest conspiracy theories based on physical impossibility. [Sources: 7, 14]

“This instinct to do nothing in the presence of danger is deeply rooted in our instincts; it is associated with a cognitive feature in our brains that psychologists call normal bias. [Sources: 12]

And today, any person without cognitive dissonance is simply abnormal or outdated. In particular, I have seen people who are reluctant to move forward in the interest of developing their careers in animal health or veterinary medicine because they consciously or unconsciously believed that their current professional life will remain exactly the same as in the foreseeable future. … As a result, they turned down other job opportunities that could give them a chance to improve their current situation. The optimism bias suggests that people often underestimate the risk of negative outcomes. [Sources: 3, 6, 12]

This means that some people will be much better off than you are trending. People are less likely to experience an optimism bias when they encounter very close people, such as friends or family. Researchers have proposed a variety of reasons leading to optimism bias, including cognitive and motivational factors. [Sources: 6]

Sharot also suggests that while this optimism bias can sometimes lead to negative outcomes, such as foolish participation in risky behaviors or poor health choices, it can also have benefits. Department of Psychology, Social Work and Public Health, Oxford Brooks University, Oxford, UK; Following the pioneering work of Weinstein (1980), many studies have found that people have an optimistic bias about future life events. Apparently, many expect in the near future a return to something more or less similar to the pre-COVID electoral past, that is, to “normalcy.” There is nothing “normal” about these events, but many people seem to be convinced that soon everything will return to “normal”, as in the “past.” [Sources: 6, 12]

And in fact, we can see hot news something like this: for the first time about an unprecedented number of COVID-19 cases in 24 hours. The end is near messages are sent straight to the trash can in our brains. [Sources: 9, 13]

They can see what is happening, but they think or believe that if they remain silent and stoic, the threat will disappear without any interaction on their part. I guess most of them will settle for a combination of normal bias and cognitive dissonance responses – basically doing what they’ve always done and hoping for the best. So, to be fair and balanced, we could point out that there are people who believe that COVID-19 vaccines implant 5G microchips that allow Bill Gates to track all vaccinated people. [Sources: 7, 12, 14]

Mainframes were often not prepared enough to prevent or detect serious threats such as ransomware because administrators underestimated the likelihood of a worst-case scenario. The ransomware threat does not differ by platform, and obscurity is just one layer of security. In the coming weeks, we will discuss additional prevention and detection mechanisms such as privileged access control, dataset monitoring, and others. [Sources: 10]

Simply put, attackers cannot execute code or do unintended work on the mainframe unless they gain internal access. One of the most vulnerable vectors of initial login on a mainframe is credential reuse. [Sources: 10]

White Star Line officials were not ready to evacuate the Titanic passengers. The passengers refused the evacuation order because they underestimated the possibility of the worst-case scenario and minimized its potential impact. [Sources: 10]

When you have a White House making deals that allow an enemy state to create nuclear weapons (whose intent is to use them against our allied nations), it might get your attention, but it isn’t. Harding’s promise was to restore the pre-war mindset to the United States without allowing the thought of war to pollute the minds of the American people. [Sources: 5, 7]

 

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://vikinglifeblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/normalcy-bias/

[1]: https://sallieborrink.com/3-important-emergency-preparedness-tips/

[2]: https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Normality+Bias+%28Normalcy+Bias%29

[3]: https://thevetrecruiter.com/animal-health-jobs-the-normalcy-bias-and-your-animal-health-career-or-veterinary-career/

[4]: https://riskacademy.blog/49-cognitive-biases-in-risk-management-normalcy-bias-alex-sidorenko/

[5]: https://wordnerd.fun/normalcy

[6]: https://rehobothbaptistassociation.org/3owq5/iy80t5/archive.php?tag=what-is-optimistic-bias-in-psychology

[7]: https://conservativedailybriefing.com/will-normalcy-bias-be-our-destruction/

[8]: https://www.pawneerepublican.com/opinion/normalcy-bias

[9]: https://www.tobysinclair.com/post/change-management-mistakes

[10]: https://www.bmc.com/blogs/mainframe-ransomware-initial-access-normalcy-bias/

[11]: https://cognitivebiases.net/normalcy-bias

[12]: https://ai-ecoach.com/is-normalcy-bias-plus-cognitive-dissonance-part-of-the-new-normal/

[13]: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/normalcy-bias-prashant-bhosale

[14]: https://www.pr51st.com/false-balance-and-puerto-rico/

Well Travelled Road Effect

When you estimate how long it takes to walk a familiar path, you usually underestimate it. Due to the fact that he is familiar, the travel time seems to be shorter than it actually is. [Sources: 0]

Familiarity with routes, holidays and work tends to speed up our perception of time. Frequently used routes are estimated to take less time than unknown routes. When we follow a well-known path, since we do not need to concentrate too much, time seems to pass faster. [Sources: 0, 5]

In fact, the well-traveled effect is a concrete example of the fact that we tend to underestimate the duration of routine activities. The results of the assessment show that the sequence of travel significantly affects the preference for travel mode in the travel package, which has significant cross effects with individual attributes and attributes of the travel context. COVID-19 risk perception limits travelers to being close to home; therefore, if restrictions on inbound and outbound travel are lifted, people will still have problems traveling. Influence of conflict on risk perception and travel intentions of young tourists. [Sources: 0, 1, 2]

This study explores the relationship between risk perception, media communication, interpersonal communication, risk awareness, and behavior in Chinese travelers. The proposed scoring model recommended that all factors account for 66% variation in intent for travel behavior. Real-time scoring and post-judgmental scoring have been used to clarify situations in which the backtravel effect occurs. This study is one of the few that looks at the underlying mechanism between the perception of health risks and the behavioral intentions of travelers. [Sources: 1, 6]

This short communication strategy allows travelers to remember destinations and feel worthy of them. Route analysis showed that knowledge of risk has a positive relationship with the intention to travel. Determinants of perceived health risk among low-risk tourists traveling to developing countries. Hence, individual risk perception and travel intentions are sensitive to new information and can be easily changed (Bikhchandani and Sharma, 2000). [Sources: 1]

“There will be a lot less travel and a lot more emphasis on face-to-face contact (or face mask) when we do. Time and pollution. We will find that it is becoming cheaper to do many things, including the many varieties of telemedicine, less travel and jet lag for wealthy and high-class workers, and that we can indeed afford to invest in human capital in a cost-effective way. As the roads wear down in our lives, we pay less attention to the landscape. [Sources: 0, 4]

More and more people will be forced to lead dangerous lives, devoid of predictability, economic security and prosperity. Another 14% said that the life of most people in 2025 will not be very different from how it would have been if it were not for the pandemic. One of the consequences of the coronavirus will be the realization that American children need Internet access to do well in school, but many families do not. [Sources: 4]

In 2025, we will work differently (positively) because of COVID-19. Overconfidence is when some of us are overly confident in our abilities, and this makes us take more risks in our daily life. Ideas like these are also changing everything from marketing to criminology. [Sources: 3, 4]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.spring.org.uk/2013/06/the-well-travelled-road-effect-why-familiar-routes-fly-by.php

[1]: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655860/full

[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856421001634

[3]: https://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-2015-10

[4]: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/02/18/experts-say-the-new-normal-in-2025-will-be-far-more-tech-driven-presenting-more-big-challenges/

[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_travelled_road_effect

[6]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/469306/what-describes-the-effect-of-the-way-back-seeming-faster-than-the-way-there

Survivorship Bias

To illustrate this, he hypothesizes what would happen if a hundred psychology professors read Rhine’s work and decided to conduct their own tests; he said that trauma to the survivor would eliminate the typical failed experiments, but encourage the lucky ones to continue testing. By pointing out the survival bias, Randall effectively argues the results by pointing out that they were obtained at random and ignoring any other people who might (foolishly) go through the same process and never win the lottery. Taking it one step further, survival bias could be used to challenge the results of any process, be it research (each research process is bound to produce SOME good results, and since these are the only published results it is difficult to know if it will be published). the research process itself contributed to good results), business decisions (some companies fail and others succeed, but since only successful ones remain, it can be difficult to determine WHY they failed or were successful), etc. [Sources: 0, 6]

For example, it could be argued that higher education does not make you successful on the basis that highly successful people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college but became billionaires. If you look at everyone who does not study at universities, and not just examples of success, a completely different picture emerges. We don’t hear or see those who tried and failed because usually people don’t talk about it. Regardless of where it is applied, survival bias describes a distorted and more positive outlook on things, especially because we can only hear the incidents they have overcome, leaving those who have failed an isolated silence of unverified or long-forgotten events. [Sources: 5, 7, 11, 12]

People can focus on the survivors without analyzing the sources and problems that allow only a select few to succeed, while preventing many people from doing so despite the same efforts. And those who have done both, more often talk about successes than about failures and failures. [Sources: 0, 7]

Survival bias applies in this situation, as people who ultimately win (and presumably win more than they spent on lottery tickets in the time it took to win) are much more likely to give motivational speeches than those he never won or won. win enough to recoup the “investment”. Survival bias is the tendency to focus on the companies that have succeeded while forgetting about all the companies that have failed at the time. This happens when we assume that success tells the whole story, and when we ignore past failures. [Sources: 0, 2, 13]

For every great success in the world, there will be thousands or even tens of thousands of failures. Whenever you read a success story in the media, think about all the people who have tried to do something that the person has done but failed. If you only learn from survivors in your life, buy books about successful people, and carefully study the history of companies that shook the planet, your understanding of the world will be highly prejudiced and very incomplete. [Sources: 3, 13]

The problem with falling prey to survival data is that it dilutes your judgment and distracts you from finding the root cause of a problem in your love life, your team, or your product. This makes it easier to match models and merge correlation with causation. [Sources: 8]

This bias can sometimes affect the results of your focus group research. This bias can be especially dangerous when you do market research and only look at data that supports your beliefs and close your eyes to data that contradicts the assumptions. Its not-so-uncommon cousin – cherry picking – also known as hiding evidence or incomplete evidence bias – is the act of pointing out individual cases or data that appear to support a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of the related cases. or data that may conflict with this position. [Sources: 14]

This is why we make opinions, structure companies and make decisions without examining all the data, which can easily lead to failure. Simply put, the survival bias describes our tendency to focus on people or things that have gone through some sort of selection process – whether it’s literally surviving in gladiatorial pits or getting top marks on a test. Standardized – and forgetting other important factors. The survival bias explains why people often assume that cars made 50 years ago last longer than those made today, even if those notions are empirically false. While technology has made it easier to track deaths during a pandemic, a survival bias may explain why a person can’t take the virus seriously because only the survivors are talking about it. [Sources: 8, 10, 11]

Survival bias or survival bias is a logical fallacy in focusing on people or things that went through a selection process and ignoring those that didn’t, usually because they were invisible. Survival error. Survival error or survival error is the logical fallacy of focusing on people or things that have gone through a selection process and ignoring those that have not, usually because they are invisible. This type of bias, also often called survival rather than bias, occurs when we focus on people or things that have gone through a selection process. And when we do this, we tend to overlook those that have been ignored, usually because they are invisible. [Sources: 1, 4, 9, 12]

Often our attention is drawn to people who succeed despite difficulties, or who take great risks. In this context, successful people are often put on a pedestal as if they were born to greatness, as in the Disney story from rags to riches. When we hear success stories in any area, we are inspired by companies, portfolios and people who have reached the top. We first look at successful people who followed their passions and actually got what they wanted in the end. [Sources: 5, 7, 12]

If so, then we can conclude that following your passion is the key to success. However, the truth is that there are many people who have followed their passions and yet have failed. If you think about it, you are probably making this mistake, too, and you probably think of a few close friends and family who regularly fall into this deep and wide pit of prejudice. However, as funny as it sounds when your friend tells you he wants to buy this famous tech gadget, because all Instagram videos seem super fun and trendy, you can sleep with the enemy and the survival bias can be too big. inside your machine learning algorithms. [Sources: 4, 12]

As you can see, this particular type of bias can be very dangerous both in our daily life and in our work as a data scientist. But more importantly, it can also be dangerous for the people involved in our predictions if we do not assess the issue as a correspondent. People will avoid risk when it is well presented and look for risk when it is poorly presented, which means that our decision-making logic can be easily skewed. [Sources: 4, 14]

 

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1827:_Survivorship_Bias

[1]: https://vitaminac.github.io/Survivorship-bias/

[2]: https://www.cantorsparadise.com/survivorship-bias-and-the-mathematician-who-helped-win-wwii-356b174defa6

[3]: https://www.richardhughesjones.com/survivorship-bias/

[4]: https://towardsdatascience.com/survivorship-bias-in-data-science-and-machine-learning-4581419b3bca

[5]: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200827-how-survivorship-bias-can-cause-you-to-make-mistakes

[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[7]: https://mad.co/insights/survivorship-bias/

[8]: http://blog.idonethis.com/7-lessons-survivorship-bias-will-help-make-better-decisions/

[9]: https://dev.to/ben/the-developer-feedback-you-are-actually-getting-is-survivorship-bias-4b54

[10]: https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/survivorship-bias

[11]: https://iuliangulea.com/survivorship-bias/

[12]: https://www.deanyeong.com/article/survivorship-bias

[13]: https://fs.blog/survivorship-bias/

[14]: https://accelerator.copernicus.eu/cognitive-mistakes-that-jeopardise-success/