Human minds crave order, and they try to minimize the discomfort of uncertainty by suggesting ways to make sense of chaos and disorder. One of the ways they do this is by encouraging us to accept information that confirms pre-existing views or ideas. Often times one sees what one wants to see, frequently to the exclusion of other relevant factors like a valid-but-contradictory viewpoint. This is called confirmation bias, that often inhibit the ability to make good decisions. The deleterious effects of confirmation bias may alter perception of reality, leading to neglect of the fundamental problem one must address. To prevent confirmation bias, a good technique is to consciously delay one’s decision and ask what it would take for the opposite viewpoint to be true. Since people often seek and readily accept confirming evidence for beliefs they already hold, the trick to dealing with confirmation bias is to actively seek out disconfirming evidence. The main problem in confirmation bias is that when evaluating evidence, one may only consider the evidence one wants to believe is true. Therefore, strategists should flip the evidence on its head and try to disprove it—asking, for example, “What would it take to disprove what I believe to be true?” Even better, one can ask what evidence would be necessary to prove the assessment wrong. This line of questioning is a useful technique when evaluating someone else’s claim or assessment and can minimize the effects of overconfidence. “What evidence would you have to see to make you change your mind?” The human mind often does fundamental error, because it is easier to rush to a judgment. Crucial steps in fighting fundamental error is about exercising a sense of understanding and acknowledge there may be other side’s points of view as well as alternative explanations that are worth considering prior to reaching a final verdict. The Golden Rule is a good guide — treat others how you would like to be treated. The anchoring effect, refers to the human tendency to attribute outsized influence to the first piece of information one encounters. Even experts in a field can fall victim to the effects of the anchoring bias. Anchoring and confirmation bias can be mutually reinforcing. The insidiousness of each of these biases stems from the fact that their presence is not mutually exclusive, but rather additive in their effect. The strategy to consider the opposite is a technique that is designed to fight the brain’s desire to make something seem true by forcing one to consider alternatives or alternative explanations. Multiple studies have shown that test subjects who consciously consider the opposite are less susceptible to the anchoring bias because they take the time to consider the possibility of the opposite outcome. deja vu bias is the tendency to associate a new event with previous occurrences that seem analogous. This bias, just like the others discussed, is the brain’s attempt to quickly categorize new information. It can be comforting when one associates uncertainty with a familiar situation because it suggests that similar tools may be used to address it. Problems arise when the circumstances at hand are unlike previous situations, despite the suggestion to treat them as the same. One technique called what-if analysis may be very helpful for strategists dealing with representative bias. The what-if technique suggests that one should start with the end state and then attempt to provide the logical pathway that led to that conclusion. By thinking backwards, what-if analysis allows one to avoid letting the past influence the present and instead accept a future condition as a given.James M. Davitch If you pay attention to the darkness, you will never find the light. Most people see themselves as different, not in some positive or special way, but in a negative sense. Even people who seem well-adjusted and well-liked in their social circles have deep-seated feelings of being an outcast or a fraud. This feeling about ourselves is common. Most of us have two sides. The anti-self is expressed in our inner self-hating coach of negativity. We may have trouble accepting love, as we fail to challenge our inner critic. When it repeatedly tells us we are worthless, we may choose friends and partners who treat us as if we are worthless. If it tells us we are stupid, we may lack confidence and make mistakes we wouldn’t make otherwise. If it tells us we aren’t attractive enough, we may resist putting ourselves out there and seeking a romantic relationship. When we listen to our inner critic and see the world though its filter, we give it power over our lives. When we separate from our inner critic, we are far better able to get to know our real selves and to lead our lives with integrity. As we pursue this goal of becoming our true selves, we may experience an increase in anxiety; but over time the inner critic will lose its power.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am interested in unfolding scene design, character design and image design; representing contemporary narrative strategy, narrative shot and narrative style. The flowing images, which combine aesthetics and ideology. NoticeThis site contains copyrighted material for purposes that constitutes 'fair use'; and has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. No fee is charged, and no money is made off this site. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
CategoriesArchives
June 2020
|