
How to avoid cognitive biases when you get paid to think - paraschopra
https://invertedpassion.com/hacks-to-avoid-cognitive-biases/
======
thisisit
> “80% fat-free” and the other one says _“20% fat added”_ , which one will you
> pick?

The 2nd framing is awkward. I am no marketing expert but it seems the non-
awkward one will be _only 20% Fat_

> Hack #4: Watch out if you are happy about a decision

The advice here is - if you are giddy about the idea, google a contrarian
view. So, how does someone actually become happy or excited about his/her
idea?

~~~
paraschopra
>The 2nd framing is awkward. I am no marketing expert but it seems the non-
awkward one will be only 20% Fat

Great point.

>The advice here is - if you are giddy about the idea, google a contrarian
view. So, how does someone actually become happy or excited about his/her
idea?

In my personal experience, I haven't found any correlation between giddiness
about an idea and it being right or effective. (Especially with startup
ideas). So I watch out for excitement about an idea, write out why it would
fail, wait for a couple of days and revisit it. If I'm still excited, I pursue
it.

~~~
analog31
This is an interesting point. Everything that we read about reason, treats it
as a static problem: The analysis either weighs for or against the decision,
or is inconclusive, right now. But we actually reason in time. Allowing
ourselves to spend more time with a decision shouldn't change the facts or the
logic, but it could improve our reasoning anyway.

I describe myself as a "slowpoke" when it comes to reasoning my way through
certain subject matter, notably politics. I am certainly willing to change my
opinions, but I might not change them right away based on a single argument.
You might have to wait a year, or a decade, for me to decide.

~~~
paraschopra
>But we actually reason in time.

I love the way you phrase it. It's a wild hypothesis but I suspect that good
(Bayesian style of) thinking requires metabolic energy in our brain that's a
magnitude of order or more as compared to intuitive A -> B style of thinking.
This is why perhaps our brains avoids the former.

~~~
analog31
What is Bayesian thinking? When I took statistics in college, Bayes' theorem,
and conditional probability, were presented in fairly straightforward
mathematical terms. There was no special form of thinking associated with it,
but maybe Bayes had other things up his sleeve.

------
marklgr
System I/System II [1] has been all the rage lately, making it to a wide
audience with Kahneman's bestseller [2], but it is not without criticism. For
instance, the usual two-column list of System I/System II traits makes things
much more clear-cut than they really are. Furthermore, both Systems can be
inter-related and influence each others.

The System I/System II narrative is an old idea that can be quite convincing,
and it's not without merits, but one might wonder if all its appeal doesn't
call for a suggestion of the original post: watch if you are happy with a
belief/theory.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory)

[2]:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow)

------
hotdox
It is very funny to read how he avoids pitfalls of bad decision-making in a
role of a CEO. He has many priveleges which his employees doesn't have. Like
not visit too many meetings, didn't answer some mails or choose time to make
decisions. Yes, it works for him, but almost noone else can use these tricks.

EDIT:fixed my double negative

------
colorincorrect
friendly reminder that cognitive biases are heuristics that are right most of
the time

~~~
siddharthdeswal
Interesting point. Could you add more detail to your comment please?

~~~
colorincorrect
the basic idea is that heuristics help us make quick and dirty inferences such
that we don't need to overload our "brain processing power" every time we are
tasked with a decision.

ex: the gambler's fallacy is mostly a fallacy if events are i.i.d, which often
isn't the case in real life situations.

many are labeled as a "bias" once we make the observation that it failed us.
but of course we should try to optimize regardless.

this is tangentially related: [https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/how-only-using-
logic-destroye...](https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/how-only-using-logic-
destroyed-a-man.html)

------
thethirdone
> You take a mammogram and it comes out as positive. What is the probability
> that you have cancer?

Lower than 1%. I'm a guy.

Though this would have a similar issue for anyone who isn't a 40-50 year old
woman.

On a more serious note, I feel that trap should set off alarm bells for anyone
who has taken a statistics course.

The more dangerous fallacy along the same lines is that probabilities often
brings up intransitive. There can be three medicines: A,B, and C that in a
sense A > B and B > C, but C > A. This type of issue can really sneak up on
you.

~~~
DrScump

      Lower than 1%. I'm a guy.
    

Any male deemed a candidate for mammography probably faces a much higher
probability than that.

Men get breast cancer, and those who do are more likely to die from it than
women who do.

~~~
true_religion
Because they are caught at a later stage than women since men are not
routinely screened.

