The Art of Thinking Clearly

In?The Art of Thinking Clearly, author?Rolf Dobelli?summarizes a variety of psychological biases that affect our thinking and decision-making.

Dobelli has built an extensive list (99 items) with specific examples of these thought patterns, and ways to overcome them. If you are also a fan of behavioral science, you should be familiar with many of the topics mentioned here, but having such a list of things to watch out for, is certainly helpful and you will likely revisit them when making decisions.

I have summarized here some of the biases, which I’ve found interesting:

Story Bias: They give us a false sense of understanding. People first used stories to explain the world, before they began to think scientifically, making mythology older than philosophy. This has led to story bias. We create a story or believe a story and simply build the meaning into them afterward.

Forer effect (aka Barnum effect)?explains why the pseudoscience works so well – astrology, the study of handwriting, tarot card readings – people tend to identify many of their traits in universal descriptions. They tend to believe that personality descriptions apply specifically to them, despite the fact that the description is actually filled with information that applies to everyone.?

Ambiguity Aversion: We favor known probabilities over unknown ones.

There are two boxes. Box A contains one hundred balls: fifty red and fifty black. Box B holds one hundred balls, but you don't know how many are red and how many are black. If you reach into one of the boxes without looking and draw out a red ball, you win $100. Which box will you choose: A or B? The majority will opt for A.

Let's play again, using the same boxes. This time, you win $100 if you draw out a black ball. Which box will you go for now? Most likely you'll choose A again. But that's illogical! In the first round, you assumed that B contained fewer red balls (and more black balls), so, rationally, you would have to opt for B this time around.

Don't worry; you're not alone in this error quite the opposite. This result is known as the "Ellsberg Paradox"-named after Daniel Ellsberg, a former Harvard psychologist. The Ellsberg Paradox offers empirical proof that we favor known probabilities (box A) over unknown ones (box B).

Sleeper Effect: if propaganda/advertising strikes a chord with someone, this influence will only increase over time. Why? Psychologist Carl Hovland, who led the study for the War Department in Britain, named this phenomenon the Sleeper Effect. To date, the best explanation is that, in our memories, the source of the argument fades faster than the argument. In other words, your brain quickly forgets where the information came from (e.g., from the Department of Propaganda). Meanwhile, the message itself (i.e., war is necessary and noble) fades only lowly or even endures. Therefore, any knowledge that stems from an untrustworthy source gains credibility over time. The discrediting force melts away faster than the message does.

The illusion of attention: We are confident that we notice everything in front of us, despite only seeing what we are focused on.

Problems with Averages: Averages often mask the underlying distribution.? Never cross a river that is “on average” four feet deep.

Framing:?We react differently to identical situations, depending on how they are presented.

Loss aversion: The fear of losing something motivates people more than the prospect of gaining something of equal value.

Sunk cost fallacy: When we consider the costs incurred to date as a factor in our decision-making. Only your assessment of the future costs and benefits should count.

If you are interested in knowing more about the rest of the 90 biases, I recommend you to read the book. If you are more interested in knowing more about some of these biases, I recommend you dive into the world of behavioral science and read books by Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler, Daniel Pink, Charles Duhigg, and Adam Grant.