Dangerous Mental Errors (Part I)

Welcome to the 4,178 (!!!) new members of the curiosity tribe who have joined us since Friday. Join the 84,638 others who are receiving high-signal, curiosity-inducing content every single week. Today’s newsletter is brought to you by LMNT ! LMNT is my healthy alternative to sugary sports drinks. I work out a lot and pay close attention to what I put in my body (other than the occasional whiskey). That means that I reject all the standard sports drinks and their sugar-filled formulas. LMNT is a tasty solution—an electrolyte drink mix with everything you need and nothing you don't. That means a science-backed electrolyte ratio with no sugar, no coloring, no artificial ingredients, or any other junk. Get your free LMNT Sample pack below (you only cover the cost of shipping). You’re going to love it. Today at a Glance: Cognitive biases are systematic errors in thinking that negatively impact decision-making quality and outcomes. Combatting them relies first and foremost on establishing a level of awareness of the biases—both academically and practically. Today’s deep dive covers five common cognitive biases that derail decision-making: Fundamental Attribution Error, Naïve Realism, the Curse of Knowledge, Availability Bias, and Survivorship Bias. Dangerous Mental Errors Humans are fascinating creatures. We possess the capacity to accomplish some complex feat of technology and engineering, and subsequently fall victim to the most obviously flawed base logic. For a hyper-intelligent species, our thinking and decision-making patterns can be pretty fractured. Many of these fractures fall into the category of cognitive biases—systematic errors in thinking that negatively impact decision-making quality and outcomes. Importantly, these are typically subconscious, automatic errors. We are wired to take shortcuts in our decision-making—to be more efficient and effective in the wild—but shortcuts are a double-edged sword. Speed and efficiency can be great, but when we systematically misinterpret the data, signal, and information from the world around us, it dramatically impacts the consistency and rationality of our decisions. Fortunately, we can fight back and regain—at least a modicum of—control over the quality of our decision-making. In today’s piece, I’ll cover five common cognitive biases that derail decision-making. For each, I’ll provide a definition, example, and perspectives on how to fight back. This will be Part I of a multi-part series on cognitive biases and logical fallacies—as it’s a topic that deeply impacts all of our careers and lives. Developing an awareness of these errors—and a plan to combat them—will give you a legitimate competitive advantage in all of your pursuits. Let’s dive in… Fundamental Attribution Error Definition Fundamental Attribution Error is the human tendency to hold others accountable while giving ourselves a break. It says that humans tend to: Attribute someone else's actions to their character—and not to their situation or context. Attribute our actions to our situation and context—and not to our character. In short: We cut ourselves a break, but hold others accountable. Why do we do this? Well, as with many of the biases we will cover, it likely developed as a heuristic—a problem-solving or decision-making shortcut—in this case for simplifying the process and judgement around new human relationships. From an evolutionary perspective, quickly attributing negative actions to character—rather than situation or context—may have kept you alive, as you’d be more likely to avoid that individual in future interactions to play it safe. But in a modern context, it can create real problems—a failure to recognize or empathize with the context and situational factors impacting others is at the core of many societal and organizational issues. Example The workplace is a common breeding ground for Fundamental Attribution Error. It’s easy to form perspectives on the character of colleagues and bosses based on small pieces of incomplete information. If a colleague arrives late for work, they’re just lazy, right? This is clearly a flawed line of thinking, as there are numerous factors that could have contributed to your colleague’s lateness. The reality is that, in these instances, you are using limited information to create an overall picture of an individual. You’re seeing one square of a map and believing you know the map in its entirety. How to Fight Back You’ll never completely eliminate Fundamental Attribution Error, but you can limit its impact. The first step is always awareness—keep it in mind, particularly as you build a body of experiences with new colleagues or acquaintances. This is when it’s most likely to strike. Force yourself to slow down and evaluate the potential circumstances or situational factors that may be influencing an individual’s actions or behaviors. You won’t always have the time to do so—shortcuts are often necessary and helpful—but with longer-term or important relationships, it’s worth the extra effort. You’ll build deeper, more trusting personal and professional bonds. Naïve Realism Definition Naïve Realism is part of a broader category of so-called “egocentric biases” that are grounded in the reality that humans generally think very highly of themselves. Specifically, Naïve Realism has two core pillars: We believe that we see the world with perfect, accurate objectivity. We assume that people who disagree with us must be ignorant, uninformed, biased, or stupid. It often leads to a dangerous “bias blind spot”—a phenomenon in which we accurately identify cognitive biases in others, but are unable to identify them in ourselves. Example The most famous example of Naïve Realism is an experiment involving a highly-contested Dartmouth vs. Princeton football game. After the game, fans of each side were asked to watch the film of the game and evaluate the performance of each team. Interestingly, depending on which team they supported, they saw a very different game. Dartmouth fans perceived the number of Princeton infractions as much higher; Princeton fans perceived the number of Dartmouth infractions as much higher. The groups were incapable of objectivity, despite vocalizing their objectivity to the researchers prior to the experiment. They watched the same game, but saw a very different one. How to Fight Back Naïve Realism is a base level bias, so fighting back starts with base awareness and acceptance of our own flaws and biases. A few other ideas: Surround yourself with people who think differently than you. Force the issue. Learn to embrace being wrong. It’s a common trait of highly-successful people, as being wrong means you are getting closer to the truth. Question your own beliefs. Always ask what assumptions or experiences have contributed to those beliefs. Fighting back against Naïve Realism isn’t easy, but it’s so damn important. The Curse of Knowledge Definition Experts—or generally intelligent people—make the flawed assumption that others have the same background and knowledge on a topic as they do. It makes them unable to teach or lead in an effective manner for those still coming ...