🔥 | Latest

Anaconda, Arguing, and Bad: 20 COGNITIVE BIASES THAT SCREW UP YOUR DECISIONS 2. Availability heuristic. 3. Bandwagon effect. The probability of one person Failing to recognize your own cognitive biases is a bias in itself. People notice cognitive and motivational biases much first piece of informationt hear. In a salary negotiation, whoever makes the first offer establishes a range of reasonable possibilities in each person's mind. a belief increases in is available to them. A person might argue that smoking is not based on the number of people who hold that belief. This is a powerful form of and is reason why meetings someone who lived to 100 and 5. Choice-supportive bias 6. Clustering illusion. 7. Confirmation bias 8. Conservatism bias This is the tendency to see patterns in random events. It is key to various gambling fallacies, like the idea that red is more or less likely to turn up on a roulette table after a string We tend to listen only to information that confirms our When you choose something, you tend to feel positive about it, even if that choice has flaws. Like how you think your dog is awesome-even if it bites Where people favor prior evidence over new evidence or information that has emerged People were slow to accept that the Earth was round many reasons it's so hard to have an intelligent conversation about climate c mai earlier understanding that the 9. Information bias 10. Ostrich effect. 11. Outcome bias 12. Overconfidence The tendency to seek information when it does not affect action. More information is not always better. With less information, people can oft make more accurate predictions The decision to ignore Some of us are too confident about our abilities, and this causes us to take greater risks in our daily lives. Experts are more prone to this bias than on angerous or negative the outcome rather than how one's head in the sand, like an ostrich. Research suggests that investors check the value of their holdings significantly less often during bad markets. in the moment. Just because you won a lot in Vegas doesn't mean gambling your money was a smart decision. are more convinced that they are right. 13. Placebo effect. 14. Pro-innovation bias 15. Recency The tendency to weigh the 16. Salience When simply believing that something will have a certain effect on you causes it to have that effect. In medicine, people given fake pills often e Our tendency to focus on the most easily recognizable features of a person or concept. When you think about dying, you might worry about being mauled s to overvalue its usefulness and undervalue its limitations. Sound familiar, Silicon Valley? than older data. Investors often think the market will always look the way it looks today and make unwise decisions. ical effects IS as people given the real thing. statistically more likely, like dying 17. Selective perception. 18. Stereo 19. Survivorship bias 20. Zero-risk bias. in Allowing our influence how we perceive the An error that comes from focusing do examples, causing us to a group or person to have certain qualities without having real information about on we counterproductive. Eliminating risk entirely means there is no person. It allows us t quickly identify strangers as or instance, we might think that being an entrepreneur is easy because we haven't heard of all those who failed. of harm being caused. from two universities showed that one team saw the opposing team commit more infractions. s or enemies, but people tend to overuse and abuse it. SOURCES: Brain Biases; Ethics Unwrapped; Explorable; Harvard Magazine; HowStuffWorks; LeanVest, Outcome bias in decision evaluation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Psychology Today; The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; The Cognitive Effects of Mass Communication, Theory and Research in Mass Communications; The less-is-more effect: Predictions and tests, Judgment and Decision Making: The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal; Wikipedia; You Are Not So Smart; ZhurnalyWiki BUSINESS INSIDER Those of you taking Psych should save this
Anaconda, Arguing, and Bad: 20 COGNITIVE BIASES THAT SCREW UP YOUR DECISIONS
 2. Availability heuristic.
 3. Bandwagon effect.
 The probability of one person
 Failing to recognize your own
 cognitive biases is a bias in
 itself. People notice cognitive
 and motivational biases much
 first piece of informationt
 hear. In a salary negotiation,
 whoever makes the first offer
 establishes a range of
 reasonable possibilities in
 each person's mind.
 a belief increases
 in
 is available to them. A person
 might argue that smoking is not
 based on the number of people
 who hold that belief. This is a
 powerful form of
 and is reason why meetings
 someone who lived to 100 and
 5. Choice-supportive bias 6. Clustering illusion.
 7. Confirmation bias
 8. Conservatism bias
 This is the tendency to see
 patterns in random events.
 It is key to various gambling
 fallacies, like the idea that red
 is more or less likely to turn up
 on a roulette table after a string
 We tend to listen only to
 information that confirms our
 When you choose something,
 you tend to feel positive about
 it, even if that choice has flaws.
 Like how you think your dog is
 awesome-even if it bites
 Where people favor prior
 evidence over new evidence or
 information that has emerged
 People were slow to accept
 that the Earth was round
 many reasons it's so hard to
 have an intelligent conversation
 about climate c
 mai
 earlier understanding that the
 9. Information bias
 10. Ostrich effect.
 11. Outcome bias
 12. Overconfidence
 The tendency to seek
 information when it does not
 affect action. More information
 is not always better. With less
 information, people can oft
 make more accurate predictions
 The decision to ignore
 Some of us are too confident
 about our abilities, and this
 causes us to take greater risks
 in our daily lives. Experts are
 more prone to this bias than
 on
 angerous or negative
 the outcome
 rather than how
 one's head in the sand, like
 an ostrich. Research suggests
 that investors check the value
 of their holdings significantly
 less often during bad markets.
 in the moment. Just because
 you won a lot in Vegas doesn't
 mean gambling your money
 was a smart decision.
 are more
 convinced that they are right.
 13. Placebo effect.
 14. Pro-innovation bias
 15. Recency
 The tendency to weigh the
 16. Salience
 When simply believing that
 something will have a certain
 effect on you causes it to have
 that effect. In medicine, people
 given fake pills often e
 Our tendency to focus on
 the most easily recognizable
 features of a person or concept.
 When you think about dying, you
 might worry about being mauled
 s to overvalue
 its usefulness and undervalue
 its limitations. Sound familiar,
 Silicon Valley?
 than older data. Investors often
 think the market will always look
 the way it looks today and make
 unwise decisions.
 ical effects
 IS
 as people given the real thing.
 statistically more likely, like dying
 17. Selective perception.
 18. Stereo
 19. Survivorship bias
 20. Zero-risk bias.
 in
 Allowing our
 influence how we perceive the
 An error that comes from
 focusing do
 examples, causing us to
 a group or person to
 have certain qualities without
 having real information about
 on
 we
 counterproductive. Eliminating
 risk entirely means there is no
 person. It allows us t
 quickly identify strangers as
 or
 instance, we might think that
 being an entrepreneur is easy
 because we haven't heard of
 all those who failed.
 of harm being caused.
 from two universities showed
 that one team saw the opposing
 team commit more infractions.
 s or enemies, but people
 tend to overuse and abuse it.
 SOURCES: Brain Biases; Ethics Unwrapped; Explorable; Harvard Magazine; HowStuffWorks; LeanVest, Outcome bias in decision
 evaluation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Psychology Today; The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus
 Others, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; The Cognitive Effects of Mass Communication, Theory and Research in Mass
 Communications; The less-is-more effect: Predictions and tests, Judgment and Decision Making: The New York Times; The Wall
 Street Journal; Wikipedia; You Are Not So Smart; ZhurnalyWiki
 BUSINESS INSIDER
Those of you taking Psych should save this

Those of you taking Psych should save this

Funny, Reason, and Latin: Oh. no! Not a@ain The reason that Latin is a dead language is because they kept accidentally summoning demons during regular conversations.
Funny, Reason, and Latin: Oh. no! Not a@ain
The reason that Latin is a dead language is because they kept accidentally summoning demons during regular conversations.

The reason that Latin is a dead language is because they kept accidentally summoning demons during regular conversations.

America, Apparently, and Business: t - CanaPede45 -22 points 2 hours ago So why does Tony Podesta not get anything? Wasn't he his business partner in these things? permalink embed save edit disable inbox replies delete RTPLY America [score hidden] 2 hours ago I don't know if you're aware of this, but he wasn't actually being sentenced today Hth permalink embed save parent report give award BEPLY [-] canapede:45-10 points an hour ago" No, I know.. I just wonder why his name isn't included, seeing as he was a business partner, and dealt with the same people. Just seems odd that Manafort is the only one mentioned Tony Podesta, if I recall, was offered immunity by Mueller, for testifying against Manafort, yet Podesta is guilty of similar crimes. Just seems odd, that's all. I do believe that Podesta never registered under FARA, and he was not indicted like Manafort. And just weeks before sentencing, they filed their paperwork which was 5 years late And apparently worthy of a mass of downvotes for even questioning... permalink embed save parent edit disable inbox replies delete BEPLY co hidden) an h because its whataboutism. REPLY [-] But it's a legitimate question since they were business partners. permalink embed save parent report give award REPLY 會 -[score hidden] 59 minutes ago 1 coneidden) 50 minuts Its legitimate in Podestas trial. Not Manaforts [-: I see what you're saying but if Podesta was offered immunity he must have been involved enough in the business dealings to have something at stake as well as something to give up If the case is built on Manaforts shady business dealings it's a legitimate question to ask, not whataboutism. permalink embed save parent report give award BEPLY ↑ -[scor hidden] 42 minutes ago -1 l Oregon hidden 57 minubes GC I see what you're saying Apparently you don't. Quit with that whataboutism bullshit. Welcome to r/redacted, where the narrative is Gospel, and questioning it is haram. Thankfully a glimmer of intelligence appeared...
America, Apparently, and Business: t - CanaPede45 -22 points 2 hours ago
 So why does Tony Podesta not get anything? Wasn't he his business partner in these things?
 permalink
 embed save edit disable inbox replies delete RTPLY
 America
 [score hidden] 2 hours ago
 I don't know if you're aware of this, but he wasn't actually being sentenced today
 Hth
 permalink embed save parent report give award BEPLY
 [-] canapede:45-10 points an hour ago"
 No, I know.. I just wonder why his name isn't included, seeing as he was a business partner, and dealt with the same
 people. Just seems odd that Manafort is the only one mentioned
 Tony Podesta, if I recall, was offered immunity by Mueller, for testifying against Manafort, yet Podesta is guilty of
 similar crimes. Just seems odd, that's all. I do believe that Podesta never registered under FARA, and he was not
 indicted like Manafort. And just weeks before sentencing, they filed their paperwork which was 5 years late
 And apparently worthy of a mass of downvotes for even questioning...
 permalink embed save parent edit disable inbox replies delete BEPLY
 co hidden) an h
 because its whataboutism.
 REPLY
 [-]
 But it's a legitimate question since they were business partners.
 permalink embed save parent report give award REPLY
 會
 -[score hidden] 59 minutes ago
 1
 coneidden) 50 minuts
 Its legitimate in Podestas trial. Not Manaforts
 [-:
 I see what you're saying but if Podesta was offered immunity he must have been involved enough in the business
 dealings to have something at stake as well as something to give up
 If the case is built on Manaforts shady business dealings it's a legitimate question to ask, not whataboutism.
 permalink embed save parent report give award BEPLY
 ↑
 -[scor
 hidden] 42 minutes ago
 -1
 l Oregon
 hidden 57 minubes
 GC I see what you're saying
 Apparently you don't. Quit with that whataboutism bullshit.
Welcome to r/redacted, where the narrative is Gospel, and questioning it is haram. Thankfully a glimmer of intelligence appeared...

Welcome to r/redacted, where the narrative is Gospel, and questioning it is haram. Thankfully a glimmer of intelligence appeared...